| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
29 Mar 2010 : Column 609W—continued
Marine Conservation Zones
Paddy Tipping: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps he plans to take to ensure scientific evidence is taken into account in identifying marine conservation zones under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009; [324272]
(2) what socio-economic criteria will be taken into account in (a) the selection of individual sites and (b) the design of an ecologically cohesive network of marine conservation zones; [324273]
(3) whether the seven principles of ecological cohesion will be adhered to in the designation of marine conservation zones; [324274]
(4) whether the minimum conservation objectives for marine conservation zones will be a favourable condition used in designating sites of special scientific interest. [324275]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Designations of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs), by necessity, must be based on science to identify the case for conserving habitats, flora and fauna in accordance with the provisions set out in the Marine and Coastal Access Act. The Government have established an independent Science
Advisory Panel who will advise both the regional projects and Government on the science. In our statement of 11 March to Parliament, the Government set out the seven principles of ecological coherence it will apply. The development of the ecological guidance to be issued by the SNCBs is being informed by research that has been subject to peer review.
It will be the responsibility of the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies, working with four regional stakeholder projects, to set out the rationale in its advice to Government on where to create MCZs and the conservation objectives to be achieved. A key part of this will involve assembling evidence, including scientific and socio-economic data. We consider that the concept of Good Environmental Status-which will be defined through implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive-should guide the minimum level acceptable for MCZ objectives, as far as that is an appropriate measure for a site-based conservation tool. Government expect that scientific uncertainty will be explicitly recognised in that advice. For example, our understanding of the connectivity principle is still evolving and while not unimportant it will be a secondary consideration.
There will be choices to be made, for example between replicate features, or site management measures, or how to support both development and conservation policies. We expect socio-economic considerations to be taken into account at all stages to inform these choices. These considerations will include opportunity costs. The criteria to be applied will be ones that provide confidence that decisions will result in an ecologically coherent network that is well supported, understood and can be managed to contribute to our vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive, and biologically diverse oceans and seas.
Nature Conservation: West Midlands
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent steps he has taken to protect wildlife in the West Midlands. [324278]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Natural England is the lead delivery body for the Government's strategy to conserve wildlife in England. Examples of Natural England's action in the West Midlands include:
Increasing the total area of the most important sites for nature conservation-Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)-in the region in favourable or recovering condition; this being 20,000 ha or 89.75 per cent. of the total resource in the region.
Getting 63 per cent. of the utilisable agricultural area of the region under an agri-environment agreement through £40 million of annual investment in environmental stewardship and classic schemes, which pay land managers to manage their land in ways that benefits biodiversity, the historic environment and the landscape.
In particular through the Higher Level Stewardship scheme (HLS) bringing over 3,000 ha of existing wildlife habitats into favourable management and creating an additional 450 ha of new habitats across the region, and bringing an additional 800 ha of farmland under specific agreement to provide suitable feeding and breeding habitats for target species of farmland birds.
Ensuring that 2,816 ha (97.3 per cent.) of the region's National Nature Reserves are in favourable or recovering condition.
Providing funding of £186,000 in 2009-10 to regional and local biodiversity partnerships in the West Midlands, and supporting the local Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB on "Wetland Vision, Lapwing Meadows" and other projects, with more than £60,000 of funding in the same year.
Recycling: West Midlands
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent steps he has taken to encourage recycling in the West Midlands. [324280]
Dan Norris: Local authorities are best placed to make decisions on the waste management strategy for their communities, although the Government strongly encourage recycling through a range of measures. Local authorities are required by law to provide every household with a kerbside collection of at least two materials by December 2010 as part of a strategy to increase recycling.
Through the Waste Resources Action programme (WRAP) we are providing tailored support to local authorities to facilitate and encourage recycling.
Over the last five years, WRAP has provided advice and support to every local authority in the West Midlands. Three authorities (Stratford on Avon, Newcastle under Lyme and Shropshire council) are already signatories to the recently launched Waste Collection Commitment, developed by WRAP and the Local Government Association. This sets out the principles of a good recycling service, one of which is that local authorities should collect as many materials for recycling as possible and then explain clearly what happens to them.
WRAP is working with the Regional Development Agency, Advantage West Midlands, to deliver a £5.4 million programme to increase collections of waste material, develop recycling infrastructure and increase the use of recycled materials. The support will be a mixture of capital funding and business development support.
Prime Minister
Building Resilience
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 22 March 2010, Official Report, column 2W, on community relations, when the paper was classified; what level of classification it has; what assessment has been made of that classification in the last 12 months; and what the reasons are for its classification. [324578]
The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave on 22 March 2010, Official Report, column 2W.
Tony Blair
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of (a) the memorandum written by David Manning on 30 January 2003 and (b) the minutes of the meeting which took place between Tony Blair and President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on 22 February 2003. [323269]
Tessa Jowell: I have been asked to reply.
The Government do not publish classified documents in the Libraries of the House.
Solicitor-General
Corruption
Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Solicitor-General whether the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has classified MW Kellogg as a self-reporting company under the SFO's Approach to Dealing with Overseas Corruption issued in July 2009. [324647]
The Solicitor-General: The Serious Fraud Office does not confirm or deny the existence of such classification in any particular case it may be investigating.
Government Departments: Judicial Review
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Solicitor-General with reference to the answer to the right hon. Member for Horsham of 1 March 2009, Official Report, column 943W, on Government departments: judicial review, in respect of what cases each Department was a first defendant and the judicial review was granted following a substantive hearing between 2007 and 2009. [323694]
Bridget Prentice: I have been asked to reply.
The cases where challenges by way of judicial review were upheld against Government Departments following substantive hearings, as set out in the answer to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) of 1 March 2010, are as follows:
Secretary of State for Defence
Challenge against orders of Secretary of State "stopping up" two footpaths and setting out replacement routes;
Secretary of State for Home Department (SSHD)
Challenge to removal directions set by SSHD;
Challenge against decision of SSHD to detain claimant following his release on bail;
Secretary of State for Justice (SSJ)
Challenge to decision to revoke licence and take claimant back into custody;
Challenge against effects of Training Centre (Amendment) Rules 2007;
Challenge against decision of Governor to handcuff prisoner while attending hospital for treatment;
Challenge regarding failure to move prisoner to open prison following Parole Board decision;
Secretary of State for Communitie s and Local Government (SSCLG)
Challenge against decision to allow appeals against dismissal of 2 Fire Officers pursuant to the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations 1985;
Challenge against decision to dismiss an appeal against a determination made under the Local Authority Business Growth Incentive Scheme (LABGIS);
Challenge against decision of Defendant to refuse to retrospectively review the claimant's one year grant under the LABGIS;
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (SSTI)
Challenge to decision announced in July 2006 Energy Review Report deciding to support nuclear new build;
Challenge to October 2005 decision transposing into domestic law provisions of the Equal Treatment Amending Directive (CB2002/73EC);
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Challenge to Defendant's decision confirming overpayment of income support.
Challenge against approach taken and policy adopted by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the control of the use of pesticides in crop spraying;
Challenge against defendant's decision to issue a warrant of commitment to prison for a term of 1,190 days;
Challenge to decision of SSHD not to treat further representations of claimant as a fresh claim pursuant to paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules;
Challenge of decision of SSHD informing claimant that she had no basis to stay in UK following refusal of her application for leave to remain;
Challenge to decision of SSHD not to treat further representations of claimant as a fresh claim pursuant to paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules;
Challenge to decision of SSHD to continue to detain the claimant pending ongoing arrangements being made for his removal;
Challenge to decision of SSHD not to treat further representations of claimant as a fresh claim pursuant to paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules;
Challenge regarding failure to move prisoner to open prison following Parole Board decision;
Challenge by category A prisoner serving life sentence against decision not to re-categorise him to category B;
Challenge against various decisions of Planning Inspector ordering council to pay an interested party's costs of pursuing her planning appeals;
Challenge against decision of Planning Inspector dismissing an application for costs on appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Challenge of decision of Inspector to exclude certain evidence in respect of an application by the National Grid for wayleaves over the land of the claimant.
Challenge against decision of SSHD refusing claimant leave to remain in the country;
Challenge against decisions of SSHD to: (i) remove the claimant from the country while he still had a valid appeal pending; (ii) to revoke his residence permit; and (iii) to arrest and detain him;
Challenge against decision of SSHD refusing claimant leave to remain as a student;
Challenge by category A prisoner serving life sentence against decision not to re-categorise him to category B.
Women and Equality
Equality and Human Rights Commission: Industrial Disputes
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Minister for Women and Equality pursuant to the answer of 25 January 2010, Official Report, column 556W, on Equality and Human Rights Commission: industrial disputes, how much was paid out of public funds to settle the dispute in each of the 12 cases. [319749]
Maria Eagle: EHRC is independent and it manages its own affairs; the following is based on information it has provided.
Of the 12 cases concerned two have been settled for a monetary sum. The total amount paid in these cases was £25,000. The other 10 cases were settled without a monetary payment.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |