§ Mr. BreedTo ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) from where the pig suspected of foot and mouth and swine vesicular disease which was slaughtered in Leicestershire on 21 June originated; [66168]
(2) what measures her Department is taking to identify the origin of the pig suspected of foot and mouth disease and swine vesicular disease. [66169]
§ Mr. Morley[holding answer 2 July 2002]All farms supplying pigs to the abattoir in question, together with a market and a collecting centre, were traced and inspected by official veterinarians. No disease was found. However, due to deficiencies in the identification of the suspect pig and a number of others in the same batch at the abattoir, inquiries so far have not established which of 17 farms was the farm of origin of the suspect animal. I have met pig industry representatives to discuss the implications of this episode. Investigations continue into what appear to have been serious breaches of identification regulations
306Wand prosecutions may follow. This could have had major consequences for the livestock industry should this pig had been proved to be carrying a disease.
§ Mr. HoyleTo ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many invoices remain to be paid to contractors over work carried out on foot and mouth; how many contractors are owed money; how many companies are owed over(a) 10 per cent., (b) 20 per cent., (c) 30 per cent., (d) 40 per cent., (e) 50 per cent., (f) 60 per cent., (g) 70 per cent. and (h) 80 per cent. of invoices submitted to her Department; what the length of period is of unpaid invoices; how much has been paid on account of unpaid invoices; how many contractors have money paid on account; and what the percentage terms are per contractor. [70167]
§ Mr. Morley[holding answer 16 July 2002]I refer my hon. Friend to Figure 60 in Chapter 4 of the recent NAO report 'The 2001 Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease' published on 18 June 2002. The report is available on the NAO's website on: http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/naoreports/01-02/0102939.pdf. Information other than that provided in the NAO report cannot be provided for reasons of legal and commercial confidentiality.
§ Mr. Simon ThomasTo ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the UK Government have applied for EU compensation under Article 20 of Council Regulation 2759/1975 for farmers who were subjected to movement restrictions during the recent foot and mouth crisis; and if she will make a statement. [68916]
§ Mr. MorleyArticle 20 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2759/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat provides that exceptional measures may be taken to support any market affected by restrictions on free circulation imposed in consequence of measures to prevent the spread of animal disease.
Introduction of exceptional support measures is dependent on the member state being able to demonstrate that the restrictions due to a disease outbreak have caused severe market distortion. While the impact on those caught up in the control measures was severe, the UK pig market overall did not exhibit clear indications of distortion.
The cull sow market was most severely affected by the export restrictions linked to the foot and mouth outbreak, and officials explored the possibility of a market support based solution with the European Commission—either exceptional market support under the CAP pigmeat regime and/or a cull sow disposal scheme. The Commission were not encouraging on either; although there are precedents for exceptional market support measures in animal disease situations, these have always been restricted to protection/surveillance zones. A scheme restricted in this way was not seen by the pig industry as being of any help to the cull sow market. A nationally funded cull sow disposal scheme was considered by the Commission to be income support; which is prohibited by state aid rules. Therefore no application for such support was made.