asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the reason why, under the warble fly eradication scheme, certificates of treatment will not be issued to farmers unless the treatment has been carried out by artificial insemination operators; and why certificates will not be issued if the treatment is carried out by a veterinary practitioner.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Warble Fly Eradication Scheme.
21.
The Deputy is not correct in his assumption. A number of veterinary practitioners are participating in the scheme and certificates of treatment issued by them are acceptable in the same way as those issued by the artificial insemination stations.
The participation in the scheme of the entire body of veterinary practitioners would have been welcomed but as this was not forthcoming the existing arrangement was the only feasible means of securing the necessary total coverage of the national herd.
Is the Minister not aware that certain farmers have been informed by his Department that unless the treatment to which I refer is carried out by the people attached to the AI stations the appropriate certificate will not be issued?
What happened is this. We devised a scheme on a national basis and we relied mainly on the AI stations to do the job for us on a country-wide basis. We said to the veterinary profession "Please come into this scheme." We wanted every vet to come in and help us. This would have had a tremendous effect. However, one of the governing bodies of the veterinary profession decided they would not participate as a profession. Individual vets in different parts of the country did come in on the scheme and they issue certificates in the normal way. But where a vet is not participating he cannot issue a certificate.
In these instances the farmer has no right of choice?
It is a simple mechanical operation. It is carried out mainly by the artificial inseminator employed by the AI stations.
22.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the number of claims which have been made to date for loss of animals directly attributable to treatment for warble fly eradication; the number of such claims which have been accepted; and the number of such claims which have been refused (a) because the herdowner had not consulted a veterinary surgeon within 24 hours of the treatment and followed his advice, and (b) for any other reason.
The total number of claims for loss of animals received since the compensation fund was set up under the warble fly eradication scheme in 1965 was 748. So far 338 have been accepted, 102 refused, and the remaining 308 are still under investigation. I should add that about half of those under investigation have arisen from the current campaign and have only recently been received.
No claim has been refused solely because of the herdowner's failure to consult a veterinary surgeon within 24 hours.
23.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will extend the limit of 24 hours after warble fly eradication treatment within which the herdowner must consult a veterinary surgeon in order to claim for loss; and, if not, why.
I do not propose to extend the limit of 24 hours for the following reasons:—
(1) the organo-phosphorus drugs used in warble fly treatment are eliminated from the animal's system within 6-8 hours of application and any side effects should be apparent well within 24 hours;
(2) early treatment will normally lead to complete recovery,
(3) a most liberal attitude has been adopted by my Department in the interpretation of this condition and, where the involvement of the drugs, is confirmed on investigation, no claim is rejected on the grounds that veterinary assistance was not procured within the 24 hour limit.
I am sure the Minister is aware that grievous losses have been sustained by small farmers who were unable for reasons beyond their control to give the notice within 24 hours and the Minister's Department refused to extend the time beyond that limit?
We never refused them.
They certainly were not paid any compensation.
I would be happy to investigate any particular case. As I understand the position at the moment, in no case where it was established that the drug in question was involved was the person excluded from compensation because of failure to notify within 24 hours.