|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of BSI Kitemark-approved products in reducing flood risk; and what the cost to the Environment Agency was of sponsorship of the Kitemark; 
Huw Irranca-Davies: The kitemark scheme is a British Standards (BSi) accreditation scheme for products meeting specified standards. In the case of flood protection products, accreditation is given to those that comply with publicly available specification (PAS) 1188. To gain the BSi kitemark, products must undergo rigorous testing to demonstrate that they are able to provide effective property level flood protection.
A working group with representatives from the flood resilience product manufacturers, the flood protection association, the Association of British Insurers, insurance companies, DEFRA and HR Wallingford has recently assessed the current BSi kitemark scheme for flood protection products. It was agreed that the scheme is necessary to ensure product quality compliance, and as a result it was re-issued in April this year.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 25 June 2009, Official Report, column 1087W, on floods: Canvey Island, if he will make it his policy to estimate the number and proportion of buildings in flood risk areas which (a) are not flood-resistant and (b) are flood-resistant. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: We have no plans to require assessments of whether properties have flood resistant products. These will typically only be made by householders for their own purposes or where it is relevant to the development of a flood management scheme.
Mr. Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 17 June 2009, Official Report, column 380W, on fluoride: drinking water, what assessment the Drinking Water Inspectorate made of the adequacy of the remedial action taken by Severn Trent Water following the addition of excessive levels of fluoride to the water supply in 2000. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: In January 2009, the Drinking Water Inspectorate sent Severn Trent Water its full assessment of the incident that occurred in 2008; it made 14 recommendations for improvement. In February 2009, the Inspectorate carried out an independent audit of Dimmingsdale Water Treatment Works and made eight recommendations and three comments about best practice. On 3 February 2009, Severn Trent Water wrote formally to the inspectorate confirming the action it had taken, and will be taking, to comply fully with the Inspectorate's findings. Scrutiny of company actions by the Inspectorate continues.
Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the last meeting of the UK Forestry Ministers' Group took place; and when the next meeting of the group is scheduled. 
The original data was transferred to a digital map basis in the mid-1990s when it was updated and it has continued to be revised as new information becomes available. The current percentage by county is shown in the following table.
Although ancient woodland cannot be recreated, areas have been added and removed from the inventory to reflect new information on the status of the woodland. The vast majority of the changes in the inventory over this period are due to such corrections and adjustments to boundaries from the digitising process, and do not represent actual change on the ground.
|Percentage of ancient woodland by county|
|Original inventory||Current inventory|
|(1 )This information cannot be allocated to regions because of poor quality postcodes reported by operators in their quarterly returns.|
These data are derived from the hazardous waste management system and database which was introduced in July 2005 to coincide with the introduction of the Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005.
The Environment Agency is unable to provide information for the period 1997 to 2004. Information prior to this is held on an archived system which defined hazardous waste differently. Information is therefore not directly comparable with that held after 2005.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|