§ Miss McIntoshTo ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will update and publish the information given in the letter of 6 August from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for the Vale of York concerning the396W contingency plans to stop the spread of foot and mouth disease in the Vale of York, North Yorkshire and the Humber region (ref 3469). [12071]
§ Mr. MorleyMy letter of 6 August provided the following information
On 9 July you tabled a parliamentary question which I was unable to reply to before the House rose for summer recess. You asked what contingency plans there were to stop the spread of foot and mouth disease in (a) Vale of York, (b) North Yorkshire and (c) Yorkshire and the Humber region.I am sorry that I was unable to reply, but had I had done so, I would have told you that a contingency plan has been drawn up that will enable the Department and field staff to respond rapidly to an outbreak occurring in any of the three areas. The current plan emphasises the continued adherence to and rigorous enforcement of the existing control strategies, including tight bio-security. It is a working document that will be refined in the light of any developments including up to date advice. In addition, DEFRA has now announced that in an area surrounding Thirsk, additional, stronger biosecurity measures will be introduced. A Press Release (59/01) was issued on 23 July.A copy of my letter was placed in the Library of the House.
Since the date of that letter, the plan has been further developed to ensure that strict biosecurity measures, along the lines of those applied in the Thirsk area, can be rapidly implemented should a new case occur in any part of the region. These measures coupled with the ongoing message on biosecurity continue to be successful in preventing the spread of the disease.
In addition, we maintain the capability, both in terms of infrastructure and resources, to respond to any recurrence of disease expeditiously. This capability is being taken forward so that it forms part of an integrated contingency response for the north of England as a whole.
It is encouraging that North Yorkshire has had no outbreaks since 18 August, but we continue to maintain our guard.
§ Mr. JackTo ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many diagnoses of foot and mouth disease in the current outbreak have subsequently been proved incorrect; and if he will make a statement. [R] [12924]
§ Mr. Morley[holding answer 6 November 2001]As of 27 November 2001, the total number of infected premises (IPs) in Great Britain was 2,026. In 299 confirmed cases samples were not taken, for example where clear clinical signs of FMD were observed and where disease had already been confirmed in the locality. Of the 1,727 cases where samples were taken, 1,326 (74 per cent.) were recorded as having a positive laboratory result. However, a negative laboratory result does not necessarily mean the disease was not present and does not change the status of an IP confirmed on clinical grounds.
§ Brian CotterTo ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what scientific evidence her Department has evaluated which supports the assumption that animals vaccinated against foot and mouth can pass the disease on to uninfected animals. [15667]
397W
§ Mr. MorleyThe Department has drawn on all of the available scientific research conducted worldwide, as well as relevant epidemiological findings from natural outbreaks of disease, on vaccination against foot and mouth disease in examining potential control policies involving vaccination. A comprehensive review of the use of emergency vaccines against foot and mouth disease will be published shortly in the scientific journalVaccine.
The current scientific evidence is that ruminants can, but not invariably, become infected following vaccination and this depends on the strain of the virus and the length of time between vaccination and exposure to the virus. Such animals therefore present a potential risk and the international guidelines on the movement of vaccinated animals take this risk into account. More research of the long-term carrier state is needed in countries with the disease, and where vaccination has been used, as long-term studies of sufficient size are not possible in the laboratory.
More information about the science of vaccinating against foot and mouth disease is on our website www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/vaccination/science.htm.
§ Mr. SteenTo ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what are the criteria for imposing a ban on animal movements in Devon; and when these criteria were last met; [15592]
(2) when she expects to lift the ban on the movement of animals in Devon following the restrictions introduced as a result of foot and mouth disease. [15627]
§ Mr. Morley[holding answer 16 November 2001]Livestock movement restrictions are imposed throughout Great Britain using powers contained in the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983 (as amended). A total ban on movements applied only for one week (23 February to 2 March). Since then, movements have been permitted under licence to abattoirs and from farm to farm subject to conditions. Movement restrictions reflect the disease status of the county, which is based on veterinary advice. FMD free status is awarded on the basis of extensive blood testing of sheep. Devon was classified as an FMD free county on 27 November.
Details of permitted movements, county classification (updated weekly) and the criteria for classification may be found on the DEFRA website at www.defraweb/footandmouth.
§ Paul FlynnTo ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 196W, (Ref. 12294), what percentage of the payments made to valuers in the foot and mouth disease epidemic totalled £1,500. [17712]
§ Mr. MorleySeventeen per cent. of the payments made to valuers during the foot and mouth epidemic totalled £1,500.