|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
19 Sept 2002 : Column 265Wcontinued
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library the latest scientific advice that she has received on the justification for the 20-day rule on livestock movements. 
Margaret Beckett [holding answer 16 July 2002]: A paper explaining the veterinary basis for the Interim Movements Regime, including the 20-day standstill, was placed in the Library on 7 February 2002 (Number 02/276 and has also been published on the DEFRA website (www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth).
This is currently being reviewed following discussions with representatives of the cattle and sheep veterinary societies. We will also take into account the recommendations of the Royal Society and Anderson inquiry reports on this issue. We will shortly publish an updated paper outlining the latest scientific and veterinary advice.
19 Sept 2002 : Column 266W
of land have been identified by the Forestry Commission for disposal in England; how many have been the subject of agreement offers to the local planning authority to secure continued access to the land; how many have been sold; and how many of those sold were subject to access agreements in each year since 1997. 
Mr. Morley [holding answer 16 July 2002]: The Forestry Commission has freedom to sell some woodlands due to their relatively small size and location, as part of the continuous process of rationalisation of its estate. This process involves the acquisition of land which will contribute to the Commission's wide-ranging objectives, as well as the sale of certain areas.
In all sales cases, the Forestry Commission notifies the relevant Local Authority when an area of woodland is to be sold. The information concerning Forestry Commission woodland sales and Continued Public Access Agreements (CPA) in England, for each year since 1997, is therefore as follows:
|Financial Year||Number of woodlands identified for sale||Number of woodlands sold||CPA Offered||CPA Accepted|
Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from (a) local authorities, (b) retailers and (c) waste management companies about the impact of the revised European Waste Catalogue and Hazardous Waste list on the UK's disposal and recycling infrastructure. 
Mr. Meacher: We have had informal exchanges with all these stakeholders and are aware of their concerns. We will shortly be consulting on the current review of the UK Special Waste Regulations and will ensure all these groups are fully involved.
Mr. Meacher: The results of the farm-scale evaluations will be not be published until data from all trial sites has been collated. Results for spring sown crops (maize, beet spring oil seed rape) should be available in summer 2003 and results of winter oil seed rape in 2004.
19 Sept 2002 : Column 267W
she has had with the Secretary of State for Health regarding the safety of CCA pressure treated wood. 
Mr. Meacher: The European Commission has drawn up proposals under the Marketing and Use Directive (76/769/EEC) to prohibit the use of CCA wood preservatives, but with derogations to allow continued use in a number of essential areas where human contact is limited. Draft proposals are currently being considered by Member States and discussions on the content of the proposal have taken place between officials from Department of Health, DTI who represent the views of the construction industry/consumers and HSE who regulate wood preservative products under the Control of Pesticide Regulations (1986).
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has received regarding risk assessments of CCA pressure treated wood her Department has performed. 
In the UK wood preservative products are regulated under the Control of Pesticide Regulations (1986) and the Health and Safety Executive lead on such non-agricultural pesticides. CCA is approved for use in products for pressure impregnation at industrial sites. This follows the advice to Ministers from the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) that such products do not present any risk to human health or the environment.
Recently an expert advisory committee to the European Commission the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE) has reviewed the safety of wood treated with this preservative and has concluded that there may be a risk to health of children from the use of such treated timber in playground equipment and also when treated wood is burnt or disposed.
The European Commission has drawn up proposals under the Marketing and Use Directive to prohibit the use of CCA wood preservatives, but with derogations to allow continued use in a number of essential areas where human contact is limited. Draft proposals are currently being considered by Member States.
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department has undertaken to prevent the household burning of arsenic-treated waste wood. 
Mr. Meacher [holding answer 17 July 2002]: The Clean Air Act 1993 prohibits the use of unauthorised fuel (such as wood and bituminous coal) in domestic grates in houses located in designated smoke control areas. Some closed domestic stoves are permitted for use in smoke control areas to burn specific types of wood, which are usually specified as firewood or wood or untreated dry wood.
The EU Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment has recently advised that there may be a risk to human health when wood treated with copper/chrome/arsenic (CCA) wood preservative is burnt. The European Commission has therefore drawn up
19 Sept 2002 : Column 268W
proposals under the Marketing and Use Directive to prohibit the use of CCA wood preservatives, except for a limited number of essential areas where human contact is limited. Draft proposals are currently being considered by Member States and will form the basis of harmonised European Community controls on CCA.
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has received regarding the (a) incineration and (b) landfill disposal of chromate copper arsenate pressure treated wood and its effects on (i) air and (ii) water pollution levels. 
Mr. Meacher [holding answer 17 July 2002]: I am not aware that the Department has received any representations regarding wood pressure treated with chromate copper arsenate. Any question of the incineration or landfill of these chemicals or any evaluation of the environmental impacts of imported chemicals or pressure treated wood would be a matter for the Environment Agency, who control disposal facilities for hazardous waste.
However, the UK has agreed to take back chromated copper arsenate waste from Djibouti. This waste resulted from a huge leakage at the dockside in Djibouti, and is being taken back on environmental and humanitarian grounds, as Djibouti does not have facilities to dispose of such waste.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on (a) British business and (b) the public sector of the draft EU Directive on environmental liability. 
Margaret Beckett: The draft Directive was adopted by the Commission in January 2002 and DEFRA launched a public consultation on the proposals on April 12. Extensive study has been carried out throughout this period to assess the impact of the draft Directive. Through direct consultation with a selection of stakeholders, and using the responses received to the public consultation, DEFRA recently produced an extended partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (COM (02) 17) which considers the potential benefits and costs of the draft Directive.
The assessment indicates that much of the environmental damage that would fall within the scope of the proposed regime is already subject to existing domestic legislation. It does suggest however, that the proposed Directive could have additional positive environmental benefits, by requiring higher standards of remediation and by encouraging operators to take additional precaution. Businesses could face additional costs through, amongst other things, possible financial security requirements, and additional expenditure on precautionary measures. Additional study is being carried out in this area in order to quantify such costs.
In requiring higher standards of remediation, the responsibilities of the Competent Authority, which is designated by the Member State to require operators to take preventative or restorative measures, would be increased. Under the Commission's proposal, the Competent Authority would have a duty to take action to remedy damage if the liable party could not be found. A
19 Sept 2002 : Column 269W
preliminary assessment provided by selected enforcement agencies indicates that the Directive would largely constitute an extension of existing responsibilities although there would be some new duties. Therefore there may be some resource implications.
The Government supports a regime which is equitable, proportionate, clear, insurable, easy to implement, does not damage business competitiveness, and delivers clear environmental benefits. Consequently, assessment of the potential impact of the draft Directive is ongoing to inform the UK position in the negotiations.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the draft EU Directive on environmental liability. 
Margaret Beckett: The purpose of the proposed Directive is to establish a framework for the prevention and remediation of environmental damage in accordance with the principle that the polluter pays. This represents an important and significant development in EC environmental law. The Government has therefore conducted a public consultation on the proposals, and the UK position on the detail of the proposal will be finalised in the light of the comments received.
In broad terms, the Government supports a regime which is equitable, proportionate, clear, insurable, easy to implement, does not damage business competitiveness, and delivers clear environmental benefits.
The partial regulatory impact assessment submitted to Parliament (COM (02) 17), indicates that much of the environmental damage covered by the Directive is already the subject of existing domestic regimes, but the proposals go further in some respects. The Directive would set higher standards of remediation and introduce the concepts of equivalent compensation and interim losses. Further benefits would arise from introducing a regime across the European Community which would harmonise the rules and standards for environmental liability across member states. Provided that the right balance between costs and benefits is achieved, this proposal could therefore play a useful part in safeguarding the environment.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|