View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament
View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament
View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
55W<br />
Written Answers<br />
26 OCTOBER 2009<br />
Written Answers<br />
56W<br />
Authority<br />
Percentage of waste sent to<br />
landfill in 2006-07<br />
Percentage of waste sent to<br />
landfill in 2007-08<br />
Difference between 2006-07 and<br />
2007-08<br />
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames 69.45 73.42 3.97<br />
Sheffield City Council 14.55 16.38 1.83<br />
Southampton City Council 17.72 22.29 4.57<br />
Southwark LB 48.81 53.16 4.35<br />
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council 10.54 13.96 3.41<br />
Torbay Council 67.97 71.19 3.22<br />
Tower Hamlets LB 83.08 88.66 5.58<br />
Wiltshire County Council 60.16 61.24 1.09<br />
Wolverhampton MBC 17.30 22.13 4.84<br />
Source:<br />
WasteDataFlow<br />
Litter: Rural Areas<br />
Mr. Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he<br />
plans to take to reduce the incidence of littering in<br />
rural areas. [294995]<br />
Jim Fitzpatrick: The Government’s policy on tackling<br />
litter applies to all communities. There is no excuse for<br />
littering and local authorities have been given powers to<br />
deal with litterers, most recently through the Clean<br />
Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. Littering<br />
is an offence and if convicted in a magistrates court an<br />
offender may receive a fine of up to £2,500 and a<br />
criminal record. As an alternative, local authorities<br />
have powers to issue on the spot fines of up to £80. The<br />
2005 Act includes a power for parish councils to issue<br />
on the spot fines for littering the first time.<br />
Through its annual grant to the charity Keep Britain<br />
Tidy, the Government campaign for behaviour change<br />
on litter. Campaigns like The Big Tidy Up and the<br />
Eco-Schools programme raise awareness of the issue,<br />
and get communities and individuals actively involved<br />
in clean-ups, in understanding the impact of littering<br />
and taking greater responsibility for their neighbourhoods.<br />
Local Government Association<br />
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to<br />
the Answer to the hon. Member for Meriden of 15 July<br />
2009, Official Report, column 443W, on the Local<br />
Government Association, what guidance his Department<br />
has provided on the status of the Local Government<br />
Association in respect of the Environmental Information<br />
Regulations 2004. [294779]<br />
Dan Norris: My Department has not provided any<br />
guidance on the status of the Local Government<br />
Association in respect of the Environmental Information<br />
Regulations 2004 (EIRs).<br />
Guidance on which bodies may be public authorities<br />
under the EIRs is publicly available on the DEFRA<br />
website at:<br />
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/policy/opengov/eir/<br />
guidance/full-guidance/pdf/guidance-2.pdf<br />
Pigs<br />
Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent<br />
assessment he has made of the (a) costs and (b)<br />
benefits of maintaining the ban on raising pigs on swill.<br />
[295475]<br />
Jim Fitzpatrick: No formal assessment has been made.<br />
However, at the time when the ban was introduced in<br />
2001, around 70 swill processors lost trade and around<br />
90 swill feeders had to find alternative sources of feed.<br />
Restaurants, kitchens and factories producing food also<br />
had to find alternative disposal routes. These bodies<br />
have subsequently adapted to the new rules and so a<br />
cost comparison between then and now would be difficult<br />
to make.<br />
The benefits of maintaining the ban remain primarily<br />
the prevention of disease spread. As the 2001 Foot and<br />
Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak demonstrated, the<br />
financial and practical consequences of one mistake in<br />
swill feeding can be enormous and potentially far outweigh<br />
the costs above. This FMD outbreak, the cause of<br />
which was thought to be the feeding of unprocessed<br />
swill to pigs, is estimated to have cost in the region of £8<br />
billion (including indirect costs) and the potential for<br />
re-introducing the disease by livestock being illegally<br />
fed on infected meat is a constant and on-going concern.<br />
For this reason, the Government support a maintenance<br />
of the EU wide ban which is now in place.<br />
Recycling<br />
Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether he plans<br />
to introduce quotas on the minimum amount of<br />
recycled material to be used in (a) motor vehicle<br />
manufacture and (b) manufactured goods; and if he<br />
will make a statement. [295590]<br />
Dan Norris: There are no such plans.<br />
Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion<br />
of waste was (a) recycled and (b) composted in<br />
2007-08 in each local authority area. [295798]<br />
Dan Norris: I have asked for the list of local authorities<br />
ranked by waste recycled and composted in 2007-08 to<br />
be placed in the Library of the House.<br />
Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which local<br />
authorities recycled or composted a smaller proportion<br />
of their total waste in 2007-08 than in 2006-07.<br />
[295847]<br />
Dan Norris: The following table shows the English<br />
local authorities that composted a smaller proportion<br />
of their total household waste in 2007-08 than in 2006-07.