§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has evaluated on the incidence of BSE-related conditions in animals other than cattle. [9]
§ Mr. RookerThe following table gives the number of confirmed Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) cases in animals other than cattle in Great Britain as at 30 April 1997.
Species Number of cases Ankole cow 2 Bison 1 Cheetah1 3 Domestic cat 77 Eland 6 Gemsbok 1 Kudu 6 Nyala 1 Ocelot 2 Oryx (Arabian) 1 Oryx (scimitar horned) 1 Puma 3 Tiger2 1 1 Plus two litter mates that died in zoos abroad. 2 Plus another positive but clinically normal. Until November 1994, with the exception of BSE and scrapie, none of the other TSEs were notifiable. On the other hand, the Government believe that most cases of TSE have been reported to Agriculture Departments and epidemiological investigations have been carried out where possible. With respect to exotic ruminants, risk of infection was primarily associated with consumption of feed, often produced for cattle, which contained meat and bone meal (MBM). With respect to exotic felines and domestic cats, the risk was considered to be associated with consumption of central nervous system tissue which could legally be fed to them until it was banned in September 1990.
No cases of TSE have been found confirmed in canines, although a case of spongiform encephalopathy in a Norwegian dog showing a spongiform change in the brain is under investigation. This is not yet confirmed and speculation about its origin delayed until results are available.
§ Mr. GroganTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on(a) the disposal of carcases of cattle with BSE in landfill sites between 1988 and 1991 and (b) the progress of the Ministry's risk assessment of a set of the landfill sites used for the burials; [967]
101W(2) if a risk assessment, with special reference to the effect on the water table, is being undertaken regarding the disposal of carcases with BSE at the Darrington Leys quarry. [970]
§ Mr. RookerIn the early years of the BSE epidemic, incineration capacity was insufficient to deal with all the cattle involved. Therefore, during the summer of 1988 this department approached North Yorkshire County Council seeking licensed landfill facilities for disposal of BSE suspect cattle. At that time, the County Council was responsible as a waste disposal authority for the granting and supervision of licences under Part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Following an assessment by the authority of the landfill sites then in its ownership, Darrington Leys Quarry was identified by the authority as suitable for the disposal of waste of this kind. The Ministry's records, cross checked with those available to the Environment Agency, indicate that the carcases of fewer than 40 cattle affected, or suspected of being affected, with BSE were disposed of at the Darrington Leys Quarry landfill site between August 1988 and July 1990.
In May last year a sub-group of the independent Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), which advises Ministers on BSE, considered the issue of BSE and the environment, including the past disposal of BSE suspect cattle to landfill. It considered that although the spongiform encephalopathy agent was not yet fully characterised, there was good evidence to believe that individual molecules were not infectious and that infectivity was associated with macro molecular agglomerations indeed possibly with tissue fragments, albeit small ones. On this basis they concluded it was unlikely that leachate from landfill sites would present a significant risk and there was certainly no justification for taking heroic measures to excavate sites, even those which had previously been used for material such as BSE-confirmed cattle.
The Environment Agency has regulatory responsibility for supervising the safe operation of landfill sites and is in possession of SEAC's advice. The Agency monitors ground water quality in the vicinity of licensed landfill sites as a check for any leachate contamination. The Agency, not this department, is assessing data in respect of all the sites concerned and, in quantitative terms, on a typical selection of identified sites to determine whether there is a possibility of impact on water quality. The Agency is progressing this as quickly as possible and are seeking the views of SEAC on the approach taken.
§ Mr. GroganTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the cattle buried at Darrington Leys quarry near Cridling Stubbs were subsequently proved to be carrying the BSE virus following tests by his Department. [968]
§ Mr. RookerCompulsory slaughter of all suspects, with compensation, was introduced from August 1988. Under these arrangements the heads of suspects were removed from the carcases for confirmation of the presence, or otherwise, of BSE and were subsequently incinerated. No BSE suspects have been disposed of by landfilling since 1991, when sufficient carcase incineration capacity came on stream to process the number of cases that were coming forward.
102WThe carcases of fewer than 40 cattle affected, or suspected of being affected, with BSE were disposed of at the Darrington Leys quarry. To establish from records how many of those cattle had BSE would involve disproportionate costs. However, we know from total national figures for BSE suspects that approximately 75 per cent. of cases examined subsequently prove positive. Applying this rate to the cases landfilled at Darrington Leys quarry would suggest that fewer than 30 of the cattle would have been confirmed cases.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report column 98, on the incidence of BSE in the next 10 years, if he will list the assumptions that have been made in anticipating that the BSE epidemic will be close to extinction by 2001. [1512]
§ Mr. RookerThe assumptions that were made in predicting future trends in the incidence of BSE are set out in the paper written by Professor R. M. Anderson et al, to which I referred in my answer of 21 May. A copy of Professor Anderson's paper can be found at Appendix 5 of the November 1996 Progress Report which has been placed in the Library of the House. A correction to that paper was published inNature on 20 March 1997.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report column 98, on the projected cost of the cattle cull, what factors underlie the difference between the figures in his answer and earlier estimates of the total cost given by his Department. [1513]
§ Mr. RookerThe estimated cost of the selective cull quoted in my reply of 21 May assumes 100,000 animals are slaughtered. It encompasses compensation, disposal and operating costs, but does not take account of EC receipts and consequential savings to the OTMS.
It is not apparent to which earlier estimates my hon. Friend is referring. We are, of course, refining our estimates as the cull proceeds and more information on the actual costs is obtained.
If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me on any specific points I should be happy to respond to them.