| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12 Nov 2003 : Column 284W—continued
Work-related Stress
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his Department in each of the last three years; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work-related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress, and at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [136850]
Mr. McNulty: The Department for Transport was established following machinery of Government changes in May 2002. For the period 2002–03 there have been 16 cases of alleged work-related stress in the Department for Transport (excluding its Agencies). There have been no compensation claims for work-related stress. The Department does not have details of the days lost and associated cost for work-related absence.
12 Nov 2003 : Column 285W
The Department has a Stress at Work Policy in place, which is supported by practical guidance issued to staff on dealing with the issue. In addition, the Department has access to a counselling and support facility. The Department is committed to meeting the targets for reducing the number of days lost due to work related injuries and ill health arising from the Government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative.
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
Agriculture Sector (Losses)
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the annual economic loss sustained by the agricultural sector from infestation by (a) rabbits, (b) voles, (c) rats and (d) mice. [137253]
Mr. Bradshaw: In the 1980s the Department estimated the total cost of rabbit damage to agricultural crops in Britain to be approximately £100 million per annum. The Central Science Laboratory has derived a current estimate, based on extrapolation from the 1980s, of approximately £115 million per annum with the total cost of rabbit control activity being approximately £5 million per annum.
There are no figures available for economic losses to the agricultural sector caused by voles, rats or mice, as Defra does not collate these data.
Antibiotics
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the use of antibiotics in imported meats. [137288]
Mr. Bradshaw: Residues of antibiotics, other veterinary medicines and banned substances in meats imported from third countries are controlled at two levels. First, the European Commission requires all third countries wishing to export food products to the EU to submit annual residue monitoring plans. These must demonstrate that the third country understands that exports to Member States should not contain substances banned in the EU, or authorised veterinary medicines in excess of the EC Maximum Residue Limit. These arrangements replicate the obligations placed on Member States to ensure that any residues of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs produced in the EU are at a level safe for consumers. The European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office also carries out missions to third countries to inspect and audit the arrangements they have in place to meet this requirement. Secondly, imports into the UK are randomly sampled at Border Inspection Posts and, to a lesser extent, at retail outlets. These samples are tested for a range of residues, including antibiotics. Any positives are considered for their consumer safety implications by toxicologists and the importing country's authorities are asked to investigate. Results of all the tests are reported on the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's website and in their quarterly newsletter.
12 Nov 2003 : Column 286W
Beef Exports
Mr. Flook: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the British Government are taking to ensure that the French Government pay their fine for breaching the rules allowing British beef to be exported to France. [136898]
Mr. Bradshaw: The European Commission withdrew its case in the European Court of Justice seeking a daily fine on France after France lifted its ban. Therefore, no fines were payable, but the Commission asked the Court to order that costs of the case be borne by France. The UK Government regretted the decision by the European Commission not to pursue the case for penalties against France. The UK supported the Commission throughout and believed that pressing this case would have sent a firm message to member states that no one country can avoid its obligations and responsibilities.
Bovine Tuberculosis
Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what factors determine compensation payment levels for bovine TB factors in (a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [136408]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Brucellosis and Tuberculosis (England and Wales) Compensation Order 1978 (as amended) specifies that the level of compensation payable for animals slaughtered for tuberculosis in England and Wales shall be their market value. Analogous legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland similarly provide for compensation to be made at the market value.
The legislation covering compensation in respect of bovine tuberculosis is the Tuberculosis Control Order (Northern Ireland) 1999. Article 11(1) of the legislation states that where the Department slaughters or causes an animal to be slaughtered under Article 10(1), the compensation payable by the Department for the animal shall be the market value of the animal.
Correspondence
Clare Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 29 September from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, on behalf of Ms Archer, a constituent, regarding the welfare of racing greyhounds. [136591]
Mr. Bradshaw: I responded to my right hon. Friend on 5 November 2003.
Cruelty to Animals
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under what legislation people who are cruel to animals may be prosecuted; and if she will make a statement. [134594]
Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 27 October 2003]: A person can be prosecuted for cruelty to animals under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (in England and Wales, 1912 Act in Scotland) in relation to acts of cruelty against captive and domestic animals; the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 in relation to acts of
12 Nov 2003 : Column 287W
cruelty against wild mammals; the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) in relation to acts of cruelty against other wild animals; and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 in relation to acts of cruelty against badgers.
My Department is currently reviewing the legislation relating to the welfare of captive animals with the intention of updating and consolidating it into one statute—the Animal Welfare Act. Offences of cruelty and the associated penalties are included as part of the review.
Dairy Farming
Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many dairy cows there were in each of the past five years; and what the average size of dairy herds was in each year. [135746]
Mr. Bradshaw: Data for dairy cows are collected annually from the June agricultural and horticultural census as a total.
For the last five years the figures are:
| Dairy cows | Average dairy herd size | |
|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 1,642,636 | 83.9 |
| 1999 | 1,659,210 | 88.5 |
| 2000 | 1,575,320 | 89.8 |
| 2001 | 1,490,224 | 91.6 |
| 2002 | 1,462,155 | 87.9 |
Notes:
1. Dairy herd—holdings with dairy cows producing milk.
2. Dairy cows—all cows and heifers that have calved.
3. 1998 and 1999 figures refer to main holdings only. 2000 onwards—main and minor holdings.
Source:
June agricultural census—England.
Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on dairy farmers of the (a) contractual and (b) price setting behaviour of the largest five UK supermarket chains. [135774]
Mr. Bradshaw: We have made no specific assessment of the impact on dairy farmers of the contractual and price setting behaviour of the largest five UK supermarket chains. However, a detailed investigation into the supply of groceries from supermarkets was carried out by the Competition Commission in 1999–2000. The Commission concluded that, taking all matters into consideration, the industry was broadly competitive. It did, however, identify three situations where competition was distorted and operates against the public interest. These concerned the relationship between supermarkets and their suppliers and certain pricing practices. The Commission's report, which was published in October 2000, can be found at http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/inquiries/completed/2000/index.htm
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the likely effect of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy on future prices per litre of milk. [134379]
12 Nov 2003 : Column 288W
Mr. Bradshaw: When fully implemented, the reforms agreed in June in Luxembourg will reduce the support price for butter by 10 per cent. more than the 15 per cent. reduction originally agreed for both butter and skimmed milk powder under Agenda 2000 (ie a 25 per cent. cut in the support price for butter). If farmgate prices were to fall to the same extent, the price per litre might be reduced by a further 0.95p beyond the impact of Agenda 2000. However, we share the European Commission's assessment that farmgate prices are unlikely to settle at this level: indeed, the overall package of compensation agreed reflects this. (Producers will be compensated through an increase in the level of direct payments of a further 0.74ppl over and above the compensation originally agreed in Agenda 2000.) The figures quoted above are based on an exchange rate of 70p/euro.
Our economic assessment indicates that decoupling of direct payments from production will have a beneficial effect on farm incomes; we would expect the main dairy-specific price impact to be in relation to the value of milk quota.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |