HC Deb 11 December 2001 vol 376 cc844-6W
Mr. Edwards

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance was issued to valuers with regard to the calculation of slaughter premium when valuing cattle for slaughter during the foot and mouth outbreak; and what change has been made to that guidance. [14002]

Mr. Morley

The valuation of animals to be compulsorily slaughtered for animal disease control purposes (eg TB and brucellosis) is an established practice, carried out on DEFRA's behalf by independent valuers. The valuation process should take into account any relevant factors which would have a bearing on the real market value of an animal which is due to be slaughtered. Eligibility for slaughter premium can be taken into account if, in the opinion of the valuer, this eligibility would have an impact on market value.

The system for valuing animals for foot and mouth disease was no different from established practice until the option of standard values was introduced on 22 March 2001. Standard values include an element in respect of slaughter premium where relevant. However, in the light of a number of queries on valuations from farmers and industry organisations, it was decided to issue central guidance to valuers which confirmed the Department's position. This was issued on 11 September, as follows: The Department has long considered "the value" to mean the price an animal might reasonably have been expected to achieve on that day from a purchaser at an open livestock market. Any factors relating to the animal that would be taken into account had the animal been sold on the open market should thus be taken into account when assessing its value for the purposes of compensation. Such factors would include (but not be limited to) the species, its breed, age, weight, pedigree and (if appropriate) its state of pregnancy or lactation. If, for certain animals, the price obtainable at market would normally include some element for Beef Slaughter Premium, that should also be considered. If it is considered that such an element should be included, the age of the animal and the amount relating to the premium must be listed next to the animal on the valuation sheet.

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 November 2001] [pursuant to the reply, 6 November 2001, c. 145–46W]: The original reply was incorrect, and should have been as follows.

A total of 248 premises currently classified as Slaughter on Suspicion (SOS) and 396 premises currently classified as Dangerous Contacts (DC) had laboratory tests conducted for the presence of foot and mouth disease. Of these, one DC premises returned a positive result.

Notes:

Details of positive DC

This premises was sampled as part of the 3 km cull in Cumbria. Sampling policy for this cull was to sample as many sheep as possible within the constraints of laboratory facilities. Sheep were blood sampled as they were slaughtered. If a sample tested positive all other animals on the premises were culled.

Dangerous Contact (DC) premises classified from 3 km culls only converted to IPs when results from a further stage of laboratory tests called probang returned positive, indicating the presence of live virus.

For this one DC, initial laboratory results came back positive for the presence of antibodies, which indicated exposure to disease, thus its status was recorded as that of a DC. This premises did not have samples submitted for probang testing as all the animals on the premises had already been slaughtered and therefore the tissue samples required for probang could not be taken.

The premises was therefore not converted to IP status because only one of the 32 blood samples, taken initially, returned a positive result. This is insufficient for a change in premises classification.

Source:

DEFRA Disease Control System database as at 17:30 4 December 2001. Figures subject to change as more data become available.

Miss McIntosh

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will instruct her Department's offices in Leeds to involve(a) local practising veterinarians and (b) other organisations with local knowledge to help eradicate foot and mouth disease. [20823]

Mr. Morley

The Leeds Disease Control Centre (DCC) has, from the onset of foot and mouth disease, involved and consulted with local veterinarians and other stakeholder organisations in an effort to promote an integrated approach to eradicating the disease. The Leeds DCC appointed a highly experienced local veterinarian—from the Thirsk area— as Liaison Officer for the Local Veterinary Inspectors, three local farmers as National Farmers Union Liaison Officers, an industrial Liaison Officer and local authority personnel to provide additional links with local communities. Regular meetings and consultation with local stakeholders have provided opportunities for the exchange of information and expertise.

Miss McIntosh

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the lines of communication between her Department and the farming community in Thirsk during the foot and mouth outbreak. [20826]

Mr. Morley

The Leeds Disease Control Centre has endeavoured to maintain good relations with the Thirsk farming community, both directly and through the National Farmers Union and other organisations, since the initial outbreak in the Thirsk area on 5 July. The importance of the strict biosecurity enforcement measures in the Thirsk 'Restricted Infected Area' (RIA), introduced on 30 July, which were designed to halt the spread of the disease made the need for good communications particularly important. The improvement in the biosecurity arrangements of farmers and others while the RIA was in place, as measured by the reduction in infringements of the biosecurity requirements, suggests that key messages were communicated effectively.