I propose to take Questions Nos. 169 and 170 together.
The removal of sheep from the Curragh was part of a range of measures intended to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease. The consequences of further outbreaks of the disease have already been well publicised. In short, the spread of the disease to areas of the country other than County Louth would have had catastrophic consequences for farmers, including those on the Curragh, and for the agri-food industry, the tourism sector and many other sectors of the economy.
Sheep are considered to present a particular risk in the spread of foot and mouth disease because of the difficulty in diagnosing the disease and the incubation period in the species. For this reason it remains the case that the expert group, which I established, has not yet recommended that the normal movement of sheep should be allowed to resume. Therefore sheep may, for the present, be moved only under permit directly for slaughter or between segments of the same holding for welfare reasons. In the case of the movement of sheep for welfare reasons, a veterinary examination is required to establish both whether the sheep are infected with FMD and whether there is a welfare issue which would require the sheep to be moved.
I am, on the basis of advice from the expert group, keeping the remaining FMD controls under review and I will consider relaxing the controls in relation to the movement of sheep when my veterinary advisers consider it appropriate to do so. I have received no such advice to date.
In relation to the question of funding for farmers on the Curragh, the position is that all but one of the farmers whose sheep were grazing on the Curragh removed their animals when requested to do so, in the national interest and indeed, in their own interests. I must commend this group of farmers for their responsible action in this case.
I acknowledge that the various control measures introduced to combat foot and mouth disease caused great inconvenience and in some cases hardship, to people and organisations in all sectors of society, including farmers whose sheep were grazing the Curragh. However, these controls were introduced in the face of a threat which would have had far worse consequences for all of those affected.
I do not, therefore, consider it appropriate to provide compensation to farmers for the impact of measures introduced to protect their livelihoods and the future of the agricultural industry from the ravages of foot and mouth disease. I will of course comply with any decisions of the courts in relation to this issue.
