Foot and Mouth

Environment Food and Rural Affairs written question – answered at on 11 July 2001.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Peter Luff Peter Luff Opposition Whip (Commons)

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(1) of the contiguous culls in Worcestershire, how many have occurred around premises believed to be infected with foot and mouth disease, but which subsequently were shown to be negative in laboratory tests;

(2) how many contiguous culls occurred in Worcestershire after negative laboratory tests for foot and mouth disease relating to the premises believed to be infected.

Photo of Elliot Morley Elliot Morley Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Information is available only for Hereford and Worcester. Of 66 infected premises, 43 were tested, of which 30 returned negative laboratory results. These 30 cases remain designated as infected premises and are associated with 119 contiguous premises.

An infected premises is one where foot and mouth disease has either been diagnosed by a vet on the farm, supported by convincing clinical evidence, or where disease is found after testing. However, a negative laboratory result does not necessarily mean that the disease was not present and does not change the status of infected premises confirmed on clinical diagnosis.

When figures are available for Worcestershire, they will be forwarded to the hon. Gentleman.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes0 people think so

No1 person thinks not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.