|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Morley [holding answer 23 April 2001]: Changes introduced to the Livestock Movement Scheme made on 28 April allow Local Veterinary Inspectors (LVIs) to issue a Local Movement Licence for such a single movement, subject to an inspection prior to movement. LVIs may also issue Occupational Licences for multiple movements, within the same premises and in the same sole occupancy. It is not necessary for the LVI to supervise the movement of animals.
Mr. Morley [holding answer 23 April 2001]: Animals may be moved from areas of lower disease risk to areas of higher disease risk, but not in the other direction. Pigs cannot be moved into or through Infected Areas. Licences are not available to move animals to premises within 3.0 km of infected premises or premises subject to foot-and-mouth disease control restrictions. Special arrangements apply to these circumstances.
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will allow movement to take place of flocks of sheep owned by single farmers on split sites to lambing sheds on single sites. 
11 May 2001 : Column: 486W
moved for welfare reasons across roads to single premises, between premises in the same ownership, subject to restrictions on the maximum distance. Changes which came into effect on 28 April have allowed such movements to be made for husbandry purposes. Some restrictions remain in place where sheep moved onto premises between 13 and 23 February.
Mr. Steen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to lift restrictions on the movement of animals at Ley Farm, Diptford, Totnes; and if he will make a statement. 
Ms Quin [holding answer 23 April 2001]: We understand that Diptford is outside the infected area and therefore subject only to the general restrictions applying to the GB controlled area. Movements from the controlled area to slaughter continue to be allowed. Details are on the MAFF website http://www.maff.gov.uk/.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will reply to the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Vale of York on 27 March 2001 relating to (a) a ban on pigswill (uin156279) (b) provision of rare breeds during the foot and mouth crisis (uin156277) (c) discussions with European Commissioners about animal health (uin156278) (d) exclusion zones (uin156280). 
Mr. Morley: [holding answer 23 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to her on 5 April 2001, Official Report, columns 286-87W, 9 April 2001, Official Report, columns 476-77W, 30 April 2001, Official Report, column 493W, and 8 May 2001, Official Report, column 122W.
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from which countries raw offal is imported; what checks are made to ensure that it is free from contamination and infection; and for what purposes such imports are allowed. 
Ms Quin [holding answer 22 March 2001]: EU rules permit imports of raw offal for direct sale to the consumer or for the manufacture of meat-based products for both human and animal consumption, from the following third countries:
11 May 2001 : Column: 487W
United States of America
All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks and at least 20 per cent. of consignments are subject to physical checks in accordance with EU legislation, which may include analysis for contaminants. These checks are to ensure that conditions of import have been complied with and that the products have remained in a satisfactory condition during transport. They are carried out by Official Veterinary Surgeons employed by the local authority in which the BIP is located.
Community legislation allows the importation of raw offal from FMD control areas in Argentina under special channelling procedures. These procedures require that the material be sent from the port of entry in sealed transport direct to an establishment that has been specifically approved by the competent authority of the member state of destination. It must be accompanied by relevant public and animal and public health certification. The material may be used only for the manufacture of fully cooked meat products. Domestic legislation in England and Wales currently prohibits the import of meat including offal from South Africa and Swaziland (since 5 January 2001), Argentina (since 14 March) and Uruguay (since 26 April). Scotland and Northern Ireland took similar action for each of these countries shortly after each of the dates specified.
Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what controls operate on imports from (a) the EU and (b) elsewhere on materials likely to be used in animal feedstuffs; what provisions allow prohibition of imports capable of carrying viruses which are a threat to human, animal and plant health; what provisions exist within the rules of the World Trade Organisation permitting such national prohibition; and which persons from (i) the European Commission and (ii) Her Majesty's Government represent the United Kingdom interests at the World Trade Organisation in these matters. 
11 May 2001 : Column: 488W
Ms Quin: EU law governs Community production of materials likely to be used in animal feedstuffs and sets down the import conditions, which must be met by third countries approved to export such products into the Community. EU law also provides for safeguard measures to be applied to imports of animal products and plants when there is a risk to human, animal or plant health. Under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules animal health requirements for trade are expected to be based on the international standards laid down by the Office International des Epizooties. Any provisions in excess of these rules would need to be supported by a risk assessment in relation to animal or public health. Directorate General SANCO of the European Commission, who are based in Brussels, represent all EU member states, including Her Majesty's Government, in WTO fora.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted by (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by his Department; and if he will make a statement. 
Ms Quin [holding answer 12 March 2001]: Our records show the following expenditure; figures for advertising do not include poster (except for Foot and Mouth 2001), wallet or ticket advertising. The cost for direct mailing includes the dispatch of forms and explanatory material to farmers for MAFF administered schemes. Agency and non-departmental government bodies are not included as these costs are not held centrally and recovery of the data would be at a disproportionate cost.
|Public opinion research||Television, radio and newspaper advertising||Direct mail|
(33) To date
Mr. Kaufman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to answer the letters to him dated 2 April and 3 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Anjali Sharma. 
Mr. Kaufman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to answer the letters to him dated 12 March and 19 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. A. Blacklock. 
11 May 2001 : Column: 489W
Mr. Kaufman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, dated 26 March and transferred to him by the Home Office, with regard to the Dahem family. 
Mr. Howard: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 27 March 2001, Official Report, column 852, when he will write to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|