| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
31 Mar 2004 : Column 1460W—continued
Sites of Special Scientific Interest
Joan Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants have been made from Lottery funding to local authorities for sites of special scientific interest. [164973]
Estelle Morris: The Heritage Lottery Fund has awarded 26 grants to 24 projects totalling £11,238,600 to local authorities for projects that include Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
The table contains the specific local authority, the name of the actual project and the award in each case.
31 Mar 2004 : Column 1461W
Sporting Opportunities (Children)
Mrs. Calton: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 8 March 2004, Official Report, column 1292W, (1) what assessment has been made of the activities of pupils who do not take part in, or are not offered, two hours of high quality physical education per week in Phase 1 Partnership schools; [164467]
- (2) what steps have been taken to assess the two hour high quality physical education per week participation rates of young people in Phase 1 Partnership schools. [164469]
Mr. Caborn: Data collected from Phase 1 School Sport Partnership schools indicate that 61 per cent. of pupils are spending at least two hours per week on high-quality PE and sport, within and beyond the curriculum.
The results from the survey of all School Sport Partnerships will be published in April. All Partnerships will receive a report, allowing them to compare their performance with the national average and to address gaps in their provision at a local level.
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 22 and 23 March; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [163938]
Mr. Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I represented the UK at a meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 22–23 March. Ministers with agriculture and fisheries responsibilities for Scotland and Northern Ireland were also present.
The Council marked with a period of silence its respect for the victims of the Madrid bombs.
The main item of business was a discussion on the Commission's proposals for a regulation to reduce the level of small cetacean bycatch. Many member states
31 Mar 2004 : Column 1462W
were concerned about the resource implications of the proposal, both for the fishing industry and government. In discussion we dropped our request for exemptions from mandatory use of acoustic deterrent devices ("pingers") in the 0–6 nautical mile zone and in ICES Area VIId. We argued against exemptions for under 12 metre vessels to have to use "pingers" on fishing nets and for those under 15 metres to be exempt from observer requirements. We thought only smaller vessels should be exempted but most other Member States supported the proposal. We were pleased that the Regulation offers flexibility for those member states which already have robust bycatch data to design appropriate monitoring schemes alongside provisions for mandatory monitoring schemes for those that do not. A requirement has been included in the Regulation for pilot projects to monitor the effects of "pinger" usage and to observe bycatch on under 15 metre vessels. These pilot schemes have to be designed to deliver good quality scientific data which will be used to review the Regulation after two years' experience. The Regulation also provides for the progressive phasing out of drift nets in the Baltic, which will culminate in a total ban on 1 January 2008. Taken as a whole the package is an important advance in the protection of small cetaceans.
A regulation was also adopted to protect permanently an area of cold water coral reefs off the north west of Scotland (known as the Darwin Mounds) from the impact of damaging fishing activities.
The only agriculture business was further discussion of the Commission's proposals for reform of the olive oil, cotton, tobacco and hops regimes, together with some technical amendment of existing regulations to accommodate the new Member States joining the EU in May this year. The Presidency acknowledged that several delegations were not in a position to conclude negotiations at this Council and announced an additional Council on 19–20 April in Luxembourg to deal specifically with this package. Discussion concentrated on cotton, olive oil and tobacco and largely re-confirmed existing positions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs stressed the case for the Commission's proposal of 100 per cent. decoupling in the tobacco sector and joined those arguing for a higher level of decoupling than that proposed for cotton.
31 Mar 2004 : Column 1463W
Under other business, Commissioner Byrne reported on a recent visit to the USA, Commissioner Fischler reported on progress in EU/Mercosur trade talks and Austria raised a point on harmonisation of approval procedures for pesticides.
Animal Welfare
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what procedures she uses to balance her responsibilities for protecting human health with those for protecting and promoting animal welfare. [158816]
Mr. Bradshaw: Since the Department's creation in June 2001, we have placed sustainability at the heart of our actions to protect and ensure a better quality of life for both humans and livestock. Our policies for food, health, the environment and animals can only prosper and endure if they are fully integrated so that they don't undermine each other. The elements of protecting human health and protecting and promoting animal welfare are complementary. By improving animal welfare, the risk of disease in animals, including diseases transmissible to humans, is reduced.
An outline Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain was published in July 2003. It aims to improve the health and welfare of kept animals, and protect public health from animal disease. It sets out the principles that will help inform Government decisions, which include the need to be guided by the precautionary principle.
Policy on the control of zoonoses is a collaborative process involving Defra, DoH, and, in the case of foodborne zoonoses, the FSA. Arrangements currently in place support the level of collaboration necessary to ensure the protection of human health, animal health and animal welfare.
Badgers/Bovine TB
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how wildlife surveyors distinguish between primary and secondary badger setts; and what effect a preponderance of unrecognised secondary setts has on the estimation of badger populations; [158374]
- (2) how wildlife surveyors distinguish between primary and secondary badger setts; and what effect a preponderance of unrecognised secondary setts has on the estimation of badger populations. [158498]
Mr. Bradshaw: Ecologists have tried to classify setts according to size and function. The normal convention in ecological badger surveys is to recognise four categories of setts: main, subsidiary, annex and outlier, although there are other methods of surveying. Defra Wildlife Unit staff distinguish main setts on the basis of a number of factors including the number of holes, activity, latrine location, topography and relationship to other larger setts; secondary or 'other' setts are those not fitting the description of main setts.
Population estimates may be based on the number of main setts, with an estimated average number of badgers for a social group being applied per main sett.
31 Mar 2004 : Column 1464W
This approach relies upon accurate identification of main setts, and would not be affected by any other type of sett being missed; however if a main sett were mis-classified e.g. as a subsidiary sett, it would affect the population estimate.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conclusions her Department has reached on whether the proportion of diseased badgers in road traffic accidents is representative of the incidence of the disease in the badger population as a whole. [158806]
Mr. Bradshaw: The road traffic accident (RTA) survey has been designed to establish whether the incidence of bovine TB in badgers collected from road verges and other locations is representative of the prevalence of the disease in the badger population in that area. A first analysis, using the information from carcases collected so far, is expected to be completed in April.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether the proposed levy to fund compensation payments in respect of slaughtered TB reactors will be imposed on (a) a per head and (b) a per farm basis; and whether it will apply to (i) dairy producers and (ii) beef producers; [158368]
- (2) whether the proposed levy to fund compensation payments in respect of slaughtered TB reactors will be imposed on a (a) per head and (b) per farm basis; and whether it will apply to (i) dairy producers and (ii) beef producers. [158571]
Mr. Bradshaw: The levy which we have in mind would be raised on a per head basis, on all the animals susceptible to any disease covered by the levy fund. Different rates of levy would be set for different categories of animals, in line with the categories which are set for the compensation regime.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what responsibility her Department has for mitigating losses incurred by farmers arising from disease reservoirs over which they have no control; [158413]
- (2) whether it is her policy to compensate farmers for all losses incurred due to diseases whose main reservoir is in wildlife. [158757]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Government will pay compensation to farmers and other keepers, when livestock is slaughtered for the purpose of disease control under Section 31 or Section 32 of the Animal Health Act 1981. No compensation is payable for consequential losses. Farmers, like other businesses, need to take into account any risks to their business, including the risk of disease posed by wildlife.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the predicted doubling of the incidence of TB in cattle qualifies technically for the description epidemic. [158801]
31 Mar 2004 : Column 1465W
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. The occurrence of TB is at a level in excess of what might be expected, given the previous low incidence established during the 1970s and 1980s.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there are plans to train lay personnel to carry out live TB testing in cattle. [158803]
Mr. Bradshaw: Last year the Government consulted on a proposal to permit fully trained and competent lay personnel to carry out TB testing of cattle. We are currently considering the way forward following the analysis of the responses to the consultation.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether budget allocation has been made for the purpose of gaining public acceptance of large-scale badger culling. [158804]
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is her objective that bovine TB should be eradicated using current control methods. [158807]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Government recognise that eradication of bovine TB is unlikely to be achieved in the next 10 years using current control methods. The public consultation on a revised TB strategy for Great Britain is looking at what might be achieved in this time scale. A desirable outcome would be to achieve Officially Tuberculosis Free status, as defined in EU Directive 64/432/EEC. Our priority in the shorter term must be to prevent the spread of the disease from areas of GB where incidence is high to areas where it is low.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the clean ring strategy adopted from 1982 to 1985 led to a reduction in the incidence of TB in (a) badgers and (b) cattle; and what the incidence of bovine TB was outside the clean ring target areas during that period. [158808]
Mr. Bradshaw: The information requested is as follows:
(a) Badgers recolonising areas cleared under the clean ring strategy had similar levels of TB infection to the badgers removed; there was a reduction in the rate of cattle TB breakdowns. The Krebs Report considered this and said 'whilst removal operations may have had an effect on the prevalence of TB in badgers and on herd breakdowns, other factors may also have influenced these. In the absence of scientific controls, it is not possible to separate out the effects of badger removal from these confounding factors'.
(b) There is no known specific assessment of the incidence of bovine TB outside the clean ring target areas during the period 1982 to 1985. The table illustrates the level across Great Britain.
31 Mar 2004 : Column 1466W
| Reactors slaughtered | Herds with reactors | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Herds tested | Number | As a percentage of cattle in herds tested | Number | As a percentage of herds tested | |
| 1982 | 48,343 | 569 | 0.016 | 308 | 0.637 |
| 1983 | 44,830 | 621 | 0.019 | 322 | 0.718 |
| 1984 | 45,285 | 660 | 0.019 | 350 | 0.773 |
| 1985 | 43,826 | 699 | 0.021 | 341 | 0.778 |
Source:
Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer 1984 and 1985.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her best estimate is of the total costs of bovine TB for each of the years from 2004–05 to 2012–13, based on the assumptions used for the graph on page 23 of her consultation document, "Preparing for a new GB strategy on Bovine Tuberculosis", but in the absence of a significant wildlife reservoir. [158810]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is not possible to estimate this figure. To do so would require knowledge of the quantitative contribution of wildlife to the causation of TB in cattle, a fact not currently known.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the current objective of badger TB vaccine research is to (a) achieve a high level of immunity in the badger population and (b) reduce bacterial shedding by badgers which have succumbed to the disease. [158811]
Mr. Bradshaw: A vaccine targeted at badgers would not be required to protect individual badgers against TB, but would need to reduce the transmission to cattle. Thus a vaccine that reduces the severity of the disease and/or reduces shedding of the bacteria from infected badgers by inducing protective immunity could have the desired effect. This is the current objective of badger TB vaccine research.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department will bear the market authorisation costs for a new animal TB vaccine; and whether she will be seeking a commercial partner to bring the vaccine into use. [158812]
Mr. Bradshaw: There are no plans to develop a generic animal vaccine at present. However Defra is funding research into the development of specific badger and cattle vaccines and associated diagnostic tests.
In particular, Defra is organising a workshop aimed at progressing badger vaccine development from the current research to delivery of a licensed product (BCG based vaccine) to badgers in the field. This will ensure Industry is engaged early enough for manufacturing, licensing and marketing issues to be understood and taken on board. The workshop should clarify timescales, costs and the roles for various partners, and possible models for engagement between Government, Industry and beneficiaries in the development of a badger vaccine.
31 Mar 2004 : Column 1467W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 10 December 2003, Official Report, column 522W, on badgers, whether the gassing of badgers is deemed by her Department to be inhumane when preceded by the administration of an efficient anaesthetic gas. [158813]
Mr. Bradshaw: The gassing of badgers in their setts is not regarded as an acceptable method of killing them because of the difficulty of ensuring the correct concentration of gas throughout the sett, using the methods of delivery and gas combinations that are currently available; this applies whether the gas is intended to bring about anaesthesia or death.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the benefits of unrestricted, natural growth in the badger population. [158814]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department has not made any such assessment.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 22 January 2004, Official Report, column 1365W, on badgers, what lessons have been learned from the four badger clearance areas to which she refers. [158815]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Krebs Report considered this and said
- "a reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle in areas after badger clearances would be compelling evidence that the badgers had been responsible for TB in the cattle if alternative explanations could be eliminated".
The Government accepted the Report's recommendation that a field trial be established to investigate this issue further, and set up the Randomised Badger Culling Trial in 1998.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many applications for section 10 licences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 permitting the killing of badgers for the express purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property have been (a) made and (b) approved in respect of listed buildings or other listed sites in each year that the Act has been in force; [159116]
- (2) how many applications for section 10 licences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 permitting the killing of badgers have been (a) made by (i) farmers and (ii) other private landowners and (b) issued for the express purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property in each year that the Act has been in force. [159117]
Mr. Bradshaw: When members of the public approach my Department with a badger problem, most come seeking our advice on how they can resolve their problem. Only a small number have a clear idea of what action they want to take. Because of this it is not possible to distinguish between applications on the basis of whether the applicant wanted to kill the badgers, relocate them or simply close a problem sett. Thus, we cannot provide figures for part (a) of these questions.
