Asked by: George Eustice (Conservative - Camborne and Redruth)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what procedures the Food Standards Agency has in place to monitor and ensure compliance with Schedule 1, Part 5, paragraph 28 (f) of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015.
Answered by Seema Kennedy
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) Official Veterinarians and Meat Hygiene Inspectors carry out general monitoring activities that include checks and verification of the welfare of animals.
Welfare verification activities carried out by the FSA team on site cover all processes involving live animals, including verification of the business operator’s own checks to ensure efficiency of stunning. These in situ verification checks take place at different intervals throughout the production day.
Post-mortem inspection of every bird destined for human consumption is carried under the supervision of the official veterinarian; post-mortem findings may indicate welfare may have been compromised during slaughter and related operations; findings are recorded and investigated when identified. Post-mortem inspection will generally not provide any evidence of consciousness following stunning if the required procedures were followed and the affected birds were stunned or killed without delay once the stunning was identified as inefficient.
Asked by: George Eustice (Conservative - Camborne and Redruth)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many recorded instances or reports from official veterinarians there have been of birds entering the next stage of production while still showing signs of consciousness in slaughterhouses in England and Wales in each of the last five years.
Answered by Seema Kennedy
The following table shows by reporting year the number of instances that official veterinarians have recorded enforcement action following an incident when stunning was considered to be ineffective in poultry slaughterhouses:
Reporting Year | Instances where stunning deemed ineffective |
April 2014 – March 2015 | 23 |
April 2015 – March 2016 | 8 |
April 2016 – March 2017 | 3 |
April 2017 – March 2018 | 12 |
April 2018 – March 2019 | 4 |
The business operator must implement systems to ensure stunning is efficient. There must be Standard Operating Procedures in place which specify the action to be taken when birds show signs of consciousness or sensibility after the stunning procedure. Instances of birds identified and dealt with by the Business Operator in accordance to their own procedures will not be recorded by the official veterinarian.
Asked by: George Eustice (Conservative - Camborne and Redruth)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many orders to stop or suspend the operation of a production or shackle line because birds were showing signs of consciousness before entering the next stage of production were issued by official veterinarians to slaughterhouses in England and Wales in each of the last five years.
Answered by Seema Kennedy
There have been no orders or formal enforcement actions to stop or suspend the operation of a production or shackle line because birds were showing signs of consciousness before entering the next stage of production.
Due to the automated nature of poultry production, any stoppages of the line may result in an adverse effect on the welfare of the animals within the shackle line before and after the stage of stunning.
Incidents involving an individual bird would generally be resolved by dealing with the bird while still in the moving line or by removing the individual bird.
Incidents involving a more systemic failure of the stunning system which may require a suspension of the operation will generally be resolved without the service of a formal notice due to the urgent nature of the action required.
Asked by: George Eustice (Conservative - Camborne and Redruth)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what proportion of birds slaughtered without stunning under a shackle line system are required to be individually assessed for signs of consciousness by a food business operator before birds progress to the next stage of production.
Answered by David Rutley - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
All birds slaughtered without stunning should be assessed to ensure they do not present any sign of life before undergoing dressing or scalding. Further dressing or scalding shall only be performed once the absence of signs of life of the animal has been verified.
The European Food Standards Authority have produced guidance on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for poultry that recommends that all birds slaughtered without stunning should be assessed for unconsciousness and death by checking appropriate indicators.
Asked by: George Eustice (Conservative - Camborne and Redruth)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what procedures the Food Standards Agency has in place to monitor and ensure compliance with Schedule 3, Part 3, paragraph 8 of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015.
Answered by Seema Kennedy
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) Official Veterinarians and Meat Hygiene Inspectors carry out general monitoring activities that include checks and verification of the welfare of animals.
Welfare verification activities carried out by the FSA team on site cover all processes involving live animals, including verification of the business operator’s own checks to ensure that birds do not show any signs of life before dressing or electrical stimulation commence. These in situ verification checks take place at different intervals throughout the production day.
Post-mortem inspection of every bird destined for human consumption is carried out under the supervision of the official veterinarian; post-mortem findings may indicate welfare may have been compromised during slaughter and related operations; findings are recorded and investigated when identified.
Asked by: George Eustice (Conservative - Camborne and Redruth)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 14 May 2019 to Question 250476, when he plans to start the recruitment process for a new chair of the Migration Advisory Committee when Professor Manning’s term ends in November 2019.
Answered by Caroline Nokes
The recruitment process for the appointment of the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), which will be made in accordance with the Cabinet Office Governance Code on Public Appointments (the Code), is under consideration.
As set out in the Code, in the planning stages, Ministers are consulted about the possible recruitment options, which include possible re-appointment or open competition.
Asked by: George Eustice (Conservative - Camborne and Redruth)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many applications for the personal independence payment were refused on the first assessment in 2018; and how many of those applications that were refused were subsequently (a) considered again and (b) granted under Mandatory Reconsideration.
Answered by Justin Tomlinson - Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
The information requested can be found in the table below.
Table: Number of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) cases disallowed at initial decision for failing the PIP assessment in 2018, and the number of those who subsequently completed the Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) process, Great Britain
- | Number of PIP Cases |
PIP cases disallowed at initial decision after completing the PIP assessment | 216,850 |
A) Of Which: Subsequently Completed an MR | 105,430 |
B) Of Which: Had the Initial Decision to Disallow Revised at MR | 12,480 |
Source: PIP Computer System.
Data has been rounded to the nearest 10.
PIP data includes normal rules and special rules for the terminally ill claimants, and is for both new claims and DLA reassessment claims.
MR data is up to March 2019.
Asked by: George Eustice (Conservative - Camborne and Redruth)
Question to the Department for International Development:
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of work to support the distribution of snake anti-venom products in developing countries; and whether his Department supports any such project.
Answered by Harriett Baldwin
Each year snakebites kill more than 80,000 people and at least 450,000 people are thought to suffer life-changing injuries such as loss of limbs and permanent disability.
There are major technical challenges for the production and distribution of anti-venoms in low- and middle-income countries, including lack of quality anti-venoms, high cost of anti-venoms, poor regulation, poor distribution policies and marketing of inappropriate or poor-quality anti-venoms.
DFID recently launched a £9 million Research programme to develop new snakebite treatments which will be effective against multiple species, affordable, stable in tropical temperatures and easy to use in local communities, to overcome some of the distribution challenges.
Asked by: George Eustice (Conservative - Camborne and Redruth)
Question
To ask the Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, what steps the Government is taking to improve enforcement of requirements of the Equality Act 2010 on access to facilities for disabled people.
Answered by Victoria Atkins - Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
The Equality Act 2010 contains strong, enforceable protections for disabled people who experience discrimination, including a failure by employers or service providers to make reasonable adjustments to enable disabled people to access work and services like everybody else.
In 2018 the Government committed to the commencement of section 36 of the Equality Act, which will enable disabled tenants to require that landlords and building owners to make reasonable adjustments to the common parts of dwellings, such as entry points, landings and stairs. Work to determine the cost of implementation is proceeding and an announcement will be made in due course.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which enforces the Equality Act, recently delivered a Legal Support Project to increase access to justice for people experiencing disability discrimination. It offered groups £189,000 for legal assistance across 94 cases in areas including employment.
The EHRC has increased its capacity to advise on discrimination cases in its new strategic plan, and has supported several court cases which resulted in strengthened rights for disabled people, including those wishing to make reasonable adjustments to their homes and disabled children who may demonstrate a tendency to physical abuse as a result of their disability, whose schools must now make reasonable adjustments in such cases.
Asked by: George Eustice (Conservative - Camborne and Redruth)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 14 May 2019 to Question 250476, whether the Home Office requests (a) a curriculum vitae, (b) information on previous experience and (c) information on previous employment as part of the recruitment process for appointments to the Migration Advisory Committee.
Answered by Caroline Nokes
Any appointment to the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) is made in line with the Cabinet Office Governance Code on Public Appointments:
The most recent MAC appointments were made in 2017. The criteria for those appointments and the information to be submitted by candidates were set out in the advertisement on the HM Government Public Appointments website: https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/appointment/migration-advisory-committee-member-2/.
Under the Code, Ministers decide which applicants should be interviewed by an independent Advisory Assessment Panel. The Panel reports its assessment to Ministers, including its views on which candidates are appointable. Ministers consider the advice of the panel, but are not bound by its views. Ministers determine merit and make the final appointment decision.
In the 2017 MAC recruitment round, the two candidates not appointed who declared their principal employment was in the private sector, were not considered as appointable by the panel. Ministers considered the report of the panel before deciding which candidates to appoint.