Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Jun 1990

Vol. 400 No. 3

Written Answers. - ERAD Herd Tests.

John Connor

Ceist:

40 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline the reason for contradictory conclusions arrived at by ERAD in relation to herd tests carried out on a farm (details supplied) in County Galway in September, 1988 and November, 1988; the reason full tests on this herd, scheduled and notified for 4 September 1989, were not carried out; the reason he has failed to reply to the herd owner's letter of 4 October 1989 seeking a full explanation for the actions of ERAD in this affair; his views on the treatment of this person at the hands of his Department and ERAD; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr. O'Kennedy)

I am informed by the Director of ERAD that in this case two standard inconclusives were identified at a herd test, in September 1988. As a previous test, in June 1988, had revealed evidence of infection in the herd, the inconclusive animals were in accordance with normal practice adjudged to be reactors.However, the herdowner refused to have then tagged and punched as reactors and removed for slaughter. Another herd test was performed in November 1988 during which the two reactors were tested again, contrary to the provisions of section 8 of the Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) Order, 1978. On this occasion the animals passed the test. Expert veterinary opinion is that animals which fail the tuberculin test pose a serious risk of disease spread, even if they pass a subsequent test, and must be removed in the interests of disease eradication. It is for this reason that the legislation prohibits the testing again with tuberculin of an animal which has given a positive result to a test.

I understand that the herd tests scheduled and notified for 4 September 1989 were not carried out because the herdowner refused to identify the two reactors or to have the rest of his herd tested unless the two reactors were also tested.

The herdowners's letter of 4 October 1989 seems to have been mislaid. I am now arranging to have a reply prepared which I will issue as soon as possible. I would point out however that there has been a constant stream of communications between the herdowner and his legal representatives and ERAD on the subject matter of his letter since October.

I certainly do not agree that this person has been subject to unfair and unjust treatment at the hands of my Department and ERAD. Enormous resources have been made available by the State in the disease eradication effort principally for the benefit of the farming community. These resources include generous levels of grants to those unfortunate enough to experience disease in their herds. The least we are entitled to in return is the co-operation of herdowners in our effort to rid the country of disease.