HC Deb 07 March 2002 vol 381 cc480-3W
28. Mr. Bellingham

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she next expects to meet representatives of the livestock sector to discuss policies to combat further outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [R] [38021]

Mr. Morley

My ministerial colleagues and I meet industry representatives on a regular basis to discuss a range of disease control arrangements.

The next meeting of the foot and mouth disease stakeholder group will be held on 14 March.

A high-level imports forum will be held in March to consider the next steps for intensifying our efforts to reduce the risks posed by illegal imports of meat and other animal products, and to agree further priorities and action.

Mr. Breed

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many people have been(a) prosecuted and (b) convicted of deliberately infecting livestock since 20 February 2001; [37796]

(2) how many people have been (a) prosecuted and (b) found guilty of obstructing Government culls of livestock since 20 February 2001; [37797]

(3) how many people have been (a) prosecuted and (b) found guilty of obstructing Government inspections of farm premises since 20 February 2001. [37798]

Mr. Morley

[holding answer 28 February 2002]: There is no specific offence of deliberately infecting livestock at present, although the Animal Health Bill, currently being considered by Parliament, would create such an offence.

Responsibility for the enforcement of animal health legislation lies with my Department and the local authorities. My Department has taken one prosecution for obstructing a Government inspection of a farm premises. The defendant was found guilty.

There is currently no complete record of local authority prosecutions taken during the foot and mouth outbreak. However, we are not aware of any local authority prosecution for the above offences. My Department is liaising with the Local Authority Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards (LACOTS) to a compile a complete record of local authority prosecutions.

Malcolm Bruce

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what figures she has collated on the origin of those animals destined for re-stocking of UK farms following foot and mouth culls. [38639]

Mr. Morley

All animals used for controlled restocking must come from farms which are free from any animal healths restrictions including foot and mouth disease. No figures are collected on the geographical origin of animals used for restocking.

Malcolm Bruce

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of animals known to have the foot-and-mouth antibody there have been since 30 September 2001. [38524]

Mr. Morley

[holding answer 28 February 2002]: Antibody to foot and mouth disease virus has been detected in 177 animals on 18 farms since 30 September last. All cases were thoroughly investigated and no evidence of foot and mouth virus was found in any of these animals.

Malcolm Bruce

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what dates since 30 September 2001(a) tests have been carried out for foot and mouth disease, (b) the diagnosis of those tests has been received and (c) those animals tested and found to be dangerous contacts have been slaughtered. [38659]

Mr. Morley

[holding answer 7 March 2002]: Since 30 September, and before, samples have been taken from premises to investigate the presence of foot and mouth virus on a daily basis. Sample types may include the following material; epithelium from the feet and mouth, blood and probang samples. Results from initial tests on epithelium are usually returned within 24 hours of receipt. Results from the completion of final virology and serology tests, if negative, usually take up to four days, sometimes longer.

There have been 18 cases (farm premises) since 30 September where foot and mouth antibodies have been detected in animals and these animals were slaughtered as dangerous contacts on the dates set out as follows:

All of these cases were thoroughly investigated and no evidence of foot and mouth virus was found.

  • 13 October 2001: 1 case
  • 17 October 2001: 1 case
  • 24 October 2001: 1 case
  • 26 October 2001: 1 case
  • 27 October 2001: 1 case
  • 31 October 2001: 1 case
  • 10 November 2001: 3 cases
  • 13 November 2001: 1 case
  • 20 November 2001: 1 case
  • 27 November 2001: 2 cases
  • 10 December 2001: 1 case
  • 22 December 2001: 1 case
  • 9 January 2002: 1 case
  • 24 January 2002: 1 case
  • 22 February 2002: 1 case.

Mr. Gray

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she was informed(a) of the suspected outbreak of foot and mouth on St. Agnes Farm at Hawnby and (b) that veterinary tests proved negative; and what the average time was between testing and negative result during last year's outbreak. [40308]

Mr. Morley

[holding answer 4 March 2002]I was notified by my officials of the suspected outbreak of foot and mouth disease on St. Agnes Farm, Hawnby at around 5.00 pm on 26 February and was informed at around 7.00 am the following day, 27 February, that initial tests had returned negative results. Results of the final set of tests were received on 3 March.

During last year's outbreak, results from initial tests on epithelium were usually returned within 24 hours of receipt. Results from the completion of final virology and serology tests usually took up to four days, although it was not uncommon for a longer period to pass in some circumstances.

Forward to