|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|Outreach activity and other community events (including production of the mobile unit plus mileage (although from 2007-08 the branded mobile unit is no longer being used during the outreach activity),production of branding banners and printing of T-shirts for staff)|
|Merchandising to support outreach activity (travel wallets, pens and toothbrush kits)|
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the amount of illegally imported meat entering the UK which was (a) contaminated with virus and (b) not detected in the last 12 months. 
Jonathan Shaw: The endemic nature of exotic diseases in many countries around the world results in a continuous but low risk of infected meat reaching the country through illegal routes. This means that all such seizures are treated as an animal health risk and destroyed, by incineration, in the shortest possible time.
The risk of disease relates to the possibility that animals may consume infectious material in illegal imports. Very small amounts of infectious material may cause disease and are likely to form only a very small proportion of any illegal import. There is thus very little chance of finding infected material by testing samples. Discovering whether any individual seizure is infected is unlikely to contribute significantly to the way that the restrictions relating to imports are enforced.
It is not possible to make an accurate estimate of the amount of illegally imported meat entering the UK which was not detected in the last 12 months because they are illegal and, therefore, clandestine.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much and what proportion of total income from farming resulted from (a) single farm payments, (b) agri-environment schemes, (c) diversified activity and (d) receipts from food production in each of the last three years. 
|£ million||Percentage of TIFF||£ million||Percentage of TIFF||£ million||Percentage of TIFF|
|(1) The diversified activity which is included in TIFF is only that which is considered inseparable. This includes activities such as tourist accommodation and catering and farm retailing.|
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many regulations were (a) implemented and (b) revoked by his Department in each year since 2001; and what estimate he has made of the cost to industry of complying with regulations implemented by his Department in each year since 2001. 
Jonathan Shaw: DEFRA has commissioned an independent project to review the stock, and establish a comprehensive ongoing record, of general Statutory Instruments introduced since 1 January 2001. The project includes categorising whether SIs are, for example, minor, technical, amending, or revocations. The Department will place in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament, no later than 31 March 2008, a short report on the outcomes of the project. Non-finalised data shows that, for general SIs, the breakdown is as follows:
|SIs introduced||SIs revoked|
In 2005, together with other Government Departments, DEFRA embarked on a programme to reduce the administrative burden of regulation by a net 25 per cent., by 2010. At that time, DEFRAs pre-existing administrative burden (i.e. the total cost to business of form filling, dealing with inspections and providing statutory information to third parties) was estimated by PricewaterhouseCoopers at £527.8 million.
DEFRA has published Simplification Plans in each year since 2005. The Departments latest Simplification Plan, Cutting Red Tape, was published in December 2007. It shows that, taking account of new Regulations that have added additional administrative burdens, the overall burden the Department imposes on business should be no more than £395.8 million by 2010, a reduction of £132 million or 25 per cent.
Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many National Reserve applications Stage 1 and Stage 2 appeals were outstanding at the most recent date for which figures are available. 
Lembit Öpik: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps his Department has taken to monitor the effect on animal welfare of the Hunting Act 2004 over the last three years; and if he will make a statement. 
Jonathan Shaw: DEFRA has no plans to institute new arrangements to monitor the welfare or population levels of the rural or urban fox, although it will retain an overview of these issues as part of its general animal welfare responsibilities.
Their claim for judicial review disputes the validity of the results of gamma interferon TB tests within their herds. The claimant is challenging DEFRA's decision not to re-test (using the tuberculin skin test) cattle within their herd that have had a positive reaction to the gamma interferon test. DEFRA has been put on notice that three other farm businesses are intending to issue proceedings on the same basis, but has agreed with those farmers that their animals will not be slaughtered pending the outcome of the judicial review. It is expected that this case will determine the issues in respect of all four complaints.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make it his policy to introduce the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service cattle monitoring system in England. 
Jonathan Shaw: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the National Animal Health Surveillance System (NAHSS), introduced by the US Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. We have no plans to introduce such a system in England.
On 22 October 2003, the 10-year UK Veterinary Surveillance Strategy was launched. It stresses the importance of working in partnership to provide early warning and rapid detection of disease threats facing the UK. In putting the strategy into practice, the aim is to ensure that surveillance activities are prioritised openly and that a clear, well-defined international evidence base exists for all surveillance reports and recommendations. A further aim is to make best use of the surveillance information that we collect.
The strategy reflects an extensive consultation process across the UK, involving colleagues in Government and the veterinary, farming and wildlife sectors. It is an integral part of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy launched in June 2004.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much (a) soya bean meal and its derivatives and (b) maize and its derivatives were imported into the UK from each supplying country for each year since 2001, separately identifying where appropriate any amounts which were from GM crops. 
Jonathan Shaw: The following table shows the volume of UK imports of soya bean meal, maize and derivatives from 2001 to November 2007 by country of despatch. It is not possible to separately identify commodities from GM crops in the official overseas trade statistics.
|UK imports of Soya bean meal, Maize and derivatives, by country, 2001 to November 2007|
|Short description||Country||2001||2002||2003||2004||2005||2006||( 4) 2007|
|(1) Maize (excluding Sweetcorn) for human consumption, including whole, rolled, flaked, hulled, pearled, clipped, sliced or kibbled; Flour, Groats and Meal of Maize; Seed Maize; prepared foods obtained form the swelling or roasting of maize.|
(2) Maize feedingstuff for animalsresidues of starch manufacture and similar residues from Maize; Bran; Sharps and residues of Maize.
(3) Soya bean meal: Oilcake and other solid residues, resulting from the extraction of Soya-bean oil.
(4) January to November
H M Revenue and Customs
Data prepared by Trade statistics, Agricultural Statistics and Analysis Division, DEFRA
2007 data is subject to amendments
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|