Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1994

Vol. 439 No. 6

Adjournment Debate. - Restrictions on Diseased Cattle.

Mr. Boylan

Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to raise this very important issue. The regulations governing the movement of animals from restricted herds or a restricted area are very very severe. I fully support that. A farmer found in breach of such rules would face the wrath of a district justice and would have to face a jail penalty. We have spent millions since the mid-fifties trying to eradicate bovine TB and brucellosis. The cost to the State has been enormous but the cost to individual farmers whose herds have been stricken with disease is devastating. The compensation is not adequate, given the enormous increase in the value of dairy herds.

I raise this matter because it has come to my notice that animals were moved from a farm in Donegal without a proper permit. I understand that 101 cattle were taken from a restricted herd. The sheriff having failed to get the cattle for which he had a permit, took 101 other cattle to a destination in Ballinasloe, where they were not received when they arrived. The officials who issued the permit were at fault for not ensuring that before the cattle were moved from Donegal there was a home for them in Galway. The cattle had to remain in the lorries before proceeding after some considerable time to Navan, County Meath. Again there was no home for the cattle and no permit was yet in place.

After much controversy people objected to Friesian cattle in calf being slaughtered—phone calls were made to mysterious people who unfortunately must remain nameless and an offer was made by certain people that if the cattle were slaughtered, moneys would pass hands. The cattle were then moved to Ballinagh, County Cavan. The original owners and others who had taken up the case followed the lorries and thankfully the cattle were saved, following a phone call to the county registrar, Mr. Tommy Owens, at 2 a.m. He has a proper compound for receiving animals but at maximum it holds only 50 animals. When told of the distressed state of the cattle, who had been in the lorries for 24 hours he finally agreed under protest to have the animals brought to the compound. He was forced into that situation. I am happy to report that all the animals have made a full recovery having been exceptionally looked after due to the diligence of this man and his staff. They remain there without a permit.

Farmers in County Cavan are having enormous problems trying to eradicate bovine TB and brucellosis. I am not suggesting that the disease problems emanate from this compound in Crossdony but farmers fear that cattle travelling to the compound, especially from restricted herds, are a danger. The disposal of the dung puts animals at risk.

Departmental officials, officials of the sheriff's office in County Donegal and the bankers acted without due regard for the welfare of the animals and the farmers' lands through which they passed on their journey from Donegal to Ballinasloe, Navan and Ballinagh without a proper permit. If a farmer had done that he would be behind bars. The proper procedures were not in place and somebody was negligent. Family farms were put in danger by this irresponsible act and I hope it will never be repeated.

Mr. Tommy Owens, Cavan County Registrar, acted in the best interests of the animals in a situation over which he had no control and I compliment him and his staff on the manner in which they recovered.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (Mr. Hyland)

I thank the Deputy for tabling this question. I am surprised he did not identify the specific case. Had he done so, I would have been pleased to respond to the well founded charges he made. He has placed me at a serious disadvantage. His question refers to the need to ensure that diseased cattle are not moved without a permit and there is no reference whatsoever to the detailed case which he outlined. I regret that I am not in a position to respond to specific points.

Under the bovine TB and brucellosis eradication schemes, restriction control measures are put into effect following the disclosure of reactor animals in a herd as a result of a test. The holding on which the reactor herd is located is restricted on foot of a restriction notice issued by a veterinary inspector. Animals cannot be moved or traded into or out of the herd during the period of restriction. Following the application of the appropriate testing regime to the herd, to ensure that all the animals in the herd then test clear, the herd is derestricted on the basis of a formal herd derestriction notice.

The movement of all reactor animals is subject to the issue of a movement permit by officials of my Department. Following the disclosure of reactor animals, a movement permit is given to the herdowner to enable the removal of the reactor animals to a registered meat export plant. Reactor animals are specially ear punched and a visible additonal tag is applied so that the animals are clearly identifiable as reactors to minimise the risk of mixing with clear animals.

Under certain and specific conditions a herdowner whose herd remains restricted may be facilitated to purchase replacement stock on the basis of permission being given by a veterinary inspector. Also, animals which are not reactors may be moved on foot of a permit to slaughter at a meat plant or to another secure holding which then falls under the restriction control applicable in respect of the holding from which the animals were moved.

The permitting of animals under the animal health regulations is strictly enforced and herdowners are obliged to comply as a condition for the securring of payment of the appropriate reactor grants with other grants, including depopulation grants and income supplement. The movement of any animal into or out of a restricted herd without the permission of a veterinary inspector at the district veterinary office would be viewed in a most serious light. Any such movement would, of course, be illegal and could give rise to prosecution under the bovine TB and brucellosis orders.

Given the very substantial cost of the eradication programmes in terms of the contribution by farmers and the Exchequer, movement control of diseased animals by means of a movement permit is accepted as a fundamental requirement in the control and limitation of the spread of disease. Because of the very obvious risk to clear herds and, in consequence, to their livelihoods, herdowners accept the inconvenience and need for strict movement control and to have a creditable compliance reputation in this regard.

Currently my Department is developing a computerised animal movement permit project which will enhance the precision and effectiveness of the present permit arrangement and which is designed to expedite the processing and payment of headage premia. The system will facilitate rapid track-back to sources of disease and will be a powerful new resource to assist the reduction of the low but chronic incidence of bovine TB in particular.

Having regard to the country's overall animal health status, the bovine TB scheme has to be looked at in the context of the low national incidence of the disease. Over 99 per cent of the 7 million animals in the national herd are clear, while in herd terms, over 97 per cent of the country's 169,000 herds are free of the disease. There are difficulties associated with reducing this residual level of infection. It is now accepted, following, the ERAD 1988-92 experience, that, in addition to testing, emphasis must be placed on bringing new technology and new strategies to the scheme. In this regard considerable resources are being devoted to the development of new tools to assist the testing strategy, namely the development of a blood based diagnostic test, the building of a computerised movement permit system and research into the development of a vaccine for wildlife and cattle. Obtaining EU funding would create extra resources to broaden the format of the programme and I am continuing to press for an increase in the veterinary fund which would allow for a draw-down of such funding.

The question of expenditure under the disease eradication schemes must be related to the very considerable benefits to the Exchequer generated from the value of meat and milk exports in excess of £2 billion per annum, and to the considerable level of employment created in the agri-business involved. If we had not reduced bovine TB levels from the 20 per cent or so incidence of the 1960s to the present low level then both the European and third country markets could well have been closed to Irish agriculture with disastrous results for the national economy. EU legislation requires that at least one full round of testing of the national herd be undertaken to preserve the country's officially TB free status.