Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

416208

registered interest
date	04/09/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Rabbits: Animal Welfare
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will review the working of section 14 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and publish a new Code of Conduct relating to rabbits to bring the living space and welfare requirements for rabbits more in line with those in effect in other EU countries.
tabling member constituency	Newport West
tabling member printed	Paul Flynn
uin	8721
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2015 answer text <p>The Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides a comprehensive legal framework protecting the welfare of kept rabbits. Given that owners and potential owners can obtain specific advice on rabbit keeping from rabbit welfare and other animal welfare organisations, there is no need to introduce a statutory code of practice for pet rabbits under section 14 of the Act.</p><p>There is no specific EU wide legislation for the protection of farmed rabbits. In England, they are protected by the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 and Defra’s code of recommendations for farmed rabbits. This code reflects the housing requirements as set out in the 2005 European Food Safety Authority’s scientific opinion on the health and welfare of farmed domestic rabbits.</p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice question first answered 09/09/2015 10:08:29 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
tabling member	545 label Biography information for Paul Flynn

416432

registered interest
date	04/09/2015
answering body	Department for Education
answering dept id	60
answering dept short name	Education
answering dept sort name	Education
hansard heading	Education Funding Agency: Birmingham
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Education, when the Education Funding Authority first (a) had an interest in the Maddox offices property located in Birmingham Northfield, (b) entered negotiations with the site owners about purchasing that site and (c) agreed the sale of that site.
tabling member constituency	Birmingham, Northfield
tabling member printed	Richard Burden
uin	9063
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2015 answer text <p>The Education Funding Agency first became aware of the property on 26 November 2014 and negotiations began on 27 November 2014.</p><p> </p><p>The conditional contracts were exchanged on 13 March 2015 and completion of the sale occurred on 1 July 2015.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency East Surrey answering member printed Mr Sam Gyimah question first answered 09/09/2015 10:15:41 answering member 3980 label Biography information for Mr Sam Gyimah
tabling member	301 label Biography information for Richard Burden

416433

registered interest
date	04/09/2015
answering body	Department for Education
answering dept id	60
answering dept short name	Education
answering dept sort name	Education
hansard heading	Education Funding Agency: Birmingham
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how much the Education Funding Authority paid for the Maddox offices site located in Birmingham Northfield.
tabling member constituency	Birmingham, Northfield
tabling member printed	Richard Burden
uin	9062
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2015 answer text <p>The Secretary of State purchased, in the name of the Edge Academy Trust, 946 Bristol Road Northfield Birmingham B31 2LQ for the sum of £1,650,000 (exclusive of VAT).</p><p> </p> answering member constituency East Surrey answering member printed Mr Sam Gyimah question first answered 09/09/2015 10:14:19 answering member 3980 label Biography information for Mr Sam Gyimah
tabling member	301 label Biography information for Richard Burden

416468

registered interest
date	04/09/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Porpoises: Conservation
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the non-inclusion of Swansea Bay as an identified breeding site of harbour porpoise and Special Area of Conservation in the Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report Number 544, published in March 2015; and if she will make a statement.
tabling member constituency	Bridgend
tabling member printed	Mrs Madeleine Moon
uin	8969
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2015 answer text <p>Predicted porpoise density at or above the 90<sup>th</sup> percentile (i.e. areas that had the top 10% of predicted porpoise density) was chosen as the threshold to define ‘high density’ based on a method used by Embling et al. (2010)[i]. This method considered boundary placement to delineate protected areas for harbour porpoise using a perimeter length to area ratio approach. By comparing areas with the top 1%, 5% and 10% of porpoise densities, the perimeter–area ratio was lowest (desirable) and its confidence interval was narrowest (greater certainty) for areas defined by the top 10% threshold (i.e. equivalent to the 90<sup>th</sup> percentile). The Inter-Agency Marine Mammal Working Group therefore considered it appropriate to adopt this published approach for the analyses undertaken in Report 544. Both Embling et al. (2010) and Report 544 have been subject to peer review by experts.</p><p>Member States, including the UK, use Annex III of the Habitats Directive and additional EU Guidance in the identification of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), but decisions on implementation are taken at the national level. This includes the determination of appropriate thresholds.</p><p>The identification of breeding sites for porpoise is not a requirement of Annex III of the EU Habitats Directive. A representative large-scale picture of porpoise calve distribution could not be attained from the data set that informed Report 544, and therefore was unable to support the identification of breeding areas.</p><p>The CCW Atlas of Marine Mammals of Wales included data collected and reported on in Pierpoint 2006 and 2008. All data from the Atlas were submitted to the Joint Cetacean Protocol, which provided the dataset that informed Report 544 where consents from the data providers were given.</p><p>The designation of SACs is a devolved responsibility, and decisions with regards to the Swansea Bay area are for the Welsh Government.</p><p>Report 544 is one step in wider assessment of information towards the identification of possible SACs for harbour porpoise, carried out by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Country Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies. Full information on the assessment process and other key documentation would be made available in a public consultation, providing an opportunity to comment on the scientific process undertaken.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>[i] Embling, C. B., Gilibrand, P. A., Gordon, J., Shrimpton, J., Stevick, P. T. &amp; Hammond, P. S. 2010. Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for marine protected areas for harbour porpoises (<em>Phocoena phocoena</em>). <em>Biological Conservation</em> <strong>143</strong>, 267–279.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 8773 8774 8775 question first answered 09/09/2015 10:37:02 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
tabling member	1490 label Biography information for Mrs Madeleine Moon

416471

registered interest
date	04/09/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Porpoises: Conservation
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with reference to Report No. 544 of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, on the identification of discrete and persistent areas of relatively high harbour porpoise density in the wider UK marine area, published in March 2015, for what reasons the 90th percentile was used as the cut-off point for the threshold of the prediction of porpoise presence; whether the same cut-off point is used (a) for prediction of other marine mammals and (b) by other EU countries; and if she will make a statement.
tabling member constituency	Bridgend
tabling member printed	Mrs Madeleine Moon
uin	8773
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2015 answer text <p>Predicted porpoise density at or above the 90<sup>th</sup> percentile (i.e. areas that had the top 10% of predicted porpoise density) was chosen as the threshold to define ‘high density’ based on a method used by Embling et al. (2010)[i]. This method considered boundary placement to delineate protected areas for harbour porpoise using a perimeter length to area ratio approach. By comparing areas with the top 1%, 5% and 10% of porpoise densities, the perimeter–area ratio was lowest (desirable) and its confidence interval was narrowest (greater certainty) for areas defined by the top 10% threshold (i.e. equivalent to the 90<sup>th</sup> percentile). The Inter-Agency Marine Mammal Working Group therefore considered it appropriate to adopt this published approach for the analyses undertaken in Report 544. Both Embling et al. (2010) and Report 544 have been subject to peer review by experts.</p><p>Member States, including the UK, use Annex III of the Habitats Directive and additional EU Guidance in the identification of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), but decisions on implementation are taken at the national level. This includes the determination of appropriate thresholds.</p><p>The identification of breeding sites for porpoise is not a requirement of Annex III of the EU Habitats Directive. A representative large-scale picture of porpoise calve distribution could not be attained from the data set that informed Report 544, and therefore was unable to support the identification of breeding areas.</p><p>The CCW Atlas of Marine Mammals of Wales included data collected and reported on in Pierpoint 2006 and 2008. All data from the Atlas were submitted to the Joint Cetacean Protocol, which provided the dataset that informed Report 544 where consents from the data providers were given.</p><p>The designation of SACs is a devolved responsibility, and decisions with regards to the Swansea Bay area are for the Welsh Government.</p><p>Report 544 is one step in wider assessment of information towards the identification of possible SACs for harbour porpoise, carried out by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Country Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies. Full information on the assessment process and other key documentation would be made available in a public consultation, providing an opportunity to comment on the scientific process undertaken.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>[i] Embling, C. B., Gilibrand, P. A., Gordon, J., Shrimpton, J., Stevick, P. T. &amp; Hammond, P. S. 2010. Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for marine protected areas for harbour porpoises (<em>Phocoena phocoena</em>). <em>Biological Conservation</em> <strong>143</strong>, 267–279.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 8774 8775 8969 question first answered 09/09/2015 10:37:02 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
tabling member	1490 label Biography information for Mrs Madeleine Moon

416472

registered interest
date	04/09/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Porpoises: Conservation
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether Report No. 544 of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, on the identification of discrete and persistent areas of relatively high harbour porpoise density in the wider UK marine area, published in March 2015, takes into account data on the presence of harbour porpoise identified in the 2nd edition of the CCW Atlas of Marine Mammals of Wales and the Pierpoint Reports of 2006 and 2008; and if she will make a statement.
tabling member constituency	Bridgend
tabling member printed	Mrs Madeleine Moon
uin	8774
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2015 answer text <p>Predicted porpoise density at or above the 90<sup>th</sup> percentile (i.e. areas that had the top 10% of predicted porpoise density) was chosen as the threshold to define ‘high density’ based on a method used by Embling et al. (2010)[i]. This method considered boundary placement to delineate protected areas for harbour porpoise using a perimeter length to area ratio approach. By comparing areas with the top 1%, 5% and 10% of porpoise densities, the perimeter–area ratio was lowest (desirable) and its confidence interval was narrowest (greater certainty) for areas defined by the top 10% threshold (i.e. equivalent to the 90<sup>th</sup> percentile). The Inter-Agency Marine Mammal Working Group therefore considered it appropriate to adopt this published approach for the analyses undertaken in Report 544. Both Embling et al. (2010) and Report 544 have been subject to peer review by experts.</p><p>Member States, including the UK, use Annex III of the Habitats Directive and additional EU Guidance in the identification of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), but decisions on implementation are taken at the national level. This includes the determination of appropriate thresholds.</p><p>The identification of breeding sites for porpoise is not a requirement of Annex III of the EU Habitats Directive. A representative large-scale picture of porpoise calve distribution could not be attained from the data set that informed Report 544, and therefore was unable to support the identification of breeding areas.</p><p>The CCW Atlas of Marine Mammals of Wales included data collected and reported on in Pierpoint 2006 and 2008. All data from the Atlas were submitted to the Joint Cetacean Protocol, which provided the dataset that informed Report 544 where consents from the data providers were given.</p><p>The designation of SACs is a devolved responsibility, and decisions with regards to the Swansea Bay area are for the Welsh Government.</p><p>Report 544 is one step in wider assessment of information towards the identification of possible SACs for harbour porpoise, carried out by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Country Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies. Full information on the assessment process and other key documentation would be made available in a public consultation, providing an opportunity to comment on the scientific process undertaken.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>[i] Embling, C. B., Gilibrand, P. A., Gordon, J., Shrimpton, J., Stevick, P. T. &amp; Hammond, P. S. 2010. Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for marine protected areas for harbour porpoises (<em>Phocoena phocoena</em>). <em>Biological Conservation</em> <strong>143</strong>, 267–279.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 8773 8775 8969 question first answered 09/09/2015 10:37:02 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
tabling member	1490 label Biography information for Mrs Madeleine Moon

416473

registered interest
date	04/09/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Porpoises: Conservation
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether Report No. 544 of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, on the identification of discrete and persistent areas of relatively high harbour porpoise density in the wider UK marine area, published in March 2015, identifies breeding sites for harbour porpoise as required by the 1992 EU Habitats Directive; and if she will make a statement.
tabling member constituency	Bridgend
tabling member printed	Mrs Madeleine Moon
uin	8775
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2015 answer text <p>Predicted porpoise density at or above the 90<sup>th</sup> percentile (i.e. areas that had the top 10% of predicted porpoise density) was chosen as the threshold to define ‘high density’ based on a method used by Embling et al. (2010)[i]. This method considered boundary placement to delineate protected areas for harbour porpoise using a perimeter length to area ratio approach. By comparing areas with the top 1%, 5% and 10% of porpoise densities, the perimeter–area ratio was lowest (desirable) and its confidence interval was narrowest (greater certainty) for areas defined by the top 10% threshold (i.e. equivalent to the 90<sup>th</sup> percentile). The Inter-Agency Marine Mammal Working Group therefore considered it appropriate to adopt this published approach for the analyses undertaken in Report 544. Both Embling et al. (2010) and Report 544 have been subject to peer review by experts.</p><p>Member States, including the UK, use Annex III of the Habitats Directive and additional EU Guidance in the identification of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), but decisions on implementation are taken at the national level. This includes the determination of appropriate thresholds.</p><p>The identification of breeding sites for porpoise is not a requirement of Annex III of the EU Habitats Directive. A representative large-scale picture of porpoise calve distribution could not be attained from the data set that informed Report 544, and therefore was unable to support the identification of breeding areas.</p><p>The CCW Atlas of Marine Mammals of Wales included data collected and reported on in Pierpoint 2006 and 2008. All data from the Atlas were submitted to the Joint Cetacean Protocol, which provided the dataset that informed Report 544 where consents from the data providers were given.</p><p>The designation of SACs is a devolved responsibility, and decisions with regards to the Swansea Bay area are for the Welsh Government.</p><p>Report 544 is one step in wider assessment of information towards the identification of possible SACs for harbour porpoise, carried out by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Country Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies. Full information on the assessment process and other key documentation would be made available in a public consultation, providing an opportunity to comment on the scientific process undertaken.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>[i] Embling, C. B., Gilibrand, P. A., Gordon, J., Shrimpton, J., Stevick, P. T. &amp; Hammond, P. S. 2010. Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for marine protected areas for harbour porpoises (<em>Phocoena phocoena</em>). <em>Biological Conservation</em> <strong>143</strong>, 267–279.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 8773 8774 8969 question first answered 09/09/2015 10:37:02 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
tabling member	1490 label Biography information for Mrs Madeleine Moon

416479

registered interest
date	04/09/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Flood Control: Lincolnshire
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent discussions she has had with the Environment Agency on improving flood defences in (a) Lincoln and (b) Lincolnshire.
tabling member constituency	Lincoln
tabling member printed	Karl McCartney
uin	8764
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2015 answer text <p>The Secretary of State regularly discusses progress with the delivery of the six year £2.3 billion flood defence capital investment programme with the Environment Agency. Within that programme, Lincoln has been allocated around £1.1 million and Lincolnshire over £164 million to develop a range of 72 flood and coastal erosion protection measures in the city and the county.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Penrith and The Border answering member printed Rory Stewart question first answered 09/09/2015 08:25:16 answering member 4137 label Biography information for Rory Stewart
tabling member	4028 label Biography information for Karl McCartney

416613

registered interest
date	04/09/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Common Agricultural Policy
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make an assessment of the potential effect on her Department's economic and environmental indicators of the priority areas for simplification of the Common Agricultural Policy she announced on 21 July 2015.
tabling member constituency	Brent North
tabling member printed	Barry Gardiner
uin	8724
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2015 answer text <p>We do not believe the changes we are proposing will have any impact on the environment.</p><p>We want the Commission’s CAP simplification exercise to deliver changes which reduce costs and burdens for paying agencies and farmers, without compromising taxpayer value for money.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice question first answered 09/09/2015 10:53:43 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
tabling member	146 label Biography information for Barry Gardiner

416670

registered interest
date	04/09/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Dairy Products: Exports
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which countries do not allow imports of dairy products from the UK; what steps she is taking to reduce the number of countries which do not allow such imports; and if she will make a statement.
tabling member constituency	Tewkesbury
tabling member printed	Mr Laurence Robertson
uin	8782
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2015 answer text <p>The UK has access to 79 non-EU countries for dairy products. The Government works in partnership with industry to identify new markets and conducts negotiations with the importing authorities to agree certification conditions. Access to new markets such as Morocco and Serbia supported growth of 25% in UK dairy exports to non-EU countries in 2014. Exports to non-EU markets now account for 23% of UK dairy exports</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice question first answered 09/09/2015 10:12:41 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
tabling member	253 label Biography information for Mr Laurence Robertson