Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Mar 1994

Vol. 440 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Movement of Diseased Cattle.

Mr. Crawford

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important matter. The decision of the Minister and his Department to allow approximately 100 head of cattle of unknown status be moved from the pound near Ballinagh in County Cavan to a private farmyard in north Dublin is hard to understand. Those cattle, many of them in-calf heifers, were part of a herd in County Donegal which I understand is restricted under TB regulations. They were removed by Donegal county sheriff with the intention of sending them to a meat plant for slaughter but finished up in the council pound in Cavan.

On Monday, 28 February I informed the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, and his Department, of the anxieties of farmers in the Cavan-Monaghan region and on Thursday, 3 March I discovered the sheriff, on behalf of National Irish Bank, had been facilitated by the Department in moving these cattle to north Dublin. How can the Minister justify this action when I or any other farmer would not be allowed move even one animal from a closed TB or brucellosis herd until that herd had cleared at least two tests other than to an export meat plant for slaughter? It is disappointing that the Department took this action against the best interests of disease control and those of a Donegal farming family. It represented a big change from the day this House was recalled to help the Goodman group against a number of banks for the sake of jobs in the meat industry, something my party supported.

Does the Minister intend to test these animals on this farm in Dublin? Can he give this herd a new herd number and give these animals a clear status regardless of the standard of the original herd? Does the Minister realise how much hardship is suffered by many farm families resulting from their adhering to the rules laid down by his Department and officials?

Proper regulations should be adhered to. Many farmers experience enormous difficulty in obtaining separate herd numbers for their sons or daughters who live on separate holdings in order to benefit from the quotas and premia available under the European Union regime. They have great difficulty also in getting payments if they make the smallest mistake when filling in a complicated form. For the sake of the industry and the unfortunate animals concerned they should be sent back to their herd of origin where they can be housed, looked after and tested under the supervision of the Donegal sheriff or whoever he or the court decide. It is unfortunate that so many herds are at risk.

We have spoken about candidates being parachuted into the different parties. I am sure the farmers of County Dublin are scared of 100 animals being parachuted into their area. They are being forced to go through unnecessary herd tests and it is unknown what could happen if the slurry or waste from the housing of these cattle is not properly dealt with. I cannot help thinking that it may be even more difficult to draw down EU funding for TB eradication if this type of action by the Department is allowed to continue. I ask the Minister to treat this issue very seriously.

Ordinary farmers are going to extraordinary lengths to contain disease. The Minister allowed the movement of a herd from Donegal to the west, then to a pound in Cavan and from there to the middle of many farm families in County Dublin. They do not know what happened to them or what the consequences will be. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that those farm families do not lose their livelihood?

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (Mr. O'Shea)

The background to this question is that 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 notice issued by a veterinary inspector. Following the application of the appropriate testing regime to the herd, so that all the animals in the herd then test clear, the herd is derestricted on the basis of a formal herd derestriction notice.

Provided that animals move in compliance with animal health regulations, the matter of their movement is a matter of commerce and trade. Thus, animals from clear herds which are pre-movement tested may be freely moved to a mart for sale. Animals not pre-movement tested may move on foot of a permit from one location to another. A herdowner or person in charge requests the permit, and on the basis that the proposed movement is in accordance with the animal health regulations, a permit is issued. The permit is not a direction by the Department to move animals, it is essentially a document to facilitate the movement of animals from one location to another. It is important that this point is clearly understood.

The movement of all reactor animals can only be by means of a movement permit issued by officials of my Department. Following the disclosure of reactor animals, the policy is to have such animals removed quickly to a registered meat export plant. To maximise the effectiveness of control under the animal health regulations reactor animals are specially ear punched and a visible additional tag is applied so that when moving under permit, 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 given by a veterinary inspector. Also, animals in a restricted herd which are not reactors may be moved on foot of a permit to slaughter at a meat plan or, for other reasons, to another secure holding. However, the critical point is that this holding then falls under the restriction control applicable in respect of the original holding from which the animals were moved.

In regard to the case referred to by the Deputy, while the animals adverted to were from a restricted herd, they were not reactor animals. The restriction which applied to the original holding has been carried to the holding in County Dublin. The movement was at all stages under permit by and with the permission of my Department in accordance with animal health regulations. Permits were requested by the person in charge of the animals and permits were issued in accordance with the normal procedure. The procedures that applied in this case were similar to those that would have applied in any other. These animals were moved in accordance with the animal health regulations. My Department did not direct or request that the animals be moved. In other words the movement of animals is and always has been a strictly private matter when the regulations are complied with.

I understand this is a sensitive case because of a dispute between a herdowner and a lending institution. However, the role of my department should not be misrepresented; we are not party to this dispute. The role of my Department was to respond to a legitimate request for permits to move certain animals, and to issue these permits in accordance with the regulations.

The permitting of animals under the animal health regulations is strictly enforced and herdowners are obliged to comply as a condition for the securing 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 alike, movement control of diseased animals by means of a movement permit is accepted as being 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 herdowners' livelihoods, herdowners accept the inconvenience and need for strict movement permit control and 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 trace-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.