|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance the Waste Improvement Network has published on the operation of (a) closed lid policies and (b) no side-waste policies for the collection of household waste. 
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate (a) his Department and (b) the Waste and Resources Action Programme has made of the average capital cost, excluding value added tax, of a household wheeled refuse container, including the cost of delivery. 
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what procedures are followed in deciding what research projects to fund from the Marine Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund. 
For the majority, the Marine ALSF Steering Group commissions projects via open calls advertised on the MALSF website. All Expressions of Interest and full tenders are evaluated by a panel drawn from the Marine ALSF Steering Group members. There may also be occasions where a short list of contractors is compiled from previously submitted Expressions of Interest and these contractors invited to submit full proposals at a later stage of commissioning. On a few occasions the Marine ALSF Steering Group may commission work by single action tender.
All procurement and operation of evaluation panels is governed by the Marine Environment Protection Fund procurement protocol and panel terms of references contained within document "MEPF: who we are and how we operate" which is published on the MALSF website at:
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications for (a) Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the environment and (b) Marine Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund project funding have been made by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; and how many of them have been successful. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: The figures for (a) Collaborative Offshore Wind Research (COWRIE) and (b) Marine Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund-Marine Environment Protection Fund (ALSF-MEPF) applications made by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science are as follows:
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 9 September 2009, Official Report, column 1919W, on weedkillers, what recent discussions officials in his Department have held with representatives of Dow AgroSciences Ltd on the relicensing of the herbicide aminopyralid; and if he will make a statement. 
Dan Norris: The Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD) of the Health and Safety Executive is the part of central Government responsible for the regulation of pesticides, detergents, chemicals, on behalf of DEFRA Ministers. CRD officials had a number of contacts, as is usual, during the course of the consideration of recent applications for approval of two new products containing aminopyralid.
Mr. Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he plans to take to protect the Natura 2000 site at the mouth of the Lymington river from damage by commercial ferry operators; and if he will make a statement. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: Natural England is in discussion with the relevant ferry operator over the action that can be taken to avoid any adverse effect on the integrity of the Natura sites in the vicinity of the Lymington river from ferry operations.
Should Natural England advise that mitigation action cannot be taken to prevent any adverse effects, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with Natural England, will consider what steps it might be appropriate to take to avoid any damage to the protected sites.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total annual cost to the public purse was of (a) the Waste and Resources Action Programme and (b) the Waste Improvement Network in the last year for which figures are available. 
Dan Norris: The Waste and Resources Action Programme's grant funding for 2008-09 was £55 million. The cost of running the Waste Improvement Network (WIN) for 2008-09 was £195,783. This cost covers delivery of the WIN Website, the Waste and Recycling Mentoring Scheme (WROMS) online conferencing tool, the co-ordination of waste network chairs and the development of an online self assessment tool for councils.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the Waste and Resources Action Programme's Waste Prevention Toolkit. 
Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate his Department has made of (a) the amount and (b) the percentage of waste sent to landfill abroad in each of the last five years. 
Dan Norris [holding answer 19 October 2009]: The UK Plan for Shipments of Waste, which sets out Government policy on shipments of waste, prohibits the export of waste from the UK for landfill or other disposal operations with very few exceptions. Waste may, however, be exported for recovery, including recycling. Therefore, no such estimate has been made.
Mr. Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects on farmers incomes of English Nature discontinuing the practice of weed cutting in the lower Avon Valley; and if he will make a statement. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: In 2004, the Environment Agency gave notice to landowners and farmers that it would review mechanised weed cutting in the lower River Avon in five years' time. The review, which was undertaken through a local partnership between the Environment Agency, Natural England and fishery and farming interests, concluded that there were no flood or nature conservation benefits from the practice. Consequently mechanised weed cutting was discontinued.
No assessment has been made of the implications on farmers' incomes of discontinuing mechanised weed cutting in the lower River Avon, although Natural England continues to give support and advice through Environmental Stewardship to farmers and landowners who wish to change their farming practice.
Mr. Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what expenditure English Nature incurred on weed cutting in the lower Avon Valley in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. 
The Environment Agency estimates the annual cost of weed cutting on the Lower Hampshire Avon over the last five years to be in the order of £120,000 per annum. This figure includes the direct operational costs (e.g. staff time and equipment), indirect costs (e.g. proportional costs for plant and consumables), plus additional costs such as those associated with liaison with local stakeholders. Costs vary year on year depending on how much weed has been cut, the timing of the cuts, and patterns of activity.
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the reports his Department has received on the half-life of the herbicide aminopyralid. 
Dan Norris: There is a range of information relating to the way that aminopyralid degrades in a variety of situations. This information can be found in the disclosure document published by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. I will ensure that a copy will be placed in the Library of the House when it is published shortly.
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of each item of correspondence between Ministers in his Department and (a) Dow AgroSciences Ltd and (b) the Advisory Committee on Pesticides in relation to the herbicide aminopyralid exchanged in the last three years. 
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the potential effects of aminopyralid on human health; and if he will make a statement. 
Dan Norris: The core data package for aminopyralid was first considered by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides at their meeting in September 2005. The assessment has been published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as part of the European consideration of aminopyralid, and can be obtained via their website:
The Advisory Committee on Pesticides considered whether there was any risk to human health arising from the misuse of that led to aminopyralid products appearing in manure earlier this year. The ACP considered that there was no unacceptable risk. The records of these meetings (in May and June 2009) can be found on the ACP website at:
Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have (a) died and (b) contracted sepsis as a result of receiving bacterially contaminated transfused blood components in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. 
Gillian Merron: Since 8 November 2005, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has been the United Kingdom competent authority for the safety and quality of blood components for transfusion. In that time MHRA has received 14 statutory reports of transfusion-transmitted bacterial infection where the transfused component was identified as probably or definitely the source of sepsis. Of these 14 reports, two involved deaths.
A voluntary reporting scheme Serious Hazards of Transfusion (SHOT), funded by the UK Blood Services, operates alongside the statutory MHRA system. Between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2008, SHOT recorded 13 confirmed cases of bacterial infection transmitted by blood components in the UK. Of these, three individuals died. Although both MHRA and SHOT actively encourage participation in the SHOT scheme, it is possible that not all reports to MHRA will be shared with SHOT, and there may be further clinical investigation of individual cases reported via SHOT, hence the slight discrepancy between MHRA and SHOT figures. However, the two schemes are working to reconcile their data.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS dentists are permitted to refuse to provide further treatment to patients if they do not attend for check-ups when advised to do so. 
Ann Keen: Most dental practices choose to provide ongoing care to their patients including recalls at appropriate clinical intervals. However, once a course of treatment is completed, patients are free to change practice. Equally, dental providers are not compelled as part of their national health service contractual arrangements to offer further courses of treatment once the current one is complete. It is up to individual practices to decide whether to offer further courses of treatment to patients who do not respond to advice on recall intervals.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists were providing NHS services in (a) Vale of York constituency, (b) North Yorkshire and (c) England in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. 
Ann Keen: The number of national health service (NHS) dentists, in England, as at 31 March, 1997 to 2006 are available in annex E and annex G of the "NHS Dental Activity and Workforce Report England: 31 March 2006". Annex E provides information by strategic health authority (SHA) and by primary care trust (PCT). Annex G provides information by constituency.
This information is based on the old contractual arrangements, which were in place up to and including 31 March 2006. This report, published on 23 August 2006, has already been placed in the Library and is available on the NHS Information Centre website at:
The number of dentists with NHS activity during the years ending 31 March, 2007, 2008 and 2009 are available in table G1 of annex 3 of the "NHS Dental Statistics for England 2008/09" report. Information is provided for England and by SHA and PCT but is not available by constituency. This information is based on the new dental contractual arrangements, introduced on 1 April 2006. This report, published on 19 August 2009, has already been placed in the Library and is also available on the NHS Information Centre website at:
Following a recent consultation exercise, this measure is based on a revised methodology and therefore supersedes any previously published work force figures relating to the new dental contractual arrangements. It is not comparable to the information collected under the old contractual arrangements. This revised methodology counted the number of dental performers with NHS activity recorded via FP17 claim forms in each year ending 31 March.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|