---

Livestock Movements

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she plans to take to enable livestock to reach their winter accommodation before winter weather sets in. [10181]

Mr. Morley: The Department introduced livestock movement arrangements for the autumn on 17 September, in consultation with a wide range of interested parties. The scheme rules have been kept under constant review in light of the changing disease situation across the country and are designed to allow the maximum movement compatible with eradicating foot and mouth disease. Detailed information on the autumn movements arrangements have been placed on the DEFRA website http://www.defra.gov.uk/. A movement licence helpline is also available on 01392 314941 and is open from 8:30–17:30 on weekdays and 9:00–13.00 on Saturdays.

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received relating to her Department's advice to farmers on the licensing provisions for livestock movements. [10177]

Mr. Morley: The Department has received a range of representations concerning the operation of the autumn livestock movement arrangements. Advice on licensing arrangements has been made available to farmers through leaflets, the DEFRA website and the movement licence helpline. My noble Friend Lord Whitty sent a detailed letter to all livestock farmers in England and Wales about the arrangements on 11 September. We have consulted regularly with stakeholders ever since the licensing

12 Nov 2001 : Column: 596W

scheme was introduced and we are always ready to consider suggestions for improving the way in which we disseminate information to farmers.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of animals over 30 months old which have not been transported owing to movement restrictions; and if she will make a statement. [12352]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 5 November 2001]: This information is not currently available. However, I have asked the British Cattle Movement Service to consider whether they can provide statistical information on the movement of over 30 month cattle, registered on the Cattle Tracing System. I will write to the hon. Member with more information as soon as possible.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what investigations she has carried out into her Department's animal health division with respect to the delay in the granting of movement licences; and if she will make a statement. [12349]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The Autumn Movement Arrangements were introduced in three phases between 17 September and 1 October. The licensing system is dependent upon a database, which gave rise to a number of difficulties. My officials worked, and continue to work, very closely with local authorities and the livestock industry to resolve these difficulties, and I am satisfied that the arrangements are now operating satisfactorily.

The permitted range of movements under the Autumn Movement Arrangements is kept under review in the light of the developing disease situation.

Animal Health Act

Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she plans to propose amendments to the Animal Health Act 1981 to give the Government powers to seize and destroy any animal; what right of appeal will be proposed; and what assessment she has made of compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998. [13846]

Mr. Morley: The Animal Health Bill currently before Parliament does not give Ministers power to seize and destroy any animal. It provides for the Minister to cause animals to be slaughtered with a view to preventing the spread of foot and mouth disease (FMD). The term "animal" is defined in the 1981 Act and the Foot and Mouth Disease Order and the definition of animals for these purposes is restricted to FMD-susceptible animals.

In addition, the Bill contains provisions to extend such powers to other diseases, by Affirmative Resolution Order.

The two avenues of appeal against slaughter that are currently available remain unaffected. These are the ability to ask the local Divisional Veterinary Manager to review the case and to seek judicial review.

Under the scrapie provisions, the Bill provides for Ministers to issue restriction notices requiring that genetically susceptible sheep should be either castrated

12 Nov 2001 : Column: 597W

(or sterilised) or slaughtered by their keepers/owners, and for Ministers to enforce these provision in the event of non-compliance. Appeals against a restriction notice could be made to an independent assessor.

In my view these provisions, and all others in the Bill, are compatible with the convention rights for the purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Farm Study (Shropshire)

Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if a decision has been made to grant a cash contribution to Shropshire county council's Farm Study for Shropshire. [12611]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 6 November 2001]: DEFRA has made a financial contribution to the Shropshire Farm Study via English Nature and the Countryside Agency. Our regional Rural Development Service staff based on Worcester have also provided technical assistance.

Live Animal Exports

Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that once the foot and mouth disease export restrictions have been lifted UK animals exported under licence to France and the Netherlands are not then re-exported to southern European countries. [13547]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 9 November 2001]: Animals are not exported under licence although there is EU legislation covering the animal health requirements that must be met before animals move within the Community and the veterinary checks that must take place. EU rules governing animal welfare during intra-community trade in cattle, sheep and pigs lay down specific requirements which must be met during any journey. We enforce these rules rigorously within our jurisdiction. When a journey starts in another member state it is the responsibility of the authorities in that member state to ensure compliance with animal health and animal welfare requirements.

Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make representations to other EU countries to end the payment of export refunds on the export of live cattle from the EU to the middle east and North Africa. [13550]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 9 November 2001]: Export refunds on live cattle exports to Third Countries are a component of the EU's market management measures for the beef sector. No refunds are paid in respect of trade from the UK because of the BSE-related export ban. Nevertheless, a number of member states, the UK included, wish to address the continuing animal welfare problems with this trade.

We have always maintained the UK's preference for a trade in meat rather than live animals. This view was reflected in the Council Resolution on the protection of animals during transport adopted at the June Council. The Resolution not only invited the Commission to produce recommendations to improve implementation and control of current EU animal welfare legislation, but also to report

12 Nov 2001 : Column: 598W

on options for reducing long distance transport of animals for slaughter. We hope the Commission produce their proposals and report soon.

EU Agrimonetary Compensation

Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government will claim the available EU agrimonetary compensation for arable farmers before 31 October. [9712]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 23 October 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on 31 October 2001, Official Report, column 738W.

Dioxins

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many maximum tolerable daily doses of dioxin, as defined by the WHO, 1.1g represents. [13439]

Mr. Meacher: In June 2001, the Joint Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health Organisation (WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) proposed a provisional tolerable monthly intake of 70 picograms (pg) WHO toxicity equivalents (WHO-TEQ) per kilogram (kg) bodyweight for "dioxins" (that is polychlorinated dibenzo-p-doxins, polyclorinated dibenzofurans, and dioxin-like polychlorinated bephenyls). For an adult weighing 70 kilograms, this corresponds to a tolerable daily intake of approximately 160 pg. 1.1 g is 6,875 million times 160 pg.

The 1.1 g figure which I quoted in my earlier response (23 October 2001) represents the emissions of dioxins and furans from municipal solid waste incinerators during 2000. This figure does not refer to human intake so it is not appropriate to make such a comparison with the TDI.

The most recent (1997) estimate of average daily intakes for adults in the UK is 1.8 pg WHO-TEQ per kilogram bodyweight, which (for an adult weighing 70 kg) corresponds to an average daily intake of approximately 130 pg.

The Government believe there is a strong case for reducing emissions to the environment further, and my Department will shortly be consulting on measures to achieve this.

---