BSE, the cost of a crisis : thirty-fourth report, together with the proceedings of the Committee relating to the report, the minutes of evidence and appendices / Committee of Public Accounts.

  • Public Accounts Committee
Date:
1999
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: BSE, the cost of a crisis : thirty-fourth report, together with the proceedings of the Committee relating to the report, the minutes of evidence and appendices / Committee of Public Accounts. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    55/68 (page 29)
    [Mr Davidson Cont] by the people phoning them in or writing in and reporting them and they were not actually discovered by the Board itself. Is that a correct reading of what you said? (Mr Trevelyan) That may be an over-simplification. In relation to the Over Thirty Month Scheme and the Calf Processing Scheme where a lot of farmers were involved in presenting animals there was a fair amount of reference to us from other farmers. We have information from a variety of sources in relation to intervention and investigation and perhaps I can write to the Committee on that too. Mr Wardle: You have got some information at your elbow. Mr Davidson 248. It does seem to me, given the number of farmers who have been involved, to have 310 cases passed to the Fraud Unit seems a remarkably small number and a remarkably small percentage. Given what I know about farmers I would have thought the numbers involved in creative accounting were likely to be much larger. I do not believe that farmers are less likely to try and manipulate the system than, say, benefit claimants. I find these figures surprisingly small. Can you comment on that? (Mr Trevelyan) 1 think I indicated to the Committee that in the main area, given the indubitable facts about an animal that is of a particular age and has a particular number attached to it, the farmer does not have a great deal of scope for hoodwinking the administration. The area of where there is very large scope, and it has always been recognised, is in the slaughterhouses whereby the simple act of leaning on the scales, for example, as an animal goes through, you alter its weight by 10 to 15 per cent. For that reason, we have to have very heavy controls in the slaughterhouses and we have the same in the rendering plants where by another very simple operation perfectly edible meat sent under the controls of the scheme could find its way to a commercial outlet. These are the high-risk areas. We have done a risk assessment in this particular case and the major risk is in the post-slaughter period and before the meat is denatured by rendering, as I indicated. The absolute essentials in the operation of the scheme are not to have any meat hanging around in the system which does not have a clear destination and our refusal of animals into the scheme unless we know that we can render them virtually immediately. Mr Williams 249. As Mr Wardle points out, you now do have some supplementary information which you may wish to be giving to the Committee. (Mr Trevelyan) The Committee has been told that we have got nine BSTS irregularities and I am being reminded by my colleague that it is in the memorandum. Mr Twigg 250. Going back to the start of the meeting, you said that there was a competitive tender for the disposal of blood.’ (Mr Trevelyan) 251. Was there more than one tenderer? (Mr Trevelyan) 1 think that PdM are the only firm who have the appropriate equipment. There were no other bidders for blood. Yes; 252. On this issue we have before us now, what percentage of incinerations in terms of the market was given to this company of all the incinerations which need to take place? (Mr Trevelyan) We do not have a contract on incineration with PdM, but we have a rendering contract and we have five rendering 253. IfI could stop you, I have misled you, sorry. (Mr Trevelyan) Fibrogen have roughly a third of the contract area, as Mr Wardle has identified. 254. Is there any company which has more than 50 per cent? (Mr Trevelyan) Of the incineration? We have not completed the process, so I cannot say at this stage. We have one contract signed and we have two or three potential bidders for the remainder of the contracts. 255. Are they companies with which you have a contract already signed and will they remain part of that work? (Mr Trevelyan) It is open to us to add a fourth year to the Fibrogen contract if that seems the right thing to do, but we are as risk-averse as Mr Wardle. Mr Williams 256. How far are you over the barrel with Fibrogen as compared to the cartel you referred to earlier in terms of their capacity? (Mr Trevelyan) No, we could walk away from any contractor on meat and bone meal, but the cost would be that the meat and bone meal stockpile would increase. That is something which Ministers have indicated to us is undesirable, so there is pressure to come forward with a plan and there is pressure at the European level as well, but I would not suggest to the Committee that it is anything like the pressure which we were under in June/July 1996. Mr Davies 257. You mentioned Fibrogen is owned by Fibrowatt. Does someone else own Fibrowatt? (Mr Trevelyan) It is largely a family company. 258. Which family? Do you know who the shareholders are or is it a group of a few people in the family who own it? Is that right? (Mr Trevelyan) Yes. That information is available from Dunn & Bradstreet and it is in the public domain. Mr Davies: Yes, but I have not got it. ' Note by Witness: There was one unsuccessful bidder in Scotland.