| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Oct 2006 : Column 758W—continued
Cattle (Rare Breeds)
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact on farmers of rare breed cattle of EU regulations on the sale of meat from animals over 24 months; what recent discussions he has had with farmers of rare breeds on the impact of the regulations; and if he will make a statement. [91376]
Mr. Bradshaw: European Union (EU) legislation requires the removal of vertical column from cattle aged over 24 months at slaughter, as specified risk material (SRM). The harmonisation of the UK’s SRM controls with those across the EU, was a direct consequence of the EU’s lifting of the ban on the export of beef and live cattle from the UK. The lifting of the export ban, in May 2006, was very welcome news for the beef industry.
To address industry concerns about the SRM changes, the Food Standards Agency Board agreed to apply a derogation to allow the removal of vertical column from cattle aged between 24 and 30 months at slaughter, in authorised butcher’s shops.
The application of the 24-month age limit for bovine vertebral column as SRM, was the subject of a joint DEFRA and Food Standards Agency public consultation, launched on 12 October 2005, entitled: “Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: Consultation on lifting the export ban and harmonising specified risk material controls applicable in the UK with those in other member states”. The consultation, which included a partial regulatory impact assessment, is available on the DEFRA website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/bse-exports/index.htm This includes responses to the consultation on the lifting of the export ban. Responses to the consultation on the harmonising of specified risk material controls are available on the Food Standards Agency website at:
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/srmharmoniseresponse.pdf
The Rare Breeds Survival Trust responded to the consultation, along with others with an interest in rare breeds.
Correspondence
Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 2 August from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. K Starkie. [91773]
Barry Gardiner: A response was sent to my right hon. Friend on 12 September. I apologise the delay in responding and will arrange for a copy of the letter to be re-sent.
Departmental Staff
Susan Kramer:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many
disabled people were hired by his Department in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what percentage of the overall work force these figures represented in each year; and how many disabled people left their employment in his Department over the same period. [92467]
Barry Gardiner: The Cabinet Office collects and publishes annually statistical information on the civil service by Department. These include data on the number of disabled entrants and leavers. Data is available for 2005, 2004 and 2003 on the civil service website at:
http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/management/statistics/reports/index.asp
Declaration of disability status is voluntary.
It is not possible to produce a consistent series from earlier years’ data without incurring disproportionate costs.
Departmental Transport
Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answers of 8 February 2006, Official Report, columns 1285-86W, on departmental transport, if he will instruct his Department to take further steps to stop staff and contractors parking off-site on nearby residential roads, especially Down road, Daryngton drive and Carroll avenue. [91808]
Barry Gardiner: Accommodation staff at the Guildford site continue to inform new members of staff and contractors who wish to register their vehicle(s), that if they cannot park within the site, they should use the Controlled Parking Zones to the west of the site and avoid the streets mentioned above.
In addition negotiations are under way with a local hotelier to use some of their car parking area as a visitor overflow area.
A further electronic notice will be sent to all staff and contractors by 13 October, reminding them of all car-parking procedures at Guildford, including off-site parking.
Game Birds
Anne Snelgrove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 22 May 2006, Official Report, column 1299W, on gamebirds, (1) what the definition used by his Department for each production type listed is; [91718]
(2) what assessment he has made of the reason for the difference between the number of (a) pheasants and (b) partridges (i) reared for shooting and (ii) released for shooting. [91719]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department has not produced a formal definition for each production type listed. In principle, it is for the poultry keeper to identify the production type applicable to the birds on their premises.
However, in the case of those production types applicable to shooting, the ordinary meaning of the terms used may be taken as follows:
1. Breeding for shooting—production system where cock and hen birds are accommodated in captivity, generally either in groups (pheasants) or in pairs (partridges), for the purpose of egg production.
2. Rearing for shooting—production system where chicks are reared in captivity, either indoors in permanent buildings or in outdoor enclosed pens. The birds may be sold on to a number of other premises for releasing for shooting, or gamekeepers may rear their own birds and release them for shooting on the same premises.
3. Releasing for shooting—system where birds are held in large pens for a period of acclimatisation ranging from a few days to a few weeks before release.
For all production types, the poultry keeper is required to state when the premises is usually stocked during the year and is instructed not to include any bird in more than one category.
There are a number of factors involved in the difference between the number of birds identified as being reared for shooting and the number released for shooting. It is estimated that approximately 50 per cent. of birds are reared on recognised game farms and subsequently sold on to a number of shoots. These game farm premises would fall into definition (2) above. The remaining birds are either reared and released by gamekeepers on their own premises, so falling into definition (2) above, or purchased and brought onto the shoot premises for a short captive period of acclimatisation prior to release for shooting, so falling into definition (3). There may be premises practising a combination of the above, for example, rearing a certain number of birds and also purchasing birds for release.
Despite an instruction not to include any bird in more than one category for the purposes of the Great Britain Poultry Register, a number of keepers ‘double-counted’ by including the same birds in more than one production type. This error has now been rectified.
Another form of double-counting has occurred where the same birds have been registered by the game farm at rearing, and by the shoot following purchase. This has produced an overestimate in total bird numbers.
Anne Snelgrove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many establishments are registered for the annual release of (a) 10,000, (b) 25,000, (c) 50,000, (d) 75,000 and (e) 100,000 partridges; [92150]
(2) how many establishments are registered for the annual rearing of (a) 10,000, (b) 25,000, (c) 50,000, (d) 100,000, (e) 150,000 and (f) 200,000 partridges; [92151]
(3) how many establishments are registered for the annual release of (a) 10,000, (b) 20,000, (c) 30,000, (d) 40,000 and (e) 50,000 pheasants; [92152]
(4) how many establishments are registered for the annual rearing of (a) 50,000, (b) 100,000, (c) 200,000, (d) 300,000, (e) 400,000 and (f) 500,000 pheasants. [92153]
Mr. Bradshaw: The information requested, taken from the Great Britain Poultry Register on 2 October 2006, is set out in the following tables:
| Production type: releasing (for shooting) partridges | |
| Number of birds | Number of premises |
| Production type: rearing (for shooting) partridges | |
| Number of birds | Number of premises |
| Production type: releasing (for shooting) pheasants | |
| Number of birds | Number of premises |
| Production type: rearing (for shooting) pheasants | |
| Number of birds | Number of premises |
All data are subject to change. Some of the ranges for number of birds have been amended to prevent the disclosure of information about individual holdings.
Greyhounds
Lembit Öpik: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what provision has been made to protect the welfare of greyhounds; what estimate he has made of the number of greyhounds that disappear each year; and what measures are in place to ensure that greyhounds are not (a) destroyed and (b) abandoned after they are no longer able to race. [92086]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Animal Welfare Bill, currently before Parliament, will introduce an offence of failing to provide for the welfare needs of an animal. This will apply to owners and keepers of all animals, including racing and retired greyhounds. The Bill will also allow regulations to be made to promote the welfare of animals for which a person is responsible.
No statistics are maintained by central Government on the number of racing or retired greyhounds that are likely to have been destroyed each year.
There is no law in place to prevent the euthanising of a racing, retired or pet animal. However, it must be carried out humanely. This will not be changed by the Bill. The existing law on the abandonment of animals will be strengthened when the Bill becomes law.
The greyhound racing industry is aware that while I welcome the recent efforts made by them to improve the number of retired greyhounds who are re-homed, there is clearly more that needs to be done.
Noise Nuisance
Mr. Salmond:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fixed
penalty notices for noise nuisance have been issued in each year since their introduction, broken down by local authority area. [89338]
Mr. Bradshaw: Local authorities in England and Wales have the power to serve fixed penalty notices (FPNs) for offences under the Noise Act 1996. All local authorities in England, and any other bodies with FPN issuing powers, must submit a returns form to DEFRA each year, detailing FPNs issued for relevant offences for that period. Data have been collected annually since April 1997 on a range of offences, however, not all local authorities have submitted data each year.
No data were provided by local authorities from 1997 to 2003-04 on FPNs issued for noise offences. Brighton and Hove council recorded one FPN issued for a noise offence in 2004-05.
Slaughterhouses
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many brain stem samples in each licensed over 30 month slaughterhouse have been rejected for testing because of damage during removal since the lifting of the over 30 month bovines ban; [91384]
(2) how many over 30 month (OTM) bovines have been slaughtered for human consumption in each licensed OTM slaughterhouse since the lifting of the ban on bovines aged over 30 months entering the human food chain. [91385]
Barry Gardiner: As at 31 August 2006, 56 approved slaughterhouses in Great Britain had slaughtered approximately 193,000 Over Thirty Month cattle. 121 brain stem samples (0.06 per cent.), which could not be tested by the approved testing laboratory because of damage during removal or because the operator was unable to extract a sample, had been submitted. A breakdown of these figures by each approved slaughterhouse is available at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/otm/review/guidance-otm.htm.
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of the brain stem sampling process, in place since the removal of the over 30 month bovines ban, is supervised by the Meat Hygiene Service. [91387]
Barry Gardiner: Regular supervision of the brain stem sampling process by meat hygiene service staff depends on the batch size and is based on the following figures:
| Number of samples | Percentage checked by MHS staff |
A batch is usually all cattle aged over 30 months killed in a single day.
These percentages would be increased by the official veterinarian at the plant if there were reasons to suspect non-compliance with agreed procedures. They
would also be higher if the sampling happened to take place close to where heads are inspected for cattle identification purposes.
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans there are for the future use of meat hygiene inspectors contracted by his Department to work with the meat hygiene service in the supervision and collection of brain stem samples and the removal of spinal columns from over thirty month bovine meat. [91432]
Barry Gardiner: The use of meat hygiene service (MHS) staff, contracted by DEFRA to supervise the bovine spongiform encephalopathy testing system for cattle aged over 30 months, will be kept under review. The MHS and DEFRA are committed to ensuring the continued protection of public health, combined with best value for money.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is responsible for controls on the removal of vertebral column from cattle aged over 30 months. The FSA, with MHS management, will also keep staffing levels under review.
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what other duties meat hygiene inspectors contracted by his Department undertake in addition to the production and supervision of brain stem samples and spinal column removal before the sale of over thirty month bovine meat. [91433]
Barry Gardiner: Additional duties undertaken by meat hygiene inspectors include:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |