HC Deb 06 November 2001 vol 374 cc145-6W
Mr. Luff

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the contribution of hunt staff to the control of foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement.[8987]

Mr. Morley

All our slaughter teams have provided a valuable contribution in the effort to control the disease. The first licensed hunt slaughtermen were engaged by the Department at the end of March on exactly the same basis as all licensed slaughtermen.

David Maclean

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what restrictions she intends to impose on the sourcing of animals for restocking farms after foot and mouth has been eliminated.[5344]

Mr. Morley

From 5 November 2001, it will be possible for farmers in high risk counties, outside Infected Areas and restricted Infected Areas to bring stock into such counties from foot and mouth disease free and at risk counties for the purposes of restocking farms which have been culled. The arrangements for restocking will be kept under review as the disease situation changes.

Mr. George Osborne

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many confirmed foot and mouth cases occurred in 2001 in each of the borough council areas of Cheshire.[11083]

Mr. Morley

It is only possible to provide data from the DEFRA Disease Control System (DCS) database for Cheshire as a whole. As at 31 October, there have been 17 Infected Premises (IPs), 32 Dangerous Contacts (DCs) and three Slaughter on Suspicion (SOS) cases in Cheshire.

Mr. Yeo

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms included in the foot and mouth cull but not recognised as infected premises have had laboratory tests conducted for the presence of foot and mouth; and what proportion of these recorded positive results.[286]

Mr. Morley

[holding answer 25 June 2001]: As at 22 October a total of 7,294 Dangerous Contacts (DC) and 255 Slaughter on Suspicion (SOS) cases, which had not been recognised as Infected Premises, had laboratory tests conducted. Of these, five yielded positive results and subsequently became IPs and were recorded as such.

Notes: In addition to IPs and SOS cases, contiguous premises and DC premises have had samples taken from sheep at slaughter to further inform the Department as to origin and spread of disease. Some of these were subsequently recorded as IPs as they yielded positive laboratory results. A negative result does not necessarily mean that disease was not present. In the main, testing was for antibody, ie looking for evidence of origin (older disease).

Source: DEFRA Disease Control System database as at 22 October—these figures may be subject to change as quality assurance of the data are carried out.