§ Mrs. GormanTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many samples from live poultry of all types have been examined by Ministry laboratories for the presence of salmonella during 1988 and 1989; and how many samples from other animal species were similarly examined.
§ Mr. MacleanFrom 1 January to 31 December 1989, a total of 131,472 samples were submitted to the Department's veterinary investigation centres in England 257W and Wales for testing for the presence of salmonella in poultry. It is not possible to say how many of these samples came from live birds, carcases of birds or the environment of live birds or how many were examined in 1988 from live birds or other animal species.
§ Mrs. GormanTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times in 1989 his Ministry's laboratories have misidentified or misreported the serotypes of salmonellas they have examined.
§ Mr. MacleanThere have been no occasions in 1989 when a salmonella serotype was misidentified by the Ministry's veterinary laboratories. However on four occasions misreporting occurred, primarily due to clerical-typing errors.
§ Mrs. GormanTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to restrict the spreading of manure from calves and pigs infected with salmonella on to farmland in line with his restrictions on the spreading of manure from infected poultry flocks.
§ Mr. MacleanWe have no plans to do so.
§ Mrs. GormanTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of whether intact grade A eggs, derived from flocks infected with salmonella enteritidis, delivered to egg producing plants and pasteurised immediately after breaking out, would introduce such heavy contamination into the pasteurisation process that it would overwhelm the process and cause it to fail.
§ Mr. MacleanAs I explained to my hon. Friend in my answers to earlier questions, only a moderate heat treatment can be applied to liquid egg during the pasteurisation process otherwise its functional properties are destroyed. It is also important in processing to prevent salmonella contamination of the plant environment which would put the final pasteurised product at risk. For these reasons, processing plants cannot accept raw product from infected flocks which may be contaminated with salmonella enteritidis.
§ Mrs. GormanTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his assessment of the possibility of domestic wild birds infecting farm animals with salmonella typhimurium and enteritidis through their droppings.
§ Mr. MacleanSalmonella organisms are widespread in the environment and the potential for the infection of farm animals through wild birds exists.
§ Mrs. GormanTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions apply to the slaughter of laying flocks found to be infected with salmonella enteriditis; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. MacleanThe provisions relating to the compulsory slaughter of poultry laying flocks are contained in the Animal Health Act 1987 as applied in respect of salmonella through the provisions of the Zoonoses Order 1989.
§ Mrs. GormanTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there is a difference in multiplication rates between salmonellas introduced into eggs and those introduced naturally into intact grade A eggs.
258W
§ Mr. MacleanLittle information is available to indicate whether differences exist in the multiplication rates between salmonellas introduced into eggs and those introduced naturally into intact grade A eggs and research continues to investigate the factors which govern the multiplication rates of salmonella in shell eggs.
§ Mrs. GormanTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will define the terms egg and egg product as used by his Department.
§ Mr. CurryAn egg is a poultry egg in shell and an egg product is whole egg—a mixture of yolk and albumen—or its constituent parts, not in shell.
§ Mrs. GormanTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current financial position of the egg producer industry and his assessment of the likely impact on it of the refusal to issue licences to producers with flocks subject to infected place notices under the Zoonoses Order 1989.
§ Mr. CurryThe market for eggs is firm and packer to produce prices are currently at high levels.
In granting licences for the removal of material from premises subject to an infected place notice under the Zoonoses Order 1989, the Government's priority is to protect public health. The reply given to my hon. Friend on 5 February, Official Report, column 499, explains why eggs from an infected flock cannot be removed for processing. But it was announced on 26 March, Official Report, columns 54–55, that carcases from infected flocks may be sold for processing under carefully controlled conditions and subject to stringent safeguards.
§ Mrs. GormanTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial contributions are intended to be made from former eggs authority funds to the British Egg Industry Council and the British egg information service during the financial year 1990–91; and what part of that sum is intended to support the recently announced British lion scheme.
§ Mr. CurrySubject to the approval of the European Commission it is proposed to make up to £350,000 available to the British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) for the 1990–91 promotional campaign. In the financial year 1989–90, a total of £107,000 was made available to the BEIC for programmes previously approved by the European Commission. These sums include the cost of work carried out by the British Egg Information Service on behalf of the BEIC.
§ Mrs. GormanTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his response to the recent report sent to him by the Secretary of the United Kingdom Egg Producers Association.
§ Mr. MacleanI assume that the hon. Member is referring to a letter from the Secretary of the United Kingdom Egg Producers' Association dated 6 February to which officials replied on my behalf on 28 February.
§ Mrs. GormanTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) why it has been decided not to make residual Eggs Authority funds available to organisations representing the majority of egg producers;
(2) why the Government provide funding to the British Egg Industry Council only; and if he will make a statement.
259W
§ Mr. CurryThe Argriculture Act 1986 requires the Agriculture Ministers to dispose of the net assets of the Authority for the benefit of persons engaged by way of business in the production, marketing and processing of eggs.
When the egg industry was consulted in 1986 on how the net assests should be used the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Ulster Farmers Union, the Scottish Egg Producer Retailers Association, the British Egg Association, the British Poultry Breeders and Hatcheries Association, the National Egg Marketing Association and the British Egg Products Association all urged that the Government should disburse these assets through the British Egg Industry Council. UKEP Association Ltd was the only association to dissent from that view.
The Government considered that it would be appropriate to follow the advice tendered by nearly all the industry associations which between them clearly represented the majority of those engaged in the production, marketing and processing of eggs.