The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kerry McCarthy on 2015-11-10.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will publish a cost to benefit analysis of the badger cull.
George Eustice
The expected benefits of the policy remain in line with those in the ‘Measures to address bovine tuberculosis in badgers’ impact assessment published in 2011.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kerry McCarthy on 2015-12-16.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what representations she has made to (a) Public Health England and (b) the Department of Health on the inclusion of (i) environmental criteria and (ii) the work of her Department’s Green Food Project in the review of the Eat Well Plate.
George Eustice
The 2012 Green Food Project was a joint initiative between Government, the food and farming industry and environmental organisations.
One piece of follow-up work to the Green Food Project was a group of stakeholders who came together in 2013 to develop principles for a healthy and sustainable diet. Public Health England and Department of Health were part of this working group. Its conclusion, ‘The Principles of Healthy and Sustainable Eating Patterns’ were published by the Global Food Security Programme in May this year. (http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/assets/pdfs/healthy-sustainable-eating-patterns-report.pdf)
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kerry McCarthy on 2016-02-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps her Department plans to take to improve biosecurity on farms.
George Eustice
A joint government and industry bovine TB biosecurity campaign was launched in November 2015 and will run for 12 months. It aims to increase the number of farmers implementing TB biosecurity measures on their farms and whilst trading cattle. The biosecurity campaign already includes a TB Hub bringing together information, advice, guidance and research material on how to prevent TB through biosecurity and risk based trading, an information bTB website allowing farmers to view information on TB breakdowns in their area on an interactive map and a Five Point Plan setting out good practice for TB biosecurity. Several further steps in the biosecurity campaign are being launched throughout 2016.
More generally, on-farm biosecurity is part of a wider landscape of measures to provide effective protection from animal and plant disease. Defra’s wider activities on biosecurity contribute to improving the resilience of the system as a whole.
The Rural Development Programme animal health projects have a focus on tackling exemplar diseases in cattle, sheep and pigs sectors through improved farm disease risk management practices. It is intended that this will have a wider benefit in improving farm biosecurity practices.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kerry McCarthy on 2016-03-08.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent discussions her Department has held with the cosmetics industry on the voluntary phasing out of micro-plastics in personal care and cosmetic products.
George Eustice
Defra has been working with other countries in the Oslo and Paris Convention for the Protection of the North East Atlantic (OSPAR) to secure the voluntary phasing out of micro-plastics in personal care and cosmetic products. As part of this, discussions have been held with the British Cosmetics Association, the European trade association Cosmetics Europe, and the British Plastics Federation. In response to these discussions, Cosmetics Europe has recommended that micro-beads should not be used in cosmetics. In addition, many UK cosmetics brands have publically committed to removing micro-beads from their products. Discussions between OSPAR and the industry to achieve the phase out are ongoing.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kerry McCarthy on 2016-03-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if her Department will launch a consultation on proposals for a deposit return system for single use drinks containers.
Rory Stewart
Defra analysed the costs and benefits of implementing a deposit return system (DRS) for single use drink containers as part of the 2011 Review of Waste Policy in England, and sought views in the 2012 consultation on higher packaging recycling targets.
This work showed that introducing a DRS may increase recycling and reduce litter but might impose additional costs on businesses, consumers and local authorities (which would lose revenue from recycling). However, we lack evidence to quantify these benefits and costs appropriately. The current approach has driven a significant increase in packaging waste recycling rates, from less than 47% in 2003 to nearly 65% in 2013.
Last year, the Scottish Government published a feasibility study and a call for evidence investigating the implementation of a DRS for single use drink containers in Scotland. This valuable work highlighted significant uncertainties regarding the impacts and benefits that a DRS would have, notably regarding costs, environmental quality and littering, and existing waste collection systems. The Scottish Government is doing further work on the topic and we will review any new evidence arising from this in due course. However, in the meantime, we will continue to focus on improving existing waste collection and recycling systems, and developing a new National Litter Strategy for England to help coordinate and maximise the impact of anti-litter activity by local government, industry and others.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kerry McCarthy on 2016-04-25.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what funding (a) her Department and (b) the Environment Agency provided for the Climate Ready Support Service in 2015-16; and what assessment her Department has made of the performance of that Service in (a) 2014-15 and (b) 2015-16.
Rory Stewart
Funding provided for the Climate Ready Support Service in 2015-16 was around £1 million. The Climate Ready Support Service Programme Board had regular overview of the performance of the Service. The majority of National Adaptation Programme actions to which the Service was contributing have now been completed.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kerry McCarthy on 2016-05-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate her Department has made of the proportion of waste exported for recycling which is contaminated and is sent to landfill or incinerated.
Rory Stewart
We are not aware of any waste exported for recycling which has had to be landfilled or incinerated due to contamination.
There is a legitimate export market for quality recyclable material – but the law is clear that it is illegal to export waste from the UK for disposal.
The regulatory framework governing waste shipments provides a mechanism for facilitating the takeback of waste to the country of export in cases where it cannot be processed as intended or in the case of an illegal shipment.
The UK environment agencies have adopted an intelligence-led approach to identify and disrupt the movement of waste intended for illegal export. Defra has been working with the agencies to find ways of strengthening their enforcement activities.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kerry McCarthy on 2016-07-07.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether her Department has amended its draft of the 25 year plan on food and farming as a result of the outcome of the EU referendum.
George Eustice
Following the result of the EU Referendum, we now have an opportunity to consider our long term vision for food and farming outside of the EU.
It remains essential that the UK has a thriving food and farming industry with high animal welfare and environmental standards, access to international markets and a long term commitment to boosting productivity through innovation and skills. We are now focused on taking forward the actions that support these objectives, in order to develop our long term vision. To do this, we will continue to work with a wide range of interests to develop that vision, and to work together to deliver it.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kerry McCarthy on 2016-10-07.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many breaches of animal welfare regulations (a) in slaughterhouses and (b) during transportation his Department recorded in each of the last six years.
Nicola Blackwood
The new legislation Welfare at Time of Killing implemented in Wales in 2014 and in England in 2015 introduced new welfare reporting requirements. In addition, during 2015/16 the Food Standards Agency (FSA) introduced new animal welfare measures in slaughterhouses which included increased consistency of reporting of transport related breaches. Both these factors are likely to have contributed to the increased instances recorded in the previous two years.
The FSA does not record the numbers of individual animals which died as a result of transportation to slaughterhouses. The FSA records the number of instances that animals were found to be Dead on Arrival (DOA). The number of DOA instances for the last six years are set out in the following table:
|
2010/11 |
2011/12 |
2012/13 |
2013/14 |
2014/15 |
2015/16 |
|
144 |
64 |
5 |
16 |
28 |
265 |
The FSA does not record the number of individual animals involved in a welfare breaches in slaughterhouses or during transportation. The FSA records the number of instances of breaches. The number of critical welfare breaches in slaughterhouses and transportation for the last six years are set out in the following tables:
Slaughterhouses
|
2010/11 |
2011/12 |
2012/13 |
2013/14 |
2014/15 |
2015/16 |
|
158 |
132 |
65 |
113 |
217 |
234 |
Transportation
|
2010/11 |
2011/12 |
2012/13 |
2013/14 |
2014/15 |
2015/16 |
|
394 |
342 |
308 |
535 |
1,488 |
2,097 |
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kerry McCarthy on 2015-11-10.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how much the Government has spent in England on (a) cattle testing for TB, (b) compensation as a result of a test for bovine TB, (c) surveillance activity associated with bovine TB by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and Animal Plant Health Agency, (d) Tuberculin supply and (e) research connected to bovine TB in each year since 2010-11; and what the total expenditure was on measures to prevent bovine TB in each such year.
George Eustice
The costs of TB testing are included in the overall sum delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Agency for the delivery of bovine TB controls in England which is given in the table below.
|
TB Expenditure |
£/million |
£/million |
£/million |
£/million |
|
2010/11 |
2011/12 |
2012/13 |
2013/14 |
|
|
APHA expenditure, including field operations and TB testing |
64.1 |
67.1 |
58.3 |
67.9 |
|
APHA TB surveillance: laboratory and science costs |
3.9 |
3.1 |
3.0 |
3.3 |
|
TB Cattle compensation (net of salvage receipts) |
24.3 |
23.5 |
23.9 |
22.6 |
|
Cost of tuberculin purchase |
2.2 |
2.6 |
2.8 |
2.5 |
|
TB R&D |
6.9 |
7.9 |
8.0 |
8.9 |
Foot note: – This data was extracted from the Defra Oracle Financial system on 11 November 2015 and does not take account of EU receipts.