| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
22 Jan 2008 : Column 1980W—continued
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will review the tabular valuation system for compensating farmers for animals slaughtered following infection with bovine tuberculosis to make provision for organically-reared cows and steers. [178981]
Jonathan Shaw: The Government recognise that the current table valuation-based compensation system is a cause of concern to some stakeholders, including some organic cattle farmers.
While DEFRA has not ruled out the possibility of changes to the compensation system, any changes would need to be justified and take into account the interests of all parties, including taxpayers.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he expects a licence for the use of the BCG vaccine against bovine tuberculosis in badgers to be granted; and if he will make a statement. [178340]
Jonathan Shaw: Before it can be widely used, there is a requirement for BCG to be licensed for use in badgers. There are defined steps in achieving this licence. An experimental safety study performed to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) accreditation was completed successfully at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency in 2004-05 and two projects are ongoing: a three year field safety study (Project CB0115) and a demonstration of the efficacy of the vaccine (Project CB0116). An independent consultant with experience in the veterinary pharmaceutical industry is monitoring the study.
In addition to these licensing projects, work is also underway on developing an oral vaccine and bait delivery systems for badgers (Project SE3223).
The earliest date a licensed injectable badger vaccine may be available is the end of 2010, and the earliest a licensed oral vaccine may be available is the end of 2013. However, as with all research, there is no guarantee of success.
Even if a licensed vaccine were available, there are a number of significant non-technical barriers to successful rollout surrounding acceptability, practicality, legality and the relative costs, responsibility for costs, and benefits of use.
Bovine Tuberculosis: Costs
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the average cost to a farmer of (a) veterinary bills and (b) labour for pre-movement testing for cattle for bovine tuberculosis. [178363]
Jonathan Shaw: Pre-movement tests are a private transaction between individual farmers and their local veterinary inspector.
The cost to the farmer of pre-movement testing has been updated in the light of experience and to reflect an independent survey on veterinary capacity and costs. The revised assessment of costs and benefits of pre-movement testing uses a value of £9.60 per animal (£7.10 veterinary cost, 50p tuberculin, £2.00 cost to farmer) as the average cost of pre-movement testing.
The updated assessment and the independent survey are both available on the DEFRA website.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average cost to the public purse is of pre-movement testing of an individual animal for bovine tuberculosis. [178364]
Jonathan Shaw: All bovine tuberculosis (TB) pre-movement tests must be arranged and paid for by the herd owner. As there are benefits to the herd owner of buying or selling cattle with some degree of disease assurance, herd owners are expected to cover the costs of the local veterinary inspectors' time to carry out pre-movement tests while Government funds the provision of tuberculin. The average cost of tuberculin per animal tested is estimated at 50 pence.
Bovine Tuberculosis: Disease Control
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals had a pre-movement test for bovine tuberculosis in 2007; and how many of those were found to be reactors. [179662]
Jonathan Shaw: In England, between 1 January and 30 November 2007, 344,638 dedicated TB pre-movement tests were carried out. As a result 357 reactors were detected.
The figures are an underestimate of the impact of the policy and show the minimum benefits only. The number of reactors identified do not take into account the benefits of herd owners utilising Government paid TB surveillance tests as pre-movement tests or the number of inconclusive reactors identified by pre-movement testing which have become reactors when retested.
Cumulative pre-movement statistics (from September 2005 onwards) are updated monthly and published on the DEFRA website.
Cattle: Imports
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will reduce the number of cattle imported into the UK in order to reduce the risk of further spread of bluetongue. [178982]
Jonathan Shaw: Under the EU bluetongue regulation, susceptible animals are permitted to move out of restricted zones into free areas for intra-community trade, provided an official veterinarian of the exporting country certifies that all the necessary conditions have been met. In most cases, animals must undergo pre-movement testing and these tests must indicate negative results for virus infection. Importers also have a responsibility to import only those animals which comply with the rules and to notify Animal Health in advance of the movement; we have written to importers to remind them of their responsibilities. Animals are also permitted to move freely within the same zones established in each country, such as from the Netherlands protection zone to the UK protection zone. The UK cannot prohibit imports of animals moved in accordance with these conditions.
The recent incidents of bluetongue-positive animals being imported to the UK may highlight inadequacies in the application of these measures in EU member states. We are in contact with the relevant member state officials to establish how these animals arrived in the UK, and we have written and spoken to the Commission to ask for appropriate measures to be taken to ensure such movements are managed safely.
China: Bears
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government is taking to encourage China and Russia to improve welfare standards for bears. [177647]
Jonathan Shaw: DEFRA has no responsibility for animal welfare issues in China or Russia.
Christmas
Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much his Department spent on (a) Christmas cards and (b) postage of Christmas cards in 2007. [176921]
Jonathan Shaw: In 2007, core-DEFRA did not produce physical Christmas cards opting instead for a selection of e-greetings cards chosen following an internal design competition and made available for all staff to use. Accordingly, no postage costs were incurred.
Climate Change
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many departmental (a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) consultants, contractors or secondees working full-time or part-time for his Department attended the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali. [179194]
Mr. Woolas [holding answer 16 January 2008]: The number of UK Government delegates from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who attended the 13th Conference of the Parties (COP13) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali, Indonesia, was 33. This number included officials and two Ministers, the Secretary of State and myself.
Many of these officials, in addition to representing the UK and EU in meetings, chaired international contact groups and not all of the delegation was in Bali for the whole of the two week Conference.
Countryside Stewardship Scheme: Cornwall
Dan Rogerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evidence has been obtained by Natural England to form a basis for ending the 10 year Countryside Stewardship agreement with Eastmoor Commoners Ltd (Cornwall); and if he will make a statement. [179752]
Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 17 January 2008]: Regular livestock counts on Eastmoor Common demonstrated that the stocking levels were consistently and significantly higher than the agreed levels set in their Countryside Stewardship Agreement, leading to overgrazing of the Common and the loss of any environment gains planned in the Countryside Stewardship Agreement. Eastmoor Commoners Ltd. was given guidance and advised that this would lead to ending their Countryside Stewardship Agreement, but the situation did not improve and the agreement was terminated.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people were (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in each police force area in each year since 1997. [177208]
Jonathan Shaw: The information requested on prosecutions and convictions under the Dangerous Dogs Acts of 1989 and 1991 is provided in the following tables:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |