| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
Cattle Slaughter
Dr. Strang: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that a twin-bladed saw is used to remove the spinal column from all cattle carcases destined for human or animal consumption. [234]
Mr. Douglas Hogg: A prototype twin-bladed saw is still under development and evaluation. A number of technical and practical issues have yet to be overcome. Not until these have been successfully resolved will we be in a position to consider the circumstances in which such equipment might be used.
Agriculture Council
Mr. French: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 28 and 29 October; and if he will make a statement. [1836]
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I represented the United Kingdom at this Council in Luxembourg, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the
1 Nov 1996 : Column: 300
Scottish Office, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office. Agreement was reached by qualified majority, Germany voting against--on a package of measures to re-adjust the EU beef market in the wake of the BSE crisis.
The Council invited the Commission to allocate a total sum of 500 million ECU to EU beef farmers whose incomes have fallen as a result of problems on the beef market. The United Kingdom's share of this sum, which is proportionate to our share of the total number of beef cattle in the EU, will be 13.1 per cent. This will provide some £50 million as further help to UK beef producers. The precise method of allocation of the funds will be decided in the light of further consideration in the Council and consultation with the UK farming unions on the preferred approach.
The Council agreement also made some important changes to the operation of the EU beef regime so as to bring production more closely into line with present and foreseeable demand. In particular the calf processing scheme, which has operated in the United Kingdom since April this year, is to be extended to include male calves of all breeds, not just dairy breeds as at present. This scheme, coupled with a scheme to pay an early marketing premium for calves sold as veal, is intended to reduce the number of calves going for beef production by some 1 million animals and hence limit the need for costly market management measures such as intervention purchasing. The Council also decided to cut the regional ceilings for payment of beef special premium in most member states in order more closely to align production with demand. However I successfully resisted any cut in the United Kingdom's regional ceiling in view of the fact that in the United Kingdom applications for this premium have regularly exceeded the ceilings fixed.
Amongst other features of the Council's agreement was a welcome boost for extensive beef production in the form of a new premium of 52 ecu per head for producers with a stocking density of less than one livestock unit per hectare. I estimate that this could be worth as much as £15 million to UK producers. The Council also agreed to a raising of the ceiling on intervention purchases in 1966 and 1997. Following pressure from the United Kingdom and other member states, the Council also committed itself to a more fundamental reform of the EU beef regime to be completed in the course of 1997.
As to the funding of this package of measures, there will be no immediate cut in arable area payments. However the Council made clear its intention to postpone payments of oilseed advances in 1997 in order to allow beef market-related costs to be met in the course of this budget year without breaching the agricultural guideline. Moreover, in respect of additional costs falling in 1998, the Council agreement stated explicitly that all necessary measures would be taken to ensure that expenditure on agriculture in that year remains within guideline. These assurances were important for the United Kingdom in view of the paramount need to observe budgetary discipline.
The Council also had a presentation by the Commission of a proposal to introduce an EU-wide system of cattle traceability, with a linked proposal on the labelling and
1 Nov 1996 : Column: 301
promotion of beef products. The United Kingdom attaches importance to reaching an early agreement on the cattle traceability proposal, and will work constructively to achieve that end. I also raised in the Council the need for rapid implementation of the Council directives on the protection of animals in transport, in particular requesting the Commission to bring forward urgently its proposals for Council decisions on staging points and livestock vehicle standards. I also pressed for the rapid discussion and implementation of the rules governing producer organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector in the wake of the reform of the regime earlier this year.
Dr. Strang:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many (a) abattoirs and (b) incinerators are designated for use for casualty animals under the 30-month scheme; [1455]
Mr. Douglas Hogg
[holding answer 31 October 1996:]: There are (a) 61 abattoirs (b) 200 markets and (c) 13 incineration plants designated as collection centres under the over 30-month scheme.
All the abattoirs and incineration plants, together with one additional incinerator, are also designated to take casualty animals under the scheme.
Dr. Strang:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from what date animal passports have been mandatory for all United Kingdom cattle. [1459]
Mr. Douglas Hogg
[holding answer 31 October 1996]: Passports have been mandatory for all cattle born or imported into Great Britain on or after 1 July 1996. Passports are not required in Northern Ireland because a movement permit system operates there.
1 Nov 1996 : Column: 302
Dr. Strang:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many feed mills have (a) had samples tested and (b) had samples that were found to be in breach of BSE controls in each month of 1996; [1458]
Mr. Douglas Hogg
[holding answer 31 October 1996]: The table sets out the results of the current programme of feed sampling visits, which began in February, up to September--the last full month for which data are available. The premises visited include feed mills, farms using on-farm feed mixers and any site where feed, or ingredients for feed, are produced or stored. Unfortunately we are not able to isolate data for feed mills.
ELISA--the laboratory test used--indicates the presence of mammalian protein in samples. The feeding of mammalian protein to non-ruminant animals, such as pigs and poultry, in forms other than meat and bone meal is still allowed. Samples which test positive or inconclusive for mammalian protein do not therefore necessarily indicate a breach of the legislation.
Every positive or inconclusive test result is investigated by the State Veterinary Service. Enforcement action is a matter for local authorities. The SVS liaises closely with the relevant enforcement authority whenever a possible contravention of the legislation comes to light. It would be for the relevant local authority to consider legal action where sufficient evidence of an offence is available.
Updates on the results of the feed sampling programme are published monthly in the "BSE Enforcement Bulletin", copies of which are placed in the House Library. The bulletin will also publish details of any prosecutions taken by local authorities and notified to us.
The figures shown are subject to adjustment as test results from the laboratory are updated.
(2) how many (a) markets, (b) abattoirs and (c) incinerators are designated as collection centres under the 30-month scheme. [1454]
(2) what was (a) the number of samples and (b) the number of unsatisfactory samples taken from feed mills and tested for breach of BSE controls in each month of 1996. [1457]
| Month 1996 | Total visits | Total samples taken | Test Results | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Inconclusive | ||||
| February | 206 | 426 | 4 | 422 | 0 | |
| March | 225 | 502 | 1 | 498 | 3 | |
| April | 333 | 687 | 4 | 682 | 1 | |
| May | 415 | 732 | 5 | 725 | 2 | |
| June | 338 | 673 | 8 | 664 | 1 | |
| July | 337 | 628 | 10 | 614 | 4 | |
| August | 341 | 644 | 2 | 640 | 2 | |
| September | 155 | 298 | 3 | 295 | 0 | |
| Total | 2,350 | 4,590 | 37 | 4,540 | 13 | |
Dr. Strang: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was (a) the number of visits and (b) the number of unsatisfactory visits to (i) slaughterhouses, (ii) hunt kennels and knackeries, (iii) rendering plants and (iv) incinerators made by the state veterinary service in each month since June 1996.[1456]
Mr. Douglas Hogg [holding answer 31 October 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to the hon. Member for
1 Nov 1996 : Column: 302
Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 24 July 1996 at column 625.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |