---

Administration Costs

Mr. Boris Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of her Department's budget in 2001–02 is spent on administration costs; and if she will make a statement. [21677]

Mr. Morley: Administration costs currently make up 19 per cent. of the Department's expenditure limit for 2001–02.

Post-Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she will take to compensate farmers whose pigs have been infected by Post-Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome. [20780]

Mr. Morley: We have no plans to compensate farmers for loss of pigs infected by Post-Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (PWMS) or Porcine Dermatitis Nephropathy Syndrome (PDNS). The disease is not notifiable. I met representatives of the pig industry in October to discuss proposals for control measures and research. The Department is taking the following action:

Extensive collaboration and information exchange with other organisations both within the United Kingdom and with other countries;


Raising awareness about these diseases and providing technical assistance to private veterinary surgeons in diagnosing and investigating disease incidents;


Publication of results of three telephone surveys to assess the severity and extent of the diseases. A fourth survey is planned for later this year;


Publication of the results of a case control study to identify risk factors in the control of the diseases;


Research to identify and characterise agents involved. Wider international research collaboration is being pursued.

Illegal Meat Imports

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has taken to tighten security at (a) airports and (b) sea ports to ensure that illegal meat is not smuggled into the UK. [20778]

Mr. Morley: Checks on meat imported at airports and sea ports is the responsibility of the local authority in which the port or sea port is situated. DEFRA officials are co-ordinating a number of initiatives, involving interested Government Departments and local authority enforcement bodies, aimed at ensuring that rules for importing animal products are enforced effectively and efficiently. We have taken action to improve publicity to travellers about import rules, to improve the collection and analysis of information about illegal imports and to use that information to better target enforcement activity. We are keeping these measures under constant review and we are looking at a wide range of other options for improvements, including, for example, the use of sniffer dogs, X-ray machines, on-the-spot-fines and changes to administrative structures.

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has taken to create a properly funded single regulatory

11 Dec 2001 : Column: 851W

body to apply best international practice at UK sea and airports to protect humans and animals from smuggled contaminated meats. [20779]

Mr. Morley: None. No decision has been taken that a single regulatory body is the best way to enforce import controls.

Animal Health Bill

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ensure (a) that the Animal Health Bill will not impose a regulatory burden on the farming community and (b) that there will be a more rapid response to future outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [20825]

Mr. Morley: (a) The foot and mouth disease provisions of the Animal Health Bill will not impose any additional burden on those farm businesses which are meeting current requirements, as it does not introduce any new

11 Dec 2001 : Column: 852W

obligations. In fact quicker containment and eradication of the disease, for which the powers contained in the Bill would provide, would indirectly benefit all farmers, other sectors of the rural economy and the taxpayer in general.

Similarly, the scrapie provisions of the Bill would not directly impose additional regulatory burden or costs on the industry. However, if the relevant enabling powers were applied, there would be a minimal increase in the level of regulatory burden and cost associated with compliance. The Bill provides powers to compensate for losses suffered or costs incurred as a result of the exercise of these powers.

(b) If there were to be a resurgence or future outbreak of foot and mouth disease the measures in the Bill provide powers to contain the disease more effectively and eradicate it more quickly. The Bill will enable us to limit the spread of disease more effectively than has been possible to date, and thereby to protect the farming community in general from further damage.

---

---