31 Mar 2004 : Column 1468W
With regard to the number of licences issued to kill badgers for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property in respect of listed buildings or other listed sites; our computerised system does not specifically record whether a building or other site is listed. Therefore we are unable to provide figures for this. We are however unaware or any such licences issued between 2001 and 2003.
The number of licences issued permitting the killing of badgers for the express purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property in each year that the Act has been in force and for which there are computer records available, are as follows:
- 2001: 0
- 2002: 1
- 2003: 0
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which clauses of the Berne Convention relate to the mass culling of badgers for the purpose of disease control. [159127]
Mr. Bradshaw: No Article of the Bern Convention does so in such precise terms. Article 9, however, provides for 'exceptions', including for the purposes of being in the interest of public health and safety, the prevention of serious damage to livestock and research.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 6 February 2004, Official Report, column 1109W, what the period is between the administration of each test to which badgers are subject before release; and what the statistical probability is of detecting an infected badger by the application of three tests. [159143]
Mr. Bradshaw: The minimum interval between indirect (Brock) ELISA tests should be 4 weeks.
An animal which has had three negative test results has a 2.7 per cent. risk of being infected if it comes from a population with a background prevalence of infection of 10 per cent.—We cannot be definitive when the background prevalence is subject to fluctuation.
Progress is being made in improving assays to detect antibodies against M. bovis infection in badgers.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answers of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 218W, and 29 January 2004, Official Report, column 482W, on bovine TB, in how many cases when traps were damaged it was judged that the traps had been recently occupied by badgers. [159145]
Mr. Bradshaw: No judgment was made or records kept as to whether traps damaged by anti-trial protesters contained trapped badgers at the time they were damaged.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answers of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 218W and 29 January, Official Report, column 482W, on badgers, in how many instances her
31 Mar 2004 : Column 1469W
departmental officials reported the loss or damage of badger traps to the police; and what investigations were made as a result. [159155]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badger culling operations are planned in close liaison with the respective police authorities. Varying reporting arrangements for trap damage are agreed with the different police forces who investigate and record such crime according to their assessment of the local situation.
Defra does not receive information on the outcome of police investigations.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 215W, on badgers, what aspects affecting the routes of transmission of M. bovis (a) from cattle to cattle, and (b) between badgers and cattle, remain to be fully understood. [159214]
Mr. Bradshaw: In relation to cattle to cattle transmission the rate at which cattle excrete M. bovis varies, and the effect of age, breed, productive and health status of the animal and time since infection are not fully understood. If transmission is by the respiratory route the relative importance of proximity, ventilation and dust remains to be determined. It may be that cow to calf transmission by milk ingestion is possible: if so, how often this occurs is not known.
It has not yet been established whether cattle to badger transmission occurs and, if it does, how often in comparison with re-activation of latent infection in badger populations.
In relation to badger to cattle transmission variation in the rate at which badgers excrete M. bovis, and the effect of age, breed and health status of the animal and time since infection is not understood. Additionally the relative importance of contamination of pasture, feed stores and silos, feed troughs, water troughs and streams and how and why the risk is discontinuous in space and time, so that some farms can escape disease for many years while neighbours are apparently infected several times a year is yet to be established.
Defra has a number of research projects in place to investigate more fully the factors associated with M. bovis transmission between animals.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 215W, on badgers, whether her objective of containing the geographical spread of TB in cattle also encompassed a reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle in those geographical areas where it has already been detected. [159215]
Mr. Bradshaw: The objective of surveillance and control activity is to reduce the incidence of TB wherever it is found.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 213W, on badgers, whether the number of field
31 Mar 2004 : Column 1470W
officers employed are sufficient to maintain trapping frequency in proactive areas, in accordance with the protocols set out for the Krebs trials. [159216]
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 16 December 2003, Official Report, column 821W, what assessment she has made of whether badger culling programme designs and execution need to be improved in order to reduce perturbation. [159281]
Mr. Bradshaw: The amount of perturbation is a factor of the degree of culling, and the number of badgers surviving it. The more or, conversely, the less effective a badger culling programme is, the less the perturbation effect may be. To make the sort of assessment the hon. Member suggests would require a study designed to quantify accurately the effects on the levels of perturbation that different culling programmes would have. Given the number of replicates that would be required, at varying levels of culling efficiency and badger density, this would be difficult to achieve.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |