| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1924W—continued
Food Safety (Imports)
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from which countries known to be experiencing outbreaks of (a) foot and mouth disease, (b) avian influenza, (c) bovine spongiform encephalopathy and (d) bovine tuberculosis food may be imported; what safeguards are in place to protect UK consumers; and if she will make a statement. [219023]
Mr. Bradshaw:
Defra does not hold a list of countries that are recorded as having endemic diseases such as foot and mouth disease (FMD), highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and bovine tuberculosis (TB). The internationally recognised central source for official
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1925W
information on the distribution of animal diseases is the Office International des Epizooties (OIE). Also known as the World Organisation for Animal Health, the OIE is the world organisation responsible for the collection and dissemination of information on international animal health—it has a role analogous to the World Health Organisation (WHO).
Information on countries with FMD, HPAI, BSE and TB can be found on their website, at the following address:
http://www.oie.int/eng/en index.htm
Community rules establish lists of countries from which food of animal origin can be imported. These lists are complex and can vary depending on the type of product eg fresh meat, cooked meat and milk. In addition to this, most food of animal origin has to be accompanied by appropriate animal and public health certification and has to come from approved establishments.
Defra provides information on import requirements in the form of Trader Information Notes (TINs) which set out the conditions under which food products of animal origin should be imported. The TINs are available on our website:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/int-trde/misc/tins/index.htm
If there is an outbreak of disease in an exporting country, community legislation allows member states to take appropriate emergency safeguard action, which may include a ban on imports of animal products from all, or parts, of that country, pending emergency action at community level. Once community measures are put in place the safeguard measures will reflect them.
All meat and milk imported into the EU from third countries must enter at designated border inspection posts where they are subject to veterinary inspections. All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks. At least 20 per cent. of consignments of animal products undergo physical checks. These checks ensure import conditions are met.
Foodstuff Importation
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on the measures in place to control the importation of foodstuffs; [218462]
(2) what the budget is in 2004–05 for the inspection and monitoring of food imports; and if she will make a statement; [218463]
(3) what inspection facilities are in place at (a) ports and (b) airports to control the importation of foodstuffs; and if she will make a statement. [218464]
Alun Michael: The information is as follows:
£25 million of new money has been made available over three years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 to tackle illegal imports of products of animal origin (POAO) and plants and plant based goods (PBG) from third countries.
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1926W
HM Customs and Excise have enforcement responsibility at the frontier for illegal imports of products of animal origin (POAO) and plant based goods (PBG) from countries outside the European Union.
Customs have over 3,500 Detection staff who have anti-smuggling responsibilities for POAO and PBG. Within this Customs has dedicated around additional 100 officers specifically to POAO and PBG; 10 POAO detector dogs are also deployed.
All products of animal origin imported from third countries must enter at designated border inspection posts (BIPs) where they are subject to veterinary inspections to make sure they comply with EU import rules. BIPs are approved by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. There are currently BIPs at 11 ports and five airports in England that are approved to check imports of products of animal origin for human consumption. The inspection services at the BIP are the responsibility of the local authority. Officers from the State Veterinary Service regularly visit BIPs to offer advice and check on compliance with EU requirements. FVO inspectors inspect BIPs to ensure that they are operating correctly. EU law requires the local authority to recover the costs of the import checks from importers: details of budgets are not held centrally.
If there is an outbreak of disease likely to present a risk to human or animal health, Community legislation allows us to take appropriate safeguard action, which may include a ban on imports of meat from all, or parts, of that country.
Food imports from countries outside the European Union must meet food safety and food standards requirements equivalent to those for UK produced food, and can be subject to checks by local food authorities at UK ports and inland to ensure they comply.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for allocating local authority budgets, and funding for imported food controls would form part of the Revenue Support Grant arrangements. The Food Standards Agency has made further specific funding available through grants for local authority sampling and surveillance of imported food. In 2003–04, a total of £600 000 was allocated to 110 authorities and, in 2004–05, £840 000 to 140 authorities.
Under the Imported Food Regulations 1997, the person importing food not of animal origin shall provide all such facilities as may be reasonably required for the examination of the food. In practice, facilities are provided by the port operators and vary according to the type of port and the nature and size of the foods imported. We have been discussing with the European Commission the possibility of sharing BIP facilities with authorities checking non-animal food goods.
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1927W
Foot and Mouth
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conclusions were drawn from Operation Hornbeam regarding the role of local knowledge in combating future outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [219783]
Mr. Bradshaw: Exercise Hornbeam did not set out to test those aspects of disease control in which local knowledge would have been important. Its principle objectives were to validate and confirm the Government's foot and mouth disease contingency plan and to focus on the strategic and tactical decision-making process. However, local operational partners were engaged in the exercise in five Animal Health Divisional Offices in England, Scotland and Wales and their knowledge and expertise was important to its success.
The Government recognise the importance of a collaborative response to a disease outbreak and local operational partners will continue to be involved in future exercises testing animal disease contingency plans.
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the 10 largest amounts paid in the UK to valuers during the foot and mouth epidemic were; and to whom they were paid. [220609]
Mr. Bradshaw: The 10 largest amounts paid in the UK to organisations that undertook valuations during the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak were:
Footpaths
Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 24 February 2005, Official Report, column 773W, on footpaths, for how many footpaths the Secretary of State has issued a direction authorising continued closure in each of the last five years; for what reasons in each case; and when she expects each to be re-opened. [221202]
Alun Michael:
It will take some time to assemble this information from Government regional offices as files are having to be called back from depositories. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available. The reasons for authorising extended temporary closure fall into two categories: either to protect public safety or to allow for completion of works. It is not possible to say when each footpath under a temporary closure will be re-opened as this is a matter for the local highway authority. Government offices are required to take care
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1928W
to ensure that no temporary order (or subsequent extensions) will allow, in effect, the permanent closure of a public right of way.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |