HC Deb 05 November 1996 vol 284 cc482-5W
Mr. Martyn Jones

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inspectors are currently appointed by the Government to ensure existing(a) legislation and (b) guidelines are met with regard to rendering facilities; and if he will make a statement. [432]

Mrs. Browning

All veterinary staff employed by the Department are appointed as veterinary inspectors under the Animal Health Act 1981 and are empowered to carry out inspections at rendering facilities. A total of 356 veterinary inspectors are employed at present. In addition, 152 technical staff are currently appointed by the Department and they, too, are able to carry out inspections.

Mr. Jones

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the procedure for registering as a rendering facility. [424]

Mrs. Browning

Owners of premises wishing to operate a rendering facility must submit an application to the appropriate MAFF animal health divisional office. The premises are then inspected by State Veterinary Service staff to ensure that the hygiene, structural and processing requirements set out in EC directive 90/667, as amended, and implemented in Great Britain by the Animal By-Products Order 1992, as amended, are met before approval to operate a rendering plant is granted.

Operators wishing to process specified bovine material must be similarly approved but under the Specified Bovine Material (No. 3) Order 1996.

Mr. Jones

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dates on which those rendering plants which deal exclusively with cattle culled in the 30—month scheme began dealing solely with such cattle; if he will indicate for each the products they were previously rendering; and if he will make a statement. [434]

Mr. Baldry

Details of when those rendering plants processing solely over-30-month scheme—OTMSmaterial, and in some cases specified bovine material from cattle under 30 months also, began to take OTMS carcases and the material that they processed immediately before that date are listed below:

Name of company Dale started rendering OTMS carcases Material previously rendered
Canterbury Mills Ltd. May 1996 SBM and other animal waste
Granox Ltd. May 1996 SBM and other animal waste
J. G. Pears (Newark) Ltd. October 1996 animal waste other than SBM
J. L. Thomas Ltd. May 1996 animal waste other than SBM
Peninsular Proteins Ltd. May 1996 animal waste other than SBM
Prosper de Mulder and Sons Ltd.(Hartshill) October 1996 animal waste other than SBM

Mr. Jones

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all rendering facilities that render mammals without producing mammalian meat and bonemeal; and if he will make a statement. [430]

Mrs. Browning

In Great Britain, the following premises are approved under the Animal By-Products Order 1992, as amended, to part render mammalian by-products, the proteinaceous end product from which must be sent to an approved full renderer for further processing.

  • ABP Ltd., Shrewsbury
  • Croda Colloids Ltd., Market Harborough
  • D. S. Cooper Ltd., Huddersfield
  • Mitchell By-Products Ltd., Bradford

Mr. Jones

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all rendering facilities, indicating for each whether they render(a) exclusively cattle culled under the 30-month scheme, (b) exclusively cattle not included in the 30-month scheme and (c) both cattle within the 30-month scheme and cattle not within the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [433]

Mr. Baldry

Of the plants rendering cattle by-products in Great Britain the following are processing:

(a) Over-30—month scheme cattle, and in some cases specified bovine material from under-30-month cattle, on an exclusive basis:

  • Canterbury Mills Ltd., Canterbury
  • Granox Ltd., Widnes
  • J. G. Pears (Newark) Ltd.
  • J. L. Thomas Ltd., Exeter.
  • Peninsular Proteins Ltd.
  • Prosper de Mulder and Sons Ltd., Hartshill.

On (b), no rendering plant in Great Britain is exclusively processing cattle which are under 30 months of age. Generally plants processing non-SBM from cattle under 30 months of age also process other clean offals— for example, from pigs, sheep, and so on. The plants falling into this category—that is, plants which operate without processing OTMS cattle carcases or SBM are as follows:

  • ABP Ltd., Shrewsbury
  • Chambers Ltd., Huddersfield
  • D. S. Cooper Ltd., Huddersfield
  • Croda Colloids Ltd., Market Harborough
  • A. Hughes (Skellingthorpe) Ltd., Skellingthorpe
  • J. Knights Ltd., Silvertown
  • Mitchell By-Products Ltd., Bradford
  • Pimlotts Ltd., Norwich
  • Smith Brothers, Manchester
  • Sykes, Castleford
  • Waddington, Bradford
  • Dundas Chemicals Ltd., Dumfries
  • McIntosh Donald Ltd., Aberdeen

On (c), the following Great Britain rendering plants are processing OTMS carcases and SBM from cattle under 30 months of age in dedicated rendering lines and, separately, non-SBM in dedicated clean rendering lines:

  • Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd., Lancaster
  • Gilberts Animal By-Products Ltd., Stafford
  • Dundas Bros Ltd., Aberdeen
  • William Forrest and Son (Paisley) Ltd.

Mr. Jones

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the conditions required to be met prior to approval being granted to a rendering facility; and if he will make a statement. [425]

Mrs. Browning

Prior to approval being granted under the Animal By-Products Order 1992, rendering plants must meet the range of hygiene, constructional and processing requirements set out in schedule 4 to the order.

Prior to approval being granted under the Specified Bovine Material (No.3) Order 1996, rendering plants must meet the range of hygiene, constructional and processing requirements set out in schedule 1 and article 18 of the order.

Mr. Jones

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names and locations of rendering plants that(a) produce and (b) do not produce mammalian meat and bonemeal in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [423]

Mrs. Browning

In Great Britain, the following premises are approved under the Animal By-Products Order 1992, as amended, to render fully mammalian by-products and could therefore produce mammalian meat and bonemeal:

  • Canterbury Mills Ltd., Canterbury,
  • Chambers Ltd., Huddersfield
  • Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd., Lancaster
  • Gilberts Animal By-Products Ltd., Stafford
  • Granox Ltd., Widnes
  • Hughes (Skellingthorpe) Ltd., Skellingthorpe
  • J. G. Pears, (Newark) Ltd.
  • J. Knights Ltd., Slivertown
  • J. L. Thomas Ltd., Exeter
  • Lloyd Maunder Ltd., Cullompton
  • Peninsular Proteins Ltd., Exeter
  • Pimlotts, Norwich
  • Prosper de Mulder and Sons, Hartshill
  • Smith Brothers, Manchester
  • Sykes, Castleford
  • Waddington, Bradford
  • Dundas Brothers Ltd., Aberdeen
  • Dundas Chemicals Ltd., Dumfries
  • McIntosh Donald Ltd., Aberdeen
  • William Forrest and Son (Paisley) Ltd.

In Great Britain, the following premises are approved under the Animal By-Products Order 1992, as amended, to part render animal by-products or render materials other than mammalian by-products—for example fish, poultry—and do not, therefore, produce mammalian meat and bone meal:

  • ABP Ltd., Shrewsbury
  • Alba Proteins Ltd., Penrith
  • Chaettles Ltd., Nottingham
  • Croda Colloids, Market Harborough
  • D. S. Cooper Ltd., Huddersfield
  • F. Howard Jones and Sons Ltd., Gwent

January February March April May June July August September October November December
1990 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 2 4 0 1
1991 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 3 1 0 1 2
1992 0 1 1 3 1 0 0 2 1 3 0 1
1993 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 3 1 1
1994 1 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 0
1995 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
19961 1 — — — — — — — — — — —
1 Data incomplete

Note:

1. The data do not include five cases confirmed in 1996 for which detailed information is not yet available.

2. Previous figures supplied for numbers of FSE cases have been on the basis of year of administrative confirmation and not on the basis of date of clinical onset of disease as is the case with those in the table. It would not be appropriate to provide monthly figures by the month of confirmation because of the time lag between suspicion and confirmation. The above figures will therefore not necessarily reflect previous figures given.