I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with responsibility for forestry, Deputy Mary Wallace, and her officials. Members will be aware that the motion circulated was referred to the joint committee for consideration by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann on 19 February. A briefing note has been circulated. The motion reads: "That Dáil Éireann resolves that section 17A (inserted by section 2(1) of the Diseases of Animals (Amendment) Act 2001 (No. 3 of 2001)) of the Diseases of Animals Act 1966 (No. 6 of 1966) shall continue in force for the period ending on 8th March, 2009". I invite the Minister of State to make her opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from members.
Diseases of Animals Act 1966: Motion.
I am here to seek the joint committee's agreement to the adoption by both Houses of the Oireachtas of the resolution for the continuation in force of section 17A of the Diseases of Animals Act 1966 which was inserted by section 2(1) of the Diseases of Animals Act 2001, which Act provided that section 17A would remain in force for 12 months from the date of its passing. However, section 2 of the Act provides for the continuation, by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas, of this section for such further period as is expressed in the resolution. Since 2002, the provision has been extended.
Since I last asked the joint committee to continue this provision in force, considerable progress has been made within my Department in drafting a new and comprehensive Animal Health and Welfare Bill which will update existing legislation in this area and repeal a vast range of legislation, some of it dating back over 100 years. The programme for Government commits us to the introduction of a new animal health Bill to consolidate and amend previous legislation, as well as a comprehensive animal welfare Bill to update existing legislation to ensure the welfare of animals is properly protected and that penalties for offenders are increased significantly. The Department will shortly be engaging in a process of consultation with interested parties and having regard to the comments received, I hope to seek the Government's approval to draft a Bill with a view to having it published later in the year. In that regard, I know that members of the committee will take a particular interest in this significant legislation.
Members of the joint committee will recall that it was against the background of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001 that the Diseases of Animals Act 1966 was amended by the Diseases of Animals (Amendment) Act 2001 which added a number of measures to the principal Act, including the section 17A provision. Section 17A provides for the appointment by the Minister of a range of persons or classes to be "authorised officers" and confers on them powers to be exercised in cases of reasonable suspicion that a disease is or may be present or that an offence is being or may be committed under the 1966 Act or under EU rules legislation on animal health and related issues.
The past year has clearly illustrated the increasing threat of various disease outbreaks, particularly exotic diseases, not least given the experiences in Britain where they have had to confront outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, avian influenza and bluetongue. What these experiences have demonstrated is the absolute necessity for continued vigilance and the need for robust legislation to deal speedily and effectively with disease outbreaks. In that regard, it is important to appreciate that section 17A is not confined exclusively to foot and mouth disease but is applicable also to the range of other diseases covered by the Act, including avian influenza and bluetongue, as well as EIA, of which we had experience in 2006. The continued focus of the Department is to constantly review, refine and update its various contingency arrangements and ensure all the necessary measures are in place and the tools available to deal with any such outbreak. I am satisfied that our contingency arrangements and legislative basis are sufficiently robust to deal with all eventualities but they are kept under ongoing review and amended as necessary to deal with evolving situations.
The current position on foot and mouth disease, FMD, is that the last remaining Commission controls on exports from Britain were lifted on 31 December 2007. Notwithstanding its confinement to a relatively small area, that outbreak had significant consequences for British agriculture which are likely to continue to be felt for some time. To date, some 80 premises have been confirmed as having bluetongue in Britain. So far these cases have been in the south eastern and southern parts of England. The bluetongue protection zone is confined largely to East Anglia, south east and south England but the surveillance zone extends to most of England and into part of Wales. There is still a surveillance zone in Dorset following the outbreak of avian influenza in swans.
Members will be aware that bluetongue was confirmed in a number of imported cows and in some calves from imported animals on a farm in Northern Ireland in the past few weeks. The Northern authorities have concluded that the detection of these cases does not represent an outbreak, as there is no evidence that the virus is circulating and there has not been any change in its bluetongue disease free status. There has been very close co-operation at all levels between the respective administrations in Dublin and Belfast as the situation developed in Northern Ireland and this will continue. Following the initial case, departmental officials reviewed the risk and, as a precaution, a number of additional measures relating to further testing of recently imported animals from Northern Ireland and elsewhere have been put in place. All animals tested to date here have been negative for bluetongue.
