| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
23 Oct 2006 : Column 1599W—continued
Gwyn Prosser: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that suitable premises are available in
the vicinity of Dover docks to which live animals destined for export can be taken and unloaded and given food, liquid and rest in the event of a substantial delay in the departure of the ship on which they are due to be transported; and if he will make a statement. [95783]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is the responsibility of transporters to ensure that suitable premises are available, when necessary, for their animals to be given food, liquid and rest, and to have contingency plans to deal with unforeseen delays to journeys.
Animal Welfare
Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to which countries young calves are exported from the UK for slaughter abroad; what his most recent estimate is of how many calves were exported to each; and what the normal journey times are to each country. [94265]
Mr. Bradshaw: As at 11 October, the number of young calves exported for production this year from the UK to mainland Europe, by country, and estimated range of travelling times (excluding rest stops en route) are as follows:
| Country | Estimated number of animals | Range of travelling times (hours( 1) ) |
| (1 )Journeys vary significantly, depending upon where in the United Kingdom the journey starts and the route taken. (2 )Single consignment. (3 )Multiple consignments to single destination. | ||
Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will assess the scale of (a) rule breaking and (b) welfare infringements concerning the care of animals exported for slaughter abroad. [94268]
Mr. Bradshaw: All livestock exports are inspected for health and fitness to travel by local veterinary inspectors before loading at the premises of departure. In addition, at least 5 per cent. of vehicles are inspected by the State Veterinary Service (SVS) at the time the animals are loaded on to the vehicles. The SVS also inspect a minimum of 30 per cent. of vehicles at Dover.
A total of 14 Statutory Notices have been served by the SVS at Dover. These notices have ordered remedial measures to be taken for breaches such as insufficient bedding, insufficient headroom and correcting stocking densities between different compartments of vehicles. A further two Statutory Notices were served by the SVS at supervised loadings at departure premises: one to prevent an unsuitable vehicle being used in hot weather and one to prevent too many animals being loaded. Oral warnings have also been given for more
minor infringements. In all cases, the SVS write warning letters to the transporter and carry out follow-up checks to ensure future compliance.
In addition, all export journeys require route plans. Plans for all new routes are checked to ensure they meet rest and journey time requirements. Journeys will not be allowed to start unless the requirements have been met. Route plans must be returned to the issuing Animal Health Divisional Office within 15 days of completion of the journey. On receipt, the details of the actual journey undertaken as recorded by the transporter are checked for compliance.
Bioethanol
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he plans to take to improve opportunities for farmers to supply sugar beet for the production of bioethanol. [95240]
Ian Pearson: Following the reform of the sugar regime, farmers can grow sugar beet on set-aside land for bioethanol use and can claim the European Union's €45 per hectare Energy Aid payment for sugar beet on non set-aside land. We are aware that British Sugar are building a biofuel processing plant in Norfolk that will use sugar beet as one of the feedstocks.
The Government are promoting the production of bioethanol through a 20 pence per litre duty rate cut. To further develop the supply of biofuels, a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation will be introduced to require 5 per cent. of fuel sold in the UK to come from a renewable source by 2010. An enhanced capital allowance scheme is also being considered for the cleanest biofuels processing plants. This would allow the cost of capital assets to be written-off against taxable profits.
Bovine Tuberculosis
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he expects to respond to the report by members of the Independent Scientific Group on the effect of the culling of badgers on the spread of bovine TB. [95341]
Mr. Bradshaw: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the paper ‘Culling and cattle controls influence TB risk for badgers' produced by members of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on 2 October.
We do not intend to issue a formal response to the paper. However, the findings from this work will be taken into account alongside all the other evidence when considering if badger culling should form part of the TB control programme.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what percentage of cattle TB reactors had open lesions at post-mortem in the 12 months following the resumption of TB testing after the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001. [95372]
Mr. Bradshaw: When tuberculosis (TB) testing resumed after the foot and mouth disease outbreak, it was targeted at those herds considered most at risk from developing the disease. In 2002, a total of 23,744 cattle were slaughtered under TB control measures in Great Britain. Of these, 6,993 cases (just over 29 per cent.) were confirmed by the identification of lesions at post-mortem examination and/or isolation of ‘Mycobacterium bovis’ in the laboratory.
The location and nature of TB lesions in slaughtered animals are not recorded on a central electronic database and, therefore, this information is not readily available. An assessment of the infectiousness of a reactor cannot always be made on the basis of a routine slaughterhouse post-mortem examination. Furthermore, there is not a direct correlation between the nature and extent of gross TB lesions found in the carcase and the ability to excrete ‘Mycobacterium bovis’.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conclusions his Department has reached on the relative importance of channels for transmission of TB among animals. [95373]
Mr. Bradshaw: The bi-directional transmission of infection between badgers and cattle is undisputed— i.e. both are capable of being the source of infection for the other, and both are capable of maintaining the infection in their respective groups in the absence of the other. Transmission of infection can be either through direct (animal to animal) contact or indirect contact from the environment. Wild deer may in certain situations act as a reservoir of infection although a recent quantitative risk assessment has shown that the relative risk to cattle from wild deer is lower than that from badgers.
Research demonstrates that due to the combination of the differences in the pathology of the disease and the active surveillance, testing and culling policy pursued in cattle, a higher proportion of badgers are infected and when infected they are more likely to be infectious.
We are continuing to carry out research to try to clarify the relative importance of the different routes of transmission. For example, recent research using data from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial has shown that during the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001 when cattle TB testing and badger culling was suspended, the prevalence in badgers increased and contributed to an increase in cattle TB.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure the reliability and robustness of the consultation on badgers. [95374]
Mr. Bradshaw: The consultation has been invaluable in helping us hear from all sides of the debate.
The summary of all the responses received a detailed type of response, including those from the seven campaigns by wildlife groups. We will take this into account, along with the Advertising Standards Authority ruling on the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals campaign, when considering public opinion on this issue.
The summary of responses and report on the citizens’ panels are available on the DEFRA website at www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/abouttb/badgers.htm#public
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment he has made of (a) capabilities of the tuberculin previously manufactured at Weybridge and (b) tuberculin manufactured at Lelystad in Holland to detect animals infected with TB. [95375]
Mr. Bradshaw: The chief veterinary officer recently issued a report on a reduction in the number of new tuberculosis (TB) incidents in Great Britain (GB). This report is available from the DEFRA website at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/stats/index.htm
The report includes an assessment of the performance characteristics of the tuberculins manufactured by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) and by Lelystad in Holland in the context of GB’s TB in cattle testing programme. It suggests that, although the two tuberculins perform slightly differently in the field, and that this could be a small contributory factor to the reduction in the number of new TB incidents, the difference is not significant enough to account for the whole fall.
Both tuberculins are produced and assayed to the same standard, as part of European Union licensing procedures. However, as tuberculin is a biological product, there has always been variability between batches—even from the same supplier. Our reviews do not call into question the efficacy of either tuberculin supply.
DEFRA has established arrangements to purchase further supplies of tuberculin from Lelystad as required to minimise the risk of disruption to the TB testing programme. Either Lelystad or VLA tuberculin will be released for field use as stocks become available.
We will continue to closely monitor and analyse the relative performance characteristics of the two sources of tuberculin currently used in GB.
Departmental Expenditure
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies in respect of hotel and other similar privately-provided accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) other persons in each year since 2001-02. [91925]
Barry Gardiner: The information could be provided in the requested format only at disproportionate cost.
The Department does record total bed and breakfast costs for the UK and abroad, and figures are available for the last three financial years:
| £000 | |||
| 2003-04 | 2004-05 | 2005-06 | |
These figures exclude the rural payments agency, the Central Science Laboratory and the Department's non-departmental public bodies.
All travel is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Ministerial Code, Travel by Ministers and the Civil Service Management Code.
Information relating to overseas travel by Ministers is published on an annual basis. Information for the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 2006 is available in the Library of the House. Information for the financial year 2006-07 will be published as soon as it is ready after the end of the current financial year.
David T.C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much his Department has spent on taxis in the last 12 months. [93116]
Barry Gardiner: The Department does not hold information on travel by taxi centrally and this could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Since the beginning of this financial year core Defra has accounted for taxi costs separately and this information should be available from the end of the financial year.
Farm Subsidies
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much Government paid to farmers in subsidies in each of the last 20 years in real terms. [93791]
Barry Gardiner: The table shows subsidies and other payments paid direct to farmers in the United Kingdom between 1986 and 2005 in real terms at 2005 prices and also the retail price index. The data include subsidies and other payments funded by the EU. They exclude compensation for losses due to foot and mouth disease in 2001 and other capital transfers.
Agreement on CAP reform was reached in May 1992 (The “McSharry Reforms”). Major changes were made to a number of commodity regimes and an agri-environment initiative was agreed. In particular, there was a shift from market support for cereals and beef to direct payments to farmers.
| Subsidies and other payments made to farmers in real terms at 2005 prices: United Kingdom | ||||
| Year | Retail Price Index | Coupled subsidies( 1) | Decoupled subsidies and other payments( 2) | Total subsidies and other payments |
| 2000=100 | £ million | |||
| Note: Data exclude compensation for losses due to foot and mouth disease in 2001 and other capital transfers. (1 )Payments directly linked to the production of agricultural products, e.g. sheep annual premium, beef special premium scheme, less levies, e.g. milk super levy. (2 )Payments not linked to the production of agricultural products, e.g. single payment scheme, agri-environment schemes, support for less favoured areas. (3 )Data for 2005 are provisional. | ||||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |