|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
iii. Strengthened representation for anglers on Sea Fisheries Committees;
iv. Proposals in the Marine Bill White Paper for a more active approach to managing recreational fisheries; and
v. A draft RSA strategy, developed in collaboration with key stakeholders including recreational anglers, commercial fishermen and other interested parties. We will be consulting on this shortly.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will bring forward proposals for measures to regulate the activities of the trainers and exhibitors of performing animals; and if he will make a statement. 
Last year my hon. Friend, the then Minister for Animal Welfare (Mr. Bradshaw), announced that he was minded to introduce Regulations under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to ban the use of certain non-domesticated species from travelling circuses, whose welfare needs cannot be met in that environment.
A Circus Working Group was formed to provide and consider evidence relating to the transportation and housing needs of these animals. The Group will shortly provide a report setting out the findings to my DEFRA ministerial colleagues and I. The report will help inform us how we take forward the introduction of regulations.
The Government are also committed to repealing the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925 which is ineffectual in setting and maintaining standards in the wider performing animal industry. I want to see in its place an open and auditable regulatory system that clearly addresses issues such as training, trainer competences and the way that animals across the whole spectrum of performance are looked after. Discussions are taking place between industry and welfare groups to see how this can be achieved.
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will investigate the circumstances surrounding the recent fatal shooting of a chimpanzee at Whipsnade Zoo; and if he will make a statement. 
Zoos are regulated by means of a licensing and inspection regime administered by local authorities. South Bedfordshire district council is responsible for licensing Whipsnade Zoo where this incident took
place. I understand the council is investigating the incident and that a full inspection of the zoo will be carried out in due course.
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidelines are in force to advise zoo owners of appropriate action to take when an animal escapes; whether requirements are in place to require the use of tranquilising darts rather than firearms; and if he will make a statement. 
Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 23 October 2007]: Section 1A(d) of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (as amended) requires zoos to prevent the escape of animals and to put in place measures to be taken in the event of an escape or unauthorised release of animals.
In addition, DEFRA's Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice (SSSMZP) provides guidance, to ensure public safety, on the procedures that should be established by the zoo relating to animal escapes.
Procedures relating to animal escapes should include the provision of firearms and darting equipment to tranquillise or kill escaped animals. The precise details of these are discussed and agreed by the zoo operator and the local police. The zoo is responsible for the selection of the appropriate firearm or darting equipment to deal with escaped animals.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if he will list the improvement notices issued by the Health and Safety Executive to the Institute for Animal Health concerning (a) Compton and (b) Pirbright in each of the last five years; and what the subject was of each such notice; 
(2) on how many occasions the Health and Safety Executive found the statutory requirements of the Institute for Animal Health at its (a) Compton and (b) Pirbright sites to have been breached in each of the last five years. 
2003: for failure to control the risk to health from animal asthmagens;
2006: for failure to adequately control the exposure of employees and others to legionella bacteria;
2007: for lack of effective monitoring and review arrangements as part of an overall health and safety management system;
2007: for the use of an unauthorised biocidal product.
HSE Inspectors have issued no notices at the Pirbright site where HSE is not the lead regulator. However, HSE, in conjunction with DEFRA, suspended, from 24 September 2007, all activities that involve manipulation of genetically modified viruses that could pose a risk to the environment and which require class 3 and 4 approval as required under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000.
Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in developing a vaccine for the bluetongue strain BTV8; what the involvement of (a) Merial and (b) other pharmaceutical companies is in this process; and what work is being undertaken in co-operation with other EU countries. 
We are aware of a number of companies such as Merial, Intervet and Fort Dodge who are developing such a vaccine and we are in urgent discussions with all these companies to do what we can to encourage this work. DEFRA officials recently participated in a conference with those companies and other member states affected by BTV-8 to discuss the availability of vaccines and possible approaches to vaccination. We are also developing a plan with the farming industry as to how a vaccination campaign could work once a vaccine becomes available, and is licensed as safe and effective for use, which we understand should be next summer.
Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the National Audit Office report The Climate Change Levy and Climate Change Agreements. 
My Department has provided written evidence to the Committee and the Secretary of State will be giving oral evidence on 31 October. Once the Committee has completed its work and prepared its report, a formal Government response will be provided.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance his Department follows on the maximum time taken to respond to hon. Members' correspondence; and what performance against that target was in the most recent period for which figures are available. 
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what work his Department has undertaken to identify the efficiency savings suggested in the Comprehensive Spending Review as available by 2010-11; and if he will make a statement. 
Jonathan Shaw: As part of the Comprehensive Spending Review DEFRA undertook zero based reviews of Animal Health and Welfare, Flood Risk Management and Natural Resources Protection. The evidence in these reviews informed ministerial decisions on departmental priorities for the CSR.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fixed penalty tickets were incurred by vehicles within the purview of his Department in the last year for which figures are available; and what the total cost was. 
Jonathan Shaw: From information held centrally, and for the period April 2006 to March 2007 inclusive, the number of fixed penalty notices incurred by the core-Department was 28. Information relating to DEFRA's Executive Agencies is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. DEFRA's policy is that drivers are responsible personally for the payment of fixed penalty notice fines incurred by them while using a departmental vehicle.
Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reports he has received of the meeting in Vienna on 30 September on nuclear safety and the environment held by his Irish, Austrian, German, Italian, Latvian and Norwegian counterparts. 
Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether he has commissioned studies on the effects of commercial catching practices on recreational sea angling. 
Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what compensation is available to (a) cattle hauliers and (b) other industries allied to farming adversely affected by the cattle movement restrictions in place as a result of foot and mouth disease. 
Jonathan Shaw: Under the Animal Health Act 1981, compensation is paid for animals that are compulsorily culled to prevent the spread of certain diseases. For foot and mouth disease (FMD), the Act requires that compensation is paid at the full market value of the animal before it became infected. Compensation is also paid for other items, such as farm equipment and feed, where these are seized because they are considered to be contaminated; this includes such things as milk.
DEFRA is taking a risk-based and staged approach to easing movement restrictions when the evidence indicates that it is appropriate to do so. We have announced that we will lift all restrictions in most unaffected areas of the country on 17 October, subject to the disease situation. This is the best way to facilitate the return to normal working for the industry. We are working in partnership with the industry, but eradication of FMD remains our priority.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at how many premises during the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease culling was undertaken before the receipt of test results. 
Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 15 October 2007]: With the exception of the first infected premises (IP1) where provisional positive laboratory results were available, authorisation to cull the remaining premises was made under the slaughter on suspicion or dangerous contact policies. Some of the subsequent premises may have been subject to earlier surveillance visits and blood testing, but culling was initiated at all the remaining 16 premises prior to the final laboratory test results being received. Premises have only been confirmed as infected premises on the basis of positive laboratory results and none of the premises have been confirmed on clinical grounds alone.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many test results which were available before culling during the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease were negative. 
[holding answer 15 October 2007]: Of the 17 premises culled for disease control purposes, with the exception of the first infected premises (IP1) where provisional positive laboratory result were available, 16 were culled on the basis of suspicious clinical signs under the slaughter on suspicion policy or after having been assessed as dangerous contacts.
No definitive negative tests from contemporaneous samples were available at the time culling was authorised.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there are any plans to revise the rules covering the movement of livestock following the latest outbreaks of foot and mouth and blue tongue. 
Jonathan Shaw: The framework of rules covering the movement of livestock in the event of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) or bluetongue is set out in the European Union Directive 2003/85, the European Directive 2000/75 and the Commission Decision 2005/395 respectively.
DEFRA has been involved in recent negotiations surrounding the revision of movement restrictions for bluetongue outbreaks, in order to reflect the lessons learned during the recent outbreaks on the continent.
While the general principles of movement controls are applicable in each outbreak of a disease, movement conditions may differ depending on the nature of the outbreak and the assessed risk. In order to facilitate the return to normal working for the industry, we are taking a risk-based and staged approach to easing movement restrictions when the evidence indicates it is appropriate to do so.
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the cost to the British economy resulting from the ban on farming exports during the most recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease. 
Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 19 October 2007]: The foot and mouth disease restrictions as a whole are estimated to have cost livestock producers about £100 million to early October 2007. Market impacts account for some three quarters of this, and the larger part of these market impacts are attributable to the export ban. The overall net cost to the British economy is likely to have been less.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|