Search Results

1-20 of 186 results for subject:Pollution

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

What has been the output of the Scottish salmon farms in each of the last five years; and Whether they have been in consultation with the Salmon and Trout Association for information from their surveys regarding mass escapes from Scottish fish farms; and whether it has been established that interbreeding...

Asked by

Lord Mason of Barnsley (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

19 December 2001

Reference

HL 1821; 630 c73-4WA

House

House of Lords

Dept for Transport Local Government and the Regions

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, if he will make a statement on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Hatton case on night flights issued on 2nd October. - Includes fact that copy of letter setting out grounds...

Asked by

Andy Reed (Labour; Co-operative Party)

Answering body

Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

19 December 2001

Reference

25095; 377 c519-20W;377 c520W

House

House of Commons

Scotland Office

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what discussions she has had with representatives of the airline industry regarding the noise of night flights arriving at or departing from Scottish airports; what complaints the Government has received about the noise of night flights from people living under the flight...

Asked by

John Barrett (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Scotland Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

19 December 2001

Reference

377 c370W;377 c369-70W; 22966;22967

House

House of Commons

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

To ask the Solicitor General, if she will make a statement on the legal implications for the United Kingdom of the adjudication of the United Nations International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, Ireland v United Kingdom, on the Sellafield MOX plant, given on 3rd December in Hamburg.

Asked by

Llew Smith (Labour)

Answering body

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

19 December 2001

Reference

377 c309W; 22825

House

House of Commons

Lords debate on motion to call attention to the problem of litter

Lords debate on motion to call attention to the problem of litter. Motion withdrawn.

Lead member

Lord Hardy of Wath

Answering member

Lord Mackie of Benshie

Department

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Parliamentary proceedings

Date

19 December 2001

Reference

630 c314-34

House

House of Lords

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when she issued guidelines on the proximity of landfill sites to housing; and if they are retroactive; if she has powers to require the closure or containment of a landfill site which is closer to housing than the...

Asked by

James Gray (Conservative)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

18 December 2001

Reference

377 c275-6W; 22659;22660

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, What plans she has for tackling noise pollution in the United Kingdom. (Failed OPQ).

Asked by

Martin Salter (Labour)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

13 December 2001

Reference

376 c952W; 20593

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport Local Government and the Regions

Statement on what the outcome was of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 6th and 7th December; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement.

Asked by

Jim Hood (Labour)

Answering body

Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

6 December 2001

For answer on

12 December 2001

Answered on

12 December 2001

Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the outcome was of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 6 and 7 December; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including their voting record; and if he will make a statement. [22183] Mr. Spellar: The Transport Council met in Brussels on 7 December. I represented the United Kingdom. The main focus of the Council was on the Galileo satellite navigation project and on aviation security. I am pleased to say that on both issues the outcome was satisfactory from our point of view. On Galileo, Ministers were asked to agree to the release of funding from the Trans-European Networks (TENs) budget to enable the project to proceed to its next phase, and to agree on the management structure that the project would have. I was among Ministers to press for deferral of decisions on the project. I drew attention to the concerns which the recently issued PricewaterhouseCoopers report had raised, on public sector funding, overall cost and lack of commercial benefits. The report made clear that any decision on the joint undertaking would have funding implications, so I argued that a decision on this should not be taken while funding issues were not sufficiently clear. There was also some discussion of the details of the draft Regulation to establish the joint undertaking, but a majority of member states declined the Commission's request for a vote to agree the text. Decisions on the next phase of Galileo were deferred and no formal conclusions were agreed. The Presidency indicated that the Galileo project might be discussed further at the European Council at Laeken later this month. The Council reached political agreement on a regulation establishing a Community framework for airport security standards and monitoring. The Commission had initially insisted on arrangements to oversee member states who were operating more stringent security measures. But in response to concerns which I and others expressed about the need for freedom to respond to perceived security threats it accepted that member states should be free to apply additional measures, provided they were in accordance with Community law. This important measure should ensure that high standards are in place throughout the EU and create a safer environment for air passengers using EU airports. There was discussion of a draft directive on occurrence reporting in civil aviation, on the transposition of JAR-OPS standards into EC law, and on a draft directive on the training of aviation cabin crew. No decisions were reached on the first two issues, and the Presidency concluded that no progress was possible on the third. The UK view is that provision for cabin crew training should be included in the JAR-OPS legislation. The Council noted the difficult economic situation faced by the air transport sector. On war-risk insurance, member states wished to return to a market approach, but the industry was not ready for that yet. In the interim the Commission was prepared to continue to approve state aid measures up to end March 2002, subject to monthly reviews. Ministers also noted the need to consider urgently ways to address possible unfair competition from third country carriers; the Commission will present a proposal in the near future. The Council noted the importance of making early progress on the recent proposal for a Directive to replace the hushkits regulation. The Council reached political agreement on the regulation to establish a European Maritime Safety Agency, which was proposed as part of the ERIKA II package of maritime safety proposals. We are content with the text as agreed. The Council agreed the text of a Directive to simplify reporting formalities for ships leaving and entering Community ports. It was able to accept the European Parliament's position on the proposal, and therefore reached agreement at the First Reading. I and the French Minister, with support from the Commissioner, stressed the need for member states to make quick progress on ratifying the Hazardous and Noxious Substances convention and other maritime pollution compensation Conventions, as the December 2000 Council Conclusions had urged. The Council noted a Presidency progress report on the proposal to update Regulation 3820/85 on commercial drivers' hours and rest periods. Further consideration of this will pass to the Spanish Presidency. I maintained the UK's opposition to the proposal to extend the fitting of speed limiting devices to goods vehicles above 3.5 tonnes and to coaches/buses with over eight passenger seats regardless of weight. I argued that we were not in favour of a threshold below 7.5 tonnes, but that an extension of European regulation to 7.5 tonnes would be in line with UK law. I expressed my doubt that the safety and environmental consequences of fitting limiters to lighter vehicles would be beneficial. The Presidency concluded that Council adopted the proposal by qualified majority. The proposal will now be considered by the European Parliament early in the new year. The Council reached political agreement on a draft directive setting out initial and ongoing training requirements for professional drivers. Following the recent fires in Alpine road tunnels, the Commission reported to the Council that it would propose legislation early in 2002 to improve safety. The proposals will address issues relating to technical equipment, driver information, traffic controls and training of operational staff. We await further details of the proposals, and will need to examine them carefully. The Presidency presented its conclusions on the Commission's White Paper on transport policy, published earlier this year. The Presidency largely agreed with the White Paper's assessment of the negative impact of uneven development of different transport modes, and believed that modal shift and enhancement of quality should be promoted. It hoped the Council would further examine the White Paper and looked forward to Commission proposals to implement the priorities emerging from further discussion. Under Other Business, I raised the issue of the new digital tachograph and the deficiencies in the Regulation on which the specification is based. I had previously written to the Commissioner asking her to propose amendments to address these shortcomings, which would create serious enforcement difficulties. Other Ministers at the Council supported me in asking the Commission to re-examine the issue and bring forward a new proposal to amend the Regulation. I expressed my disappointment at the Commission's response, which did not address the concerns we had put forward. Finally, the German Minister spoke of the safety benefits of ensuring that rigid bull bars were not fixed to road vehicles above 2.5 tonnes, through voluntary agreements with industry. The Commission agreed that this was a useful suggestion, but stressed that it was the responsibility of the Internal Market Commissioner. No votes were taken at this Council.

Date

12 December 2001

Reference

376 c875-7W; 22183

House

House of Commons

Falconer of Thoroton, Lord

Lords Statement on what was the outcome of the Transport Council held on 7 December. [HL 1978].

Asked by

Lord Gregson (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

12 December 2001

Reference

HL 1978; 629 c221-4WA

House

House of Lords

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her Answer of 22nd November, 375 c425W, on ozone levels, if she will list the number of days per site in rural areas on which pollution levels were (a) at and (b) below national air quality...

Asked by

Lord Bruce of Bennachie (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

10 December 2001

Reference

376 c675-7W; 18832;18833

House

House of Commons

Dept of Trade and Industry

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what assessment she has made of the report published on 23rd November by the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Programme on possible toxic effects from the nuclear reprocessing plants at Sellafield and Cap de la Hague, France.

Asked by

Llew Smith (Labour)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

27 November 2001

For answer on

10 December 2001

Answered on

10 December 2001

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the report published on 23 November by the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Programme on possible toxic effects from the nuclear reprocessing plants at Sellafield and Cap de la Hague, France. [19874] Mr. Wilson: None. The subject matter of this report-- which was prepared by an organisation called WISE-Paris--appears to relate to assessment of the possible environmental impacts of reprocessing. In the UK such matters fall to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs to whom I understand the hon. Gentleman has addressed a similar question. I am aware, however, that the objectivity and scientific validity of the study produced by WISE-Paris have been called into question by Members of the European Parliament and that, in view of this, the European Parliament body that commissioned the report in response to a request from a separate committee formally sought from three experts an independent evaluation of the report. The Chairman of the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Panel (STOA) makes clear in a letter written as a cover to the study on its publication that publication of the document "does not imply adoption of its contents and these do not necessarily reflect the views of members of the STOA Panel or the European Parliament". The letter goes on to state "the STOA Panel expresses regret that WISE-Paris saw fit to break the confidentiality clause in its contract by making public parts of the study prior to its publication. This behaviour of WISE-Paris is not in line with the long-standing tradition of STOA, which has always endeavoured to associate its work with the highest scientific and ethical standards". As the letter explains, at its meeting on 23 October the STOA Panel took note of the WISE-Paris study and decided to publish it "as a first contribution to the scientific debate". STOA also decided to make public the assessments of the WISE-Paris work that STOA obtained from the independent experts.

Date

10 December 2001

Reference

376 c666W; 19874

House

House of Commons

Whitty, Lord

Whether they will define the responsibilities and powers of the Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs in relation to noise pollution in areas of outstanding natural beauty, including that caused by low-flying aircraft and gliders, powered or towed. [HL 1721].

Asked by

Lord Marsh (Crossbench)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

6 December 2001

Reference

HL 1721; 629 c156WA

House

House of Lords

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the impact of the Bathing Water Directive on (a) rural beaches and (b) tourism policies. - Includes figures.

Asked by

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

6 December 2001

Reference

376 c494W; 19542

House

House of Commons

Deposited Paper Dep 01/1796

Powering future vehicles: draft Government strategy. December 2001. Ministerial foreword by David Jamieson MP, Brian Wilson MP, Paul Boateng MP and Michael Meacher MP. DTLR/DTI/DEFRA/Treasury. 2001.

Deposited by

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Department of Trade and Industry; Treasury; Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Type

Deposited papers

Date

5 December 2001

Reference

Dep 01/1796

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her Answer of 2nd July, 371 c46W, on trade effluent, if she will answer these questions. - Inc tables. (Holding answer 4 December 2001).

Asked by

David Chaytor (Labour)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

29 November 2001

For answer on

5 December 2001

Answered on

5 December 2001

Mr. Chaytor: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 2 July 2001, Official Report, column 46W, on trade effluent, if she will answer all the questions listed. [20691] Mr. Meacher: [holding answer 4 December 2001]: In my answer of 2 July 2001, Official Report, column 46W, I informed my hon. Friend that the information he requested was not held centrally. I now have this information which I am pleased to make available to him. The following tables contain this information. The total number of prosecutions for breaches of trade effluent discharge consents between 1 April 1999 and 31 July 2001 is 21, with total fines of £141,500. Unfortunately no information is available for 1998 as records only began in April 1999. _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Environment agency region/sector Total fines (£) Anglian None None Midlands None None North East Food Processing 32,000 Mining/quarries 500 Local authority 1,500 North West Brewery 9,500 Board Manufacturer 10,000 Timber Merchants 2,000 Mining/quarries 4,000 Paper Manufacturers 17,500 Southern Food Processing 14,000 Mining/quarries 2,000 Food Processing 2,000 South West Textiles 2,000 Mining/quarries 1,000 Food Processing 3,000 Mining/quarries 500 Mining/quarries {1}-- Thames Brewery 9,000 Wales Water 4,000 Water 2,000 Water 10,000 Energy 15,000 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. {1} 3 year conditional discharge Percentage _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Compliance of discharge consents in force Environment agency region 1998 1999 2000 Anglian 73.5 74.3 78.6 Midlands{1} 83.5 85.9 84.7 North East 85.9 86.5 83.8 North West 88.6 86.4 82.3 Southern 62.8 59.6 70.7 South West 49.2 61.3 61.9 Thames 87.0 84.2 86.5 England 80.1 81.5 79.5 Wales 77.3 52.2 71.8 All regions 79.6 78.3 78.5 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. {1} Midlands Region data for 1998 and 1999 are for all trade discharges as it is not possible to breakdown this historic data to significant discharges only _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Percentage of consents in force monitored Environment agency region 1998 1999 2000 Anglian 91.1 92.8 87.3 Midlands 82.5 72.8 66.6 North East 45.7 45.0 49.2 North West 73.5 58.5 61.6 Southern 77.7 77.3 56.0 South West 100.0 91.0 80.4 Thames 93.5 87.4 59.2 England 74.8 69.1 64.1 Wales 62.2 72.9 89.8 All regions 72.7 69.6 67.3 Percentage of trade discharge consents reviewed Environment agency region 1998 1999 2000 Anglian 2 1 1 Midlands 5 6 19 North East 2 2 2 North West 3 5 2 Southern 9 17 9 South West 12 8 14 Thames 35 18 18 England 7 6 9 Wales 15 20 19 All regions 8 8 10 Percentage of discharge consents containing red list substances Environment agency region 1998 1999 2000 Anglian 7.0 6.1 6.1 Midlands 3.0 2.8 5.1 North East 2.2 2.3 2.2 North West 3.9 2.8 0.7 Southern 12.2 16.3 9.9 South West 11.6 9.7 8.5 Thames 4.0 3.5 2.9 England 4.6 4.2 4.4 Wales 0.5 0.8 0.8 All regions 4.0 3.8 3.9 Number of industrial discharge consents in force Environment agency region 1998 1999 2000 Anglian 313 374 378 Midlands 1,186 1,329 680 North East 982 958 950 North West 559 675 586 Southern 188 141 232 South West 362 442 541 Thames 277 317 377 England 3,867 4,236 3,744 Wales{1} 740 531 528 All regions 4,607 4,767 4,272 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. {1} The figure for 2000 is an estimate, accurate data are unavailable

Date

5 December 2001

Reference

376 c392-4W; 20691

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her Answer of 23rd November, Official Report, column 517W, on river quality, what chemical levels of (a) biochemical oxygen demand and (b) concentrations of dissolved (i) oxygen and (ii) ammonia are deemed to be (A) good,...

Asked by

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

26 November 2001

For answer on

3 December 2001

Answered on

3 December 2001

Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 23 November 2001, Official Report, column 517W, on river quality, what chemical levels of (a) biochemical oxygen demand and (b) concentrations of dissolved (i) oxygen and (ii) ammonia are deemed to be (A) good, (B) fair, (C) poor and (D) bad in the Environment Agency's general quality assessment scheme for rivers. [19237] Mr. Meacher: [holding answer 30 November 2001]: The Environment Agency's General Quality Assessment (GQA) scheme assigns stretches of rivers and canals to one of six quality grades (ranging from A for water of very good quality to F for water which is of bad quality) based on the monitoring results for biochemical oxygen demand and concentrations of dissolved oxygen and ammonia. The overall grade is that of the poorest of the three determinands. The grade classes are expressed as percentiles as set out in the table. Standards for the chemical GQA _________________________________________________________________________________________________. GQA grade Dissolved oxygen (% saturation) Biochemical oxygen demand Ammonia (mgN/l) 90-percentile 10-percentile (mg/l) 90-percentile A (very good) 80 2.5 0.25 B (good) 70 4 0.6 C (fairly good) 60 6 1.3 D (fair) 50 8 2.5 E (poor) 20 15 9.0 F (bad) less than 20 -- -- _________________________________________________________________________________________________.

Date

3 December 2001

Reference

376 c98-9W;376 c99W; 19237

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport Local Government and the Regions

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his statement of 20th November, on Terminal 5, if he will set out the term of reference of the research study to reassess attitudes to aircraft noise. - (Holding answer 23 November 2001).

Asked by

Baroness May of Maidenhead (Conservative)

Answering body

Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

20 November 2001

For answer on

30 November 2001

Answered on

30 November 2001

Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his statement of 20 November, on Terminal 5, if he will set out the term of reference of the research study to reassess attitudes to aircraft noise. [17792] Mr. Byers: [holding answer 23 November 2001]: The initial terms of reference are as follows: Aims and objectives A1. The White Paper, "New Deal for Transport", announced the Government's intention to formulate an aviation policy looking some 30 years ahead and stated the principle that the aviation industry should, in broad terms, meet the external costs it imposes. The Department's consultation on "The Future of Aviation" noted (para 149) that further research into the monetary valuation of the effects of noise may be needed to inform charging strategies. A2. The Study is to reassess attitudes to aircraft noise in England; their correlation with the Leq noise index; and to examine (hypothetical) willingness to pay in respect of nuisance from such noise, in relation to other elements, on the basis of stated preference (SP) survey evidence. Issues and scope A3. The Study shall be of sufficient scale and scope to provide a methodologically robust re-assessment of the validity of the Leq family of noise indices as a proxy for relative community annoyance; and in particular the relative weightings on average event noise level and number of events. This project was announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) in May and is not directly connected with the planning decision on Heathrow Terminal 5. The project consists of two phases and is expected to last approximately three years. The contract has recently been awarded to a consortium led by The MVA Consultancy. I will also ensure that all available research into sleep disturbance and attitudes to aircraft noise by day and by night will be taken into account in the consultation about the bight noise regime at the designated London airports to be undertaken by 2003.

Date

30 November 2001

Reference

375 c1155-6W; 17792

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate she has made of the impact of the moratorium on new gas-fired power stations on carbon dioxide emissions (a) to date and (b) over the next five years. - (Holding answer 16 November 2001).

Asked by

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

28 November 2001

Reference

375 c1033W; 15504

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport Local Government and the Regions

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, what assessment he has made of the impact on levels of aircraft (a) movements and (b) noise in Beckenham of the completion of Terminal 5 at Heathrow.

Asked by

Jacqui Lait (Conservative)

Answering body

Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

28 November 2001

Reference

375 c954W; 18162

House

House of Commons

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate she has made of the percentage of carbon dioxide emissions derived from (a) transport, (b) domestic sources and (c) industry in the last 12 months. - Inc figures and table. (Holding answer 16 November 2001).

Asked by

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

13 November 2001

For answer on

28 November 2001

Answered on

28 November 2001

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the percentage of carbon dioxide emissions derived from (a) transport, (b) domestic sources and (c) industry in the last 12 months. [15506] Margaret Beckett: [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The table shows carbon dioxide emissions recorded in the UK's greenhouse gas inventory from transport, the domestic sector and industry in 1999, which is the most recent year for which complete information is available. Industrial emissions are divided into manufacturing industry and energy industries. The latter include power stations and refineries, and produce the electricity, refined petroleum and other energy products used elsewhere in the economy. Emissions from energy industries amounted to 48.8 million tonnes of carbon equivalent (MtC) in 1999, of which 5.2 MtC and 16.6 MtC were attributable to demand in the transport and domestic sectors. Emissions from fuels loaded in the UK and used by international aviation and shipping are not included in the UK's inventory under agreed reporting guidelines used by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. These emissions amounted to a further 8.7 MtC in 1999. UK CO2 emissions from transport, the domestic sector and industry in 1999, expressed as percentage of total UK CO2 and as million tonnes carbon (MtC) _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Percentage of total UK emissions MtC Transport 22 33.2 Domestic 16 23.3 Manufacturing industry 20.1 30.1 Energy industries 32.7 48.8 _________________________________________________________________________________________________.

Date

28 November 2001

Reference

375 c1033-4W; 15506

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Month

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher