Previous Section Index Home Page

23 Mar 2005 : Column 836W—continued

Short-term Plans

Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library his Department's short-term plans since financial year 1997–98. [213587]

Mr. Ingram: There is no single formal document that constitutes the Department's short-term plan. The output of the short-term planning round is a set of detailed planning assumptions and financial data which forms part of internal advice to senior management and Ministers on the overall affordability of the defence programme. It is not in a readily publishable form.

A summary of the outcome of the planning process is, however, set out in the Government's expenditure plans for the Ministry of Defence. A table of the Department's plans produced since 1997–98 is provided as follows.
CM
1997–98 to 1999–20003602
1998–993902
1999–2000 to 2001–024208
2000–01 to 2001–024608
2001–02 to 2003–045109
2002–03 to 2003–045412

Additionally, documents produced since 1999–2000 are available at http://www.mod.uk/publications/mod_reports.htm.
 
23 Mar 2005 : Column 837W
 

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Animal By-Products Regulation

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she has issued to officials on carrying out risk assessments before applying the Animal By-Products Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 to Intermediary Plants. [221870]

Mr. Bradshaw: There is extensive guidance available to State Veterinary Service (SVS) officials on the inspection and approval of Intermediate Plants. This guidance was produced in consultation with experienced Veterinary Officers from the SVS. In addition, officials have access to the same guidance we have produced for Intermediate Plant operators, and guidance on the loading and unloading of animal by-products. However, while there is a need to assess any risks to public or animal health, the main purpose of the inspections is to ensure that the Intermediate Plant complies with the requirements of the Animal By-Products Regulation. The instructions to vets therefore focus the legal requirements in order to ensure that the regulation is applied consistently across the country.

Avian Influenza

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice her Department is giving to poultry farmers on Avian Influenza. [221693]

Mr. Bradshaw: The Department undertook a publicity campaign about the potential threat from Avian Influenza to the poultry industry in October 2003 explaining the possible threat and highlighting the clinical signs that owners should look out for. This advice is on the Defra website together with advice on biosecurity and human health and safety issues.

Officials are meeting with sections of the industry this month and will ensure that they are kept up to date on relevant aspects of avian flu.

Farm Animal Welfare Council

Dr. Vis: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council report, with particular reference to the report's recommendations on Schechita. [223018]

Mr. Bradshaw: The Government issued their final response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing on the 8 March 2005. In the response, the Government accepts 53 of the 94 recommendations made by FAWC, partially accepts 25, and rejects 16: the recommendations accepted by Government will lead to significant improvements in animal welfare.

The Government did not accept FAWC's recommendation that slaughter without prior stunning should be banned, as we respect the rights of communities in Britain to slaughter animals in accordance with the requirements of their religion.
 
23 Mar 2005 : Column 838W
 

Dr. Vis: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with Schechita UK following publication of her Department's response to recommendations by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. [223019]

Mr. Bradshaw: The Government published their final response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing on the 8 March 2005. Defra has not had any discussions with Shechita UK following publication.

Foot and Mouth

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many premises during the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak culling took place of (a) cattle, (b) sheep, (c) pigs and (d) other animals under the (i) infected premises, (ii) dangerous contact, (iii) slaughter on suspicion and (iv) contiguous cull schemes then operating, broken down by (A) county and (B) region; how many samples were taken; and how many positive tests were found at each premises. [220084]

Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 4 March 2005]: The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many instances of (a) inaccurate valuations, (b) deliberate spreading of infection and (c) claims for work not undertaken in all completed prosecutions instituted against individuals and companies for fraudulent claims arising from the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic. [221407]

Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 14 March 2005]: The information requested is as follows.

Inaccurate valuations:

It is not clear what is meant by 'inaccurate valuations'. We did carry out a full reconciliation of all compensation payments following the outbreak. Any amendments or recalculations were done and additional payments made or overpayments recovered as appropriate. We do not have a record of each claim that was affected in this way.

The value of an animal is a subjective decision made by professionally qualified valuers, who have sight of the animal and a full knowledge of the herd/flock history as well as experience of the livestock industry. Once the valuation is agreed by the valuer, the farmer and the supervising Ministry official we are legally obliged to pay the agreed amount. There have been observations made that our control over the valuation process was poor and that this contributed to higher than necessary compensation payments. We have accepted this and improved our approach to valuations for a future outbreak.

Deliberate spreading of infection:

No formal assessment of whether farmers or anyone else deliberately sought to introduce foot and mouth disease (FMD) in order to claim compensation took place. There were many media reports at the time of allegations that such mischief was taking place. Three
 
23 Mar 2005 : Column 839W
 
files where allegations were investigated in 2001 have been traced and the allegation and outcomes are summarised as follows:

Completed prosecutions for fraud arising out of fraudulent claims for compensation:

Six people were prosecuted by Defra for fraud offences in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in 2001:


Next Section Index Home Page