On imports in general, up to 1 November 2007, the movement of susceptible animals from bluetongue restricted areas in Europe was banned. However, since then a Commission regulation allows for the movement of susceptible animals from bluetongue restricted areas under defined conditions detailed in regulation. Any such animals imported here since the controls were modified were tested for bluetongue and will now be retested to provide additional assurances.
Ireland opposed and voted against the adoption of the November regulation at the relevant EU meeting and we subsequently raised the matter with the Commission in writing. The cases in Northern Ireland which gave rise to concerns about potentially novel transmission routes for bluetongue reinforced our view that aspects of these trade rules should be amended. The issue was raised again by the Department's chief veterinary officer at a meeting with his EU colleagues last Friday but the Commission did not at that time accept the need for change. Consequently and as a temporary precautionary measure, the Minister suspended the importation of certain female cattle and sheep for breeding or fattening from bluetongue restricted zones.
Following the meeting on Friday, the Commission has convened a meeting tomorrow of relevant experts to review the position and will bring forward proposals in due course, if deemed necessary. The Minister has indicated that the suspension of imports from bluetongue restricted zones is a precautionary measure pending the results of the further assessment. The matter will be reviewed in the light of progress on adaptation of the EU movement regulation and in any event before 1 April, by which time we hope the Commission will have fully considered the latest information on disease transmission and the adequacy or otherwise of existing regulations. This measure is consistent with our stated commitment to keep the level of risk to Ireland under review and to introduce such additional control measures as are considered appropriate.
Our contingency arrangements for bluetongue are designed to minimise the risk of the possible introduction of the virus and based on existing EU legislation and ongoing assessment of the risk to Ireland. As part of these, we have sent information and advice leaflets on bluetongue to every farmer in the country, as well as specifically tailored advisory material to all members of the veterinary profession. The Department also hosted a bluetongue industry seminar last year with international speakers which was attended by the main industry interests. In addition, we have a dedicated bluetongue website which is updated as appropriate and contains comprehensive information and advice on the disease, including full details of the clinical signs, together with photographs. These arrangements are kept under ongoing review and revised when required by the developing disease situation or in the light of legal or other developments.
In addition, we are refining arrangements for the delivery of a programme in the event that it becomes necessary to vaccinate here. For a variety of reasons, principally relating to trade, vaccination should only be used in the event of a confirmed outbreak, not prophylactically. This position is supported by the interests concerned whom we have consulted. This approach is also consistent with that being taken by other countries throughout the European Union. Arrangements are being made to ensure we have a supply of vaccine for immediate use in the event of a confirmed outbreak. We have been in contact with vaccine manufacturers to ensure we secure such a supply as soon as possible after the vaccine becomes available, I hope within the next few months.
The provisions of section 17A could prove to be of considerable use in ensuring the efficient and effective operation of the bluetongue surveillance programme and especially in dealing with any outbreak of this disease, particularly given the potentially devastating consequences for the export of live cattle from Ireland. The provisions were used during the 2006 EIA outbreak which resulted in one successful prosecution by the Department against a racehorse trainer who moved a horse contrary to a restriction order with which he had been served. There are safeguards attached to the section 17A provisions. For example, an authorised officer must have a reasonable suspicion before acting, while in the case of entry to a private dwelling, a search warrant is required. Members of the committee can be assured that the powers provided under the section are and will continue to be used only in such circumstances as are appropriate and contemplated by the law.
It is appropriate that, given the nature of the powers conferred by section 17A, the Houses of the Oireachtas should have the opportunity to review them periodically and consider the propriety of their being retained. Consequently, the 2001 Bill was amended to allow the Houses of the Oireachtas to review the provision on a regular basis. That is the reason we are here today. It is our hope this will be the last occasion on which we will seek the committee's approval to retain the provision and we do so because of a genuine belief it is a necessary measure to have available to us. We intend that a provision relating to authorised officers will be included in the forthcoming Bill which the committee will have ample opportunity to scrutinise during its passage.
Animal diseases pose a continuing and, in some cases, new threat to animal and, potentially, human health. They pose an economic threat in the case of poultry to a vulnerable but important part of the agrifood sector and, in the case of cattle and sheep, to Ireland's enormously valuable livestock industry. In anticipation of a new animal health and welfare Bill being published later in the year, we hope and trust the committee will accept our argument for the retention of section 17A for a further year and agree to the adoption of the resolution by both Houses.
I welcome the Minister of State and her officials. Members on this side will be supporting her proposal that section 17A continue in force for a further period up to March 2009. However, we need to attach greater urgency to introducing a proper legislative framework. This provision was introduced originally in the context of appointing authorised officers at the time of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. There is considerable debate on this matter. It is no longer just a threat from foot and mouth disease. There are avian flu and, most recently, bluetongue and a host of other possible diseases and dangers to which we are being and could be exposed, about some of which as laypeople on this side we may know relatively little. In the context of climate change, there is undoubtedly exposure to greater risk. Bluetongue is a disease more associated with north Africa than with Northern Ireland.
We need to put in place a more rigorous legislative framework, rather than depending on authorised officers being appointed to deal with emergencies as they arise. In the course their duties those authorised officers have other responsibilities. It begs the question as to whether we can afford to proceed on this interim basis in a multi-billion euro industry in which hundreds of thousands are employed in farming and food processing. There is lethargy in the Department in introducing a proper legislative framework to deal with the issue. While bluetongue, avian flu and foot and mouth disease are now household terms, there is a host of other threats to our biosecurity. While we might not have heard of them, they require constant vigilance on the part of a dedicated team, rather than appointing authorised officers who have other important duties to carry out. The legislative framework for dealing with the issue is inadequate.
Regarding the outbreak in Northern Ireland, I would like the Minister of State to comment on when an incident is regarded as a bluetongue outbreak. Is it not an outbreak because it occurred in the case of an imported animal or is it an outbreak in the context of officials here looking North, but not in the context of Northern officials looking South? That appears to be implicit in what the Minister of State said. Where does that place the commitment to an all-Ireland approach to biosecurity? We appear to be singing from different hymn sheets.
The Minister of State said: "The Northern authorities have concluded that the detection of these cases does not represent an outbreak as there is no evidence that the virus is circulating and there has not been any change in its bluetongue disease free status". While I know we are awaiting confirmation of results due later this week, that is the Northern Ireland approach. However, later in her speech the Minister of State said: "Consequently and as a temporary precautionary measure, the Minister suspended the importation of certain female cattle and sheep for breeding or fattening from bluetongue restricted zones". It appears different interpretations are being put on events. Perhaps the Department is taking a belt and braces approach to the issue. I see Mr. Rogan shaking his head. I would be interested to tease out the issue. Government policy has been based on an all-Ireland approach. If this represents a divergence of opinion between the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, and the Northern Minister, Ms Gildernew, it raises serious questions which we need to tease out in advance of our upcoming visit to Northern Ireland and the Assembly.
What is the legal position on the restrictions the Minister has unilaterally imposed and which are not in compliance with EU regulations? Are they open to legal challenge? The Commission has taken a different line from that which the Republic's veterinary authorities deemed to be appropriate. Those are the relevant issues in the immediate context of dealing with bluetongue. However, I wish to place the overall debate in a broader context. We are still dependent on 2001 legislation, the response to the foot and mouth disease outbreak. To have nothing seven years on appears lethargic. It certainly requires greater urgency to put in place a dedicated team whose sole objective is to protect the biosecurity of the industry from whatever threats exist. It should be a constant source of advice and action to protect the industry which is of enormous benefit to the economy.
I support Deputy Creed in welcoming the extension of section 17A for another year. The measure served us well in recent years when we were under threat. I compliment the Minister, her departmental officials and previous Ministers who have acted to control the spread of animal diseases in our country. Our economy is very open now and there is much movement both of people and animals, so we are subject to exposure in this respect and it is important to keep restrictions in place when necessary. Some years ago, we all held our breath during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain. As previous speakers have said, this country is still so dependent on agriculture that we must keep our finger on the pulse at all times to ensure nothing untoward occurs. If additional legislation is required we should introduce it. It should be in place so that we are ready and able to control any outbreaks that may occur.
If there is an outbreak of bluetongue in this country, is the vaccine that was previously referred to and that is ready to come on-stream, a prevention or a cure? Do animals that contract bluetongue have to be slaughtered? I do not know much about that disease, although there have been outbreaks in England and Northern Ireland. What does the vaccine cover? In the event of a bluetongue outbreak must all the animals be destroyed or just individual animals?
A few years ago we seemed to have brucellosis under control and the country was almost free of the disease, yet it rears its ugly head now and again. There have been outbreaks in certain areas. What is the current status of brucellosis here? Will we ever totally eradicate brucellosis and bovine TB?
I welcome the Minister of State and her officials to the committee. While not wishing to repeat what has been said, I welcome the continuation of section 17A until March 2009. I am somewhat taken aback that the Northern Ireland authorities concluded that the detection of these cases does not represent an outbreak.
Like Deputy Creed, I would like to know when an outbreak is not an outbreak. From our perspective, it is important to maintain our disease-free status since we export approximately 80% of our product. It is very important to our economy and to the farming community. I welcome the close co-operation at all levels between Dublin and Belfast and I hope it will continue. I also hope they will come more towards our way of thinking in treating the country as an island rather than going back to what they like to term "the mainland".
I also welcome the review. It was stated that all animals imported from Northern Ireland have been tested, but has there been large-scale importation from Northern Ireland in the recent past? If so, have all those animals been tested to date?
I welcome the Minister of State and her officials to the committee. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a proud record in combating animal diseases and we would like to see that continuing. How many inspections have taken place under the provisions of section 17A since it was initiated? We must be vigilant at all times because the agriculture industry is vital to the economy and has been since the foundation of the State. We must at all times maintain our disease-free status, which is so important when it comes to entering international markets.
While I saw no reference in the Minister of State's speech to the pig industry, I presume it is still on the Department's agenda. At the moment we have Aujeszky's disease and to a lesser extent blue ear disease. As we are trying to get all our animals on this disease-free status, what is the possibility of eradicating these two diseases by depopulating the few remaining herds? We are very near to getting on top of the matter and this might be an opportunity to get rid of the diseases once and for all. A vaccination programme is currently taking place but it has been going on for many years without making an impact. Perhaps somebody could comment on the possibility of eradicating both diseases by depopulating the few remaining herds.
Whatever legislation is required to protect our food sources is welcome. As Deputy Creed said, we will be supporting this measure. I am concerned, however, when an open-ended approach is taken to restrictions in the case of an outbreak. If an outbreak were to occur, more qualified terms and conditions should apply. While foot and mouth disease was kept out and did not seriously undermine the farming sector, I always felt we were chasing our tails in trying to keep ahead of it. There were no prescribed methods or restrictions for keeping it out, so I am fearful about bluetongue. The Minister of State said "We have been in contact with vaccine manufacturers to ensure we secure such a supply as soon as possible after the vaccine becomes available [hopefully] within the next few months". It is a good job we did not get bluetongue in the last couple of months, so is a vaccine available or not?
I thank the Minister of State for her presentation. On a point of clarification, does the use of a vaccine affect our disease-free status or is the vaccine being used as an alternative to culling to control the disease outbreak? In the case of foot and mouth disease, for example, if we were to adopt a vaccination programme, I understand our disease-free status would be affected. Will the Minister of State clarify that?
I welcome the Minister of State and thank her for her comprehensive report on this motion. She stated that since the committee was last asked to continue this provision in force, considerable progress has been made within the Department in drafting a new and comprehensive animal health and welfare Bill to "update existing legislation in this area and repeal a vast range of legislation", some of it dating back more than 100 years. Has it taken the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 100 years to bring forward an up-to-date Bill to help curb animal diseases? Was the need for such legislation not clearly evident from the foot and mouth disease outbreak that was so well controlled by the former Minister, Mr. Joe Walsh, a constituency colleague of mine in Cork South-West? He excelled in keeping strict regulations in force to ensure the outbreak was minimised. It is somewhat lax for the Department to tell us it is now in the process of drafting a new and comprehensive animal health and welfare Bill which will not be ready for discussion until the end of the year. There is urgency to this issue in view of the variety of diseases emerging throughout Europe.
On imports generally, the position until 1 November 2007 was that the movement of susceptible animals from bluetongue restricted areas in Europe was banned. Since then, however, a European Commission regulation allows for such movement under defined conditions, as detailed in regulations. Has the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, advised the Commission that the regulations that pertain here should be copperfastened and that the same should be applicable in Europe? Are we knocking our heads against a stone wall? It seems the Commission will not co-operate with us and is lax in its laws when it comes to the movement of animals with bluetongue, avian flu and so on. I was not aware that swans infected with avian flu were discovered in Dorset. Swans migrate annually and could quickly carry the disease to this country. Are we sitting on a time bomb as far as these diseases are concerned?
The Commission is dragging its feet in refusing our request for the implementation of a strict law on movement. It has now referred the issue back to a committee that meets today in Brussels. The matter is being batted back and forth and no action is forthcoming. We have seen a glowing example of the Commission riding roughshod over all the regulations pertaining to certain diseases. There is no recognition that we, as an island nation, are susceptible to these diseases from migrating swans, wild fowl and so on. We must make clear that there cannot be one law for Ireland, exercised by the Government, and another, more liberal, law for other member states. What is the Minister of State's view on that?
We are sitting on a time bomb if we allow the Commission to dictate to us on this matter. It seems the EU is ignoring our requests and it is falling to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to try to implement the necessary controls in this jurisdiction even though there is no relevant EU directive. The EU directives that are issued to us come with a strict exhortation from Europe that they be adhered to. The absence of directives to other member states on the issue of animal diseases is notable.
Deputy Johnny Brady took the Chair.
I thank the Vice Chairman for taking over in my absence.
I know this document is only a draft but I hope the Minister of State did not sign a copy of it . The indicated end date is 8 March 2008.
It is only a draft. The Minister of State has nothing to do with that.
It is in all our interests that we retain this provision for the next 12 months, so I thank members for their support for its continuation. Deputies Creed and Sheehan referred to the animal health and welfare Bill on which work is currently ongoing in my Department. The preparation of comprehensive legislation is proceeding in accordance with our commitments in the programme for Government. It is hoped to bring this legislation before the Houses before the end of the year, to be preceded by a consultation process we hope to commence before Easter.
Our objective is to update existing legislation to ensure the welfare of animals is properly protected and that the penalties for offenders are increased significantly. This will include provision for the consolidation of responsibility for the welfare of animals, including non-farm animals, within the Department and the promotion of higher standards of animal welfare at all levels of the food production chain. The introduction of a new animal health and welfare Bill will consolidate and amend previous legislation to reflect the changed disease status of the nation's animals. The consultation process will take place shortly and we hope to have the legislation before the Oireachtas by the end of the year.
Deputy Creed, Senator Carty and others expressed concerns about the bluetongue virus with reference to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland authorities, in accordance with the EU approach, have concluded that the detection of cases of bluetongue in an imported cow and the calves of imported cows does not mean the disease is circulating there. The North currently retains its bluetongue-free status. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in the North is nonetheless carrying out other tests and a survey of herds to confirm that status. Bluetongue is not confirmed unless there is evidence of circulation of the active virus between susceptible animals and the mid-vector population. This is currently not the situation in Northern Ireland. Bluetongue contamination is defined in EU legislation. Northern Ireland has followed this definition and has been reviewed at EU level.
Our ban applies to bluetongue restricted zones, which do not include Northern Ireland. It was in the context of the evolving situation in regard to potential new transmission routes for bluetongue, deriving from the Northern Ireland cases, that the Minister took the decision she did last Friday to suspend the importation of certain cattle and sheep from bluetongue restricted zones with effect from Friday, 22 February. The measure is temporary and precautionary pending the review by the European Commission of the conditions under which live animals may be exported from bluetongue restricted zones. Ireland outlined its concerns to the Commission at a meeting of the chief veterinary officers last Friday. The Commission responded by convening an expert working group which is to meet tomorrow.
The additional control measures are consistent with the Minister's stated commitment to keep the level of risk to Ireland under review and to introduce such additional control measures as she considers appropriate. The measure she introduced relates to female breeding and production cattle aged more than 12 months and female sheep aged more than six months and arises from the latest developments in Northern Ireland. I can inform Deputy Creed that the legal basis for the safeguards introduced by the Minister last week is Article 10.1 of EU Directive 90/425/EEC.
I wish to outline, in response to the queries of members, the steps we will take if there is an outbreak of bluetongue here. The required EU control measures will be implemented. While some infected animals and perhaps some other animals in the same herd will be compulsorily slaughtered in the initial stages, it is not intended that there will be widespread use of compulsory slaughter. In light of the manner in which bluetongue is spread by midges, the use of compulsory slaughter would not be effective in containing the disease.
EU regulations require that when there is an outbreak of bluetongue, national Governments must put in place a 20 km control zone, a 100 km protection zone and a 150 km surveillance zone around any infected farm. While movements of animals within and between restricted zones in which the same virus strain is circulating is permitted, restrictions apply to movements out of zones although such movements are permitted in certain circumstances. These measures will remain in place for a considerable period of time in the event of an outbreak of bluetongue here. That will have implications for live exports of cattle and sheep, as well as exports of semen from such animals, to countries and regions which are not affected. Due to their scale, restriction zones which are established here may extend into Northern Ireland and vice versa.
A member raised the question of imports from Northern Ireland. Animals came into Northern Ireland from the Netherlands on 11 January last. The date of discovery was 14 February. Some 37 consignments of breeding cattle, consisting of 498 animals, were imported into 29 destinations in this jurisdiction from Northern Ireland during the "at-risk" period between those dates. Four consignments of breeding cattle, consisting of 62 animals, were imported from Antrim to four destinations in the Republic. Nine consignments of sheep, consisting of 1,200 animals, were imported from Northern Ireland to two destinations in the South. All the animals in question will be traced and tested as a precautionary measure.
Deputy Sheahan and others spoke about vaccination, which is seen as the only real defence against bluetongue. No vaccine is currently available against the BTV8 strain of the disease, which is present in Britain and across northern Europe. Work is continuing on the development of a vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies have given assurances that they can meet the EU's projected demand for a BTV8 vaccine, which is approximately 220 million doses for Ireland and the other member states in northern Europe. Supplies of the vaccine should be available by this summer. While Ireland is fortunate that it is not one of those countries where bluetongue has been detected, we have decided to place an order for the vaccine nonetheless. We are hoping there will continue to be no cases of bluetongue here.
We are fortunate that bluetongue did not come here over the last couple of months.
We cannot invent the vaccine. We have to wait until it is invented by those who are working on it.
Is the Minister of State saying that any--
I will allow supplementary questions after the Minister of State has completed her comments.
Deputy Christy O'Sullivan asked about porcine diseases. We have been taking measures, in association with the pig industry, to reduce and eradicate Aujeszky's disease. The 13 farms which are currently testing positive for the disease are being encouraged to take appropriate steps to eradicate it. We will continue to offer such encouragement.
Deputy Doyle asked about the impact of the vaccination. There are no plans to vaccinate preventively in unaffected member states, including Ireland, in the absence of bluetongue. Vaccination is envisaged initially as an emergency measure, on confirmation of the disease, and subsequently as an ongoing disease management tool. When vaccination takes place in unaffected areas, restricted zones have to be established and limitations have to applied to the movement of animals out of such zones. While trade is allowed to take place between such zones, it is obvious that it will be affected in such circumstances.
Therefore, trade will be compromised.
I will take supplementary questions later in the meeting.
Trade will certainly be substantially changed. I hope I have covered all the points raised.
I raised a question about the European Commission, which seems to be treating our Minister's request in a negative manner.
The Minister and officials in the Department are leading the field, as usual, in this instance. Our people were the first to realise that the situation in the North has changed because of the calf aspect to it. Our people raised that with veterinary officials last Friday. A meeting is taking place tomorrow to consider the decision the Minister took last week. We voted against the proposal last November as well. Ireland is leading the way in relation to this concern. Our first concern at all times is the risk to Ireland. We hope further changes will be made at tomorrow's meeting in support of what Ireland is doing. Ireland has been proven correct in similar circumstances in the past. The Minister and the officials from the Department are making the best decisions for Ireland.
I have two brief supplementary questions. First, I will return to the issue of Ireland's legal position. The Minister of State said earlier that "Ireland opposed and voted against the adoption of the November regulation at the relevant EU meeting and we subsequently raised the matter with the Commission in writing". It is obvious that we did not agree with the decision taken by the Commission. The Minister of State's final comment on this issue was that "consequently and as a temporary precautionary measure, the Minister suspended the importation of certain female cattle and sheep for breeding or fattening from bluetongue restricted zones". I accept the point made by the Minister of State about Northern Ireland not being a bluetongue restricted zone in the eyes of the Department. I am concerned about the legal basis on which the Minister unilaterally took that decision. Did her actions fly in the face of a Commission regulation? Are we sure that we are not--
I thought I had answered that question, but I will do so again because it is important.
Perhaps I will ask my second question before the Minister of State responds. The chief veterinary officer may be in a position to answer this question. What is the likelihood that we can continue to insulate ourselves from the threat of bluetongue? It is difficult to protect against the spread of the bluetongue virus because it is airborne in that it is carried by midges. Factors like climate change may be contributing to the spread of the disease, although Ireland's status as an island is probably helpful. Is it inevitable that we will be confronted with bluetongue? Could we take any steps to minimise the effect of the disease when it arrives here? Has the Department considered the inevitability of the arrival of bluetongue and how we should react at that stage?
I would like some clarification on the bluetongue vaccine. Do I understand correctly that if an animal has the BTV8 strain of bluetongue, the only action that can be taken is to slaughter it? Is the proposed vaccine a cure? Can it cure bluetongue or will it prevent it? I also asked the Minister of State about the present status of brucellosis and TB. Does she have any information in that regard?
I believe there have been many outbreaks of brucellosis in Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is something we will discuss next Monday.
That is why I asked the question. What is the present status of brucellosis in Ireland? It is very important. We seemed to have eradicated it a few years ago, but now we find ourselves back to square one.
I asked earlier roughly how many inspections took place under section 17A, but I did not get an answer.
We do not have a national figure for the number of inspections because they are done locally. We could compile such a figure by adding together the number of local inspections to reach a national figure. The proposed vaccination does not cure bluetongue — it is purely a prevention issue.
Therefore, slaughter is the only way.
Initially but in very small numbers. That was done in cases that occurred in Northern Ireland in the hope it would eradicate the disease.
If an animal has bluetongue, must it be slaughtered?
How is the disease eradicated?
An animal can get better naturally but our only concern about the slaughtering in Northern Ireland in confined circumstances is to eliminate the disease. If there were only one or two cases, slaughtering would be the option to eliminate the disease but if it was widespread such as in the northern European countries to which I referred--
How is a farmer compensated for the loss of an animal due to bluetongue? Is the compensation amount the same as that in cases of TB?
One of the greatest problems with this disease, as distinct from other diseases, is posed by animal welfare, especially sheep which are not slaughtered. It is for a different reason that one would decide what to do with the animal. The Serotype 8 strain has been confirmed in nine north European countries — France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom. Wholesale slaughtering is not happening across Europe. The only reason for a slaughter would be to stop and prevent and, to take on board Deputy Creed's point about this being an island. There have been no cases of brucellosis in the State since 2006, which is good news. With regard to TB, there are more cases than we would wish to see. Badgers are a major constraint but the Department hopes to begin a field trial in the next few months on their vaccination. The position on TB is under mindful watch. Compensation for farmers would only arise if animals were compulsorily slaughtered, which is not generally the case in other countries.
Deputy Creed asked about the legal basis. Article 10.1 of Directive 90/425 provides the Minister with the legal basis to put in place the safeguards we have deployed. The Deputy referred to a paragraph in my speech but I would like to highlight the following statement: "The cases in Northern Ireland which gave rise to concerns about potentially novel transmission routes for bluetongue...". It is the new transmission route and calves that are leading us to examine female cattle over 12 months and sheep over six months. The Minister is legally covered by the safeguard element.
What is the likelihood of bluetongue reaching the State?
Mr. Paddy Rogan
It is not inevitable but the likelihood has certainly increased because of its continued spread across the northern member states of the European Union. The success of the vaccination programme that will commence later in the year, particularly in the affected member states, could reduce the potential for the spread of the disease to Ireland. It will be May or June at the earliest before a vaccine will be available in any member state. However, prior to its availability, the disease could continue to spread westwards across the United Kingdom, particularly to the Welsh coastline and into Scotland. There are particular times of the year when climatic factors, especially wind direction, could predispose this country to wind borne spread of the disease by virtue of midges being blown across the Irish Sea. The midge travels better over sea than over land. The other way the disease could enter the country is via live animal imports. When we carried out our original risk assessment in November 2007, live animal imports and climatic factors were seen as the two highest risk factors facing Ireland.
That concludes our consideration of the motion. I take it the joint committee recommends that there should be no further debate on it in Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. Is that agreed? Agreed. The clerk has circulated a draft report. Is it agreed to include the commencement time as being 2.10 p.m? Agreed. Is it agreed to include the conclusion time as being 3.05 p.m.? Agreed. Is it agreed to record that Deputies Creed, Aylward, O'Sullivan, Sheahan, Doyle and Sheehan and Senator Carty contributed to the debate? Agreed. Is the report agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed that it be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas? Agreed.
On behalf of the joint committee, I thank the Minister of State and her officials for attending.