Norman Lamb Member of Parliament for North Norfolk A: Unit 4, The Garden Centre, Nursery Drive, Norwich Road, North Walsham, NR28 ODR T: 01692 4037 52 E: norman @ normanlamb.org,uk W: www'normanlamb'org.uk Mr & Mrs Tim and Geli Harris Catfield Hall Fenside Please quote the reference in all Catfield correspondence with this office Gt Yarmouth Our Ref:2A5070-SB NR29 5DB 21 January 2015 Dear Mr & Mrs Harris, Re: Defra Correspondence Thank you very much for taking the trouble to contact me with regard to the above. Please find attached a copy of a chasing letter I have now sent to Mr George Eustice MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Defra. When I receive a response I will contact you again. With best wishes. Yours sincerely, n Norman Lamb Member of Parliament for North Norfolk Deta Protection Act 1998: lf you wr¡te to Normân Lamb asking for his assistance, he may allow authorised staff and to see the informat¡on you your have sent him. He and his staff may also pass all or some of the informat¡on to relevânt organ¡sations ¡f this is deemed necessary to help with enquiry, Please contact us w¡th any questions or concerns about how your informat¡on will be processed. Norman Lamb Member of Parliament for North Norfolk A: Unit 4, The Garden Centre, Nursery Drive, Norwich Road, North Walsham, NR28 ODR T: 07692 403752 E: norma n@ normanlam b.org.uk W: www.norman lamb'org.uk George Eustice MP Parliamentary Under Seôretary of State Department for Environment, Food and Please quote the relerence ín oll RuralAffairs correspondence wíth thîs office Nobel House Our Ref:245070-58 17 Smith Square London 21 January 2015 SW1P 3JR Dear Mr Eustice, Re: Defra lnspections - Catfield Hall I refer to Norman Lamb's correspondence to you dated the 27th of November 2OLA sent on behalf of his const¡tuent Mr Tim Harris and now enclose a further copy for your attention. We do not seem to have received a response on th¡s matter and we would be grateful if you could investigate, as Norman is anxious to reply to his constituent as soon as possible. With best wishes. Yours sincerely, Edward Maxfield Office Manager to the Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP Member of Parliament for North Norfolk Data Protection Act 1998: lf you wrlte to Norman Lamb asking for his assistance, he may allow authorised staff and volunteers to see the informat¡on you have sent him. He and his staff may also pass all or some of the ¡nformation to relevant organisations if this is deemed necessary to help with your enquiry. Please contact us with any questions or concerns about how your information will be processed. Ë\; s: r'¡æi* n å"æ s'r'¡ Ët f ¿ € ñ :.! e f cî l--¿ rl ia¡:'¡ * :: l f i:¡ r l¡lç ¡ i. *: .¡',i +r!'.: i !i ;i t.ln¡i 4. îhe C¿ìi-ûi'l'l Cei:t.e, Nursei-y Drive, irlo¡-uiich Road, Itcrlì-'W¡isham, NR2B 0DR : : 0l.i;g2 /1û3 152 È: nor¡lan@nor¡na¡ri;¡r¡b.org.uk 1Ai: wtvw.noínlanlamb.org.r.rl< George Eustice MP Pleose quote the relerence ìn øll Parliamentary Under Secretary of State correspondence with this office Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs Our Ref:2A5070-PL Nobel House 17 Square Smith 27 November2O!4 London SWI.P 3JR N tr Dear George, Re: Defra lnsoections - Catfield Hall Tim Harris, Catfield Hall, Catfield, Norfolk, NR29 sDB Thank you for your letter of 11 November 2Ot4 and again for taking the trouble to reply in detail. For clarity's sake I shall use your headings but in a slightly different order to facilitate an understanding of the underlying arguments which focus on the "probability" of the inspections occurring by chance alone. AnimalWelfare and RPA lnspections You confirm that the probability of each of these occúrring randomly is 1 in L00 pa. I am advised that according to statistical theory this means that the likelihood of both occurring in any one year is 1 in 100 x 100 = 1 in 10,000 or once every ten thousand years. Please could you confirm whether you agree with this analysis and these odds. lf you do not please explain what you believe the odds for my constituents being selected twice to be. lf there was a bias in the system what was it, who introduced it and why? We need to establish exactly why they were selected. Natural England lnspection You have not been fully briefed about this inspection. At a meeting at Dragonfly House, Norwich on 23rd April 2012 attended by representatives of both the EA and NE and a localfarmer, whose abstraction my constituents were suggesting might be damaging their Catfield Fen, an SSSI protected by the highest international conservation designations, their management of the Fen was strongly criticised. ln such circumstances it was agreed by all parties but most particularly by NE, that an inspection to determine the facts was necessary. My constituents' agent merely confirmed that in the circumstances such an inspection would be welcome. In the event the fen management by my constituents was found to be exemplary. :'ir ,¡t¡ il)r,.iìaa ..i Ì, i'! .ìn! 1l1r(:slrúrì! oi t0iltcÍì5 âböut hov" your rnforñðlion rvili Ùc proccssed. Sheep Movements My constituents inform me that strict compliance with the timeline of sheep movement reporting is difficult because the timeframe for such reporting is unrealistic when using second class mail, the Ministry providing no envelopes of any description as is the case for cattle movements. Please would you inform me: i. What were the specific delays in each of the twelve instances you quote. ii. ln each case was the delay recorded by the date of receipt or by the date sent as per the postmark? iii. What proportion of all sheep movement orders submitted by mail are received late according to your records? I note that my constituents' records were found to be fully compliant at the inspection on 11.3.14. Number of customers with 4 or more inspections in 2013 and2OL4 According to the figures you give the probability of my constituents on a purely random basis receiving the number of audits they did is roughly one half of one per cent or once in every two hundred years. However, my constituents were low risk. Please could you advise me what was the percentage of the 100 you quote who already had compliance issues unlike my constituents. Explanations given by the lnspectors at the lnspections It is interesting that at the Welfare lnspection the inspector referred to "p¡gs" as the reason for the audit, and criticisms of the two rare breed pigs owned by my constituents was specifically made at the 23.4.L2 meeting mentioned above. Furthermore, the Sheep Movement inspector advised that his inspection was purely random and he made no reference at all to late movements throughout his visit. lncidentally my constituents have no problems with the inspections themselves which were all conducted in a professional manner. I am again concerned that you have not been fully briefed. I am sorry to have to write to you at such length and in such detail but my constituents are concerned that they have been victimised as "whistleblowers". You should be aware that I have requested the Catfield Fen issue to be called in by the Ministry on no less than three separate occasions because of my concerns about how the statutory bodies (the EA and NE) were managing the case. ln the private briefing to the Minister regarding the first call in request which my constituents obtained under the FOl, damaging allegations were made about them by both the EA and NE in their joint confidential brief, for which unsubstantiated defamation both have apologised to my constituents. Owen Patterson failed to respond to my personal request that he obtain an explanation from the chief executives of both bodies as to how this could have happened. I am sure that in these circumstances you will agree that ¡t is vital to establish the actual facts and determine precisely why the inspections occurred. I look forward to a detailed and timely reply to my letter which answers the specific points that I have raised. W¡th best wishes. Yours sincerely, The Rt Hon Norman Lamb Member of Parliament for North Norfolk.