Committee for Agriculture
and Rural Development
Friday 7 June 2002
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TB and Brucellosis Review
Members present:
Rev Dr Ian Paisley (Chairperson)
Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Kane
Mr M Murphy
Mr Paisley Jnr
Witnesses:
Ms Rodgers )
Mr T McCusker ) Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Mr G McIlroy )
Mr S Johnston )
The Chairperson:
The Committee is concerned about the incidence of tuberculosis (TB) and brucellosis, issues which I am sure are also causing you worry, Minister. The Deputy Chairperson is anxious about botulism, on which he will speak later.
The Minister of Agriculture and Regional Development (Ms Rodgers):
The Committee has asked me to speak about the TB and brucellosis situation in Northern Ireland, but it has also acknowledged that I cannot yet discuss the findings of the relevant policy evaluation reports. The brucellosis report is the more pressing of the two, and departmental officials concentrated on completing it first. The report is currently awaiting approval from the Department of Finance and Personnel before it can be issued for public consultation. I shall be happy to let the Committee see the report before its general release.
The TB report had to take second place, and it is hoped that departmental officials will sign it off by 21 June. The Department of Finance and Personnel will have to agree its release. I have not yet seen either report, but I expect both to make recommendations on whether and how to reform Northern Ireland's testing regimes. The evaluation of affected livestock has become contentious, and the related compensation arrangements have been the target of much criticism. I expect to see proposals to reform both those areas. The Department's powers to enforce disease control measures - such as movement restrictions and control of depopulation and restocking - are inadequate. It is therefore also hoped that the reports will make recommendations in those areas.
I have received many representations about the alleged role of the badger in the spread of TB, and I expect to see recommendations in that area, among others.
The Committee's letter to me referred to the relative incidences of TB and brucellosis in other parts of the United Kingdom and Ireland. The TB situation in Great Britain is better than Northern Ireland's, though there are several worrying hot spots - most recently in Wales.
Brucellosis is effectively unknown in Great Britain, but there is a serious problem in both parts of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland's TB problem has traditionally been worse than that of Northern Ireland, though the situation in the South seems to be improving, while in Northern Ireland it is worsening in some areas, since testing had to be suspended during the foot-and-mouth emergency in 2001.
In the South, the foot-and-mouth outbreak was confined to one small area, allowing business to be conducted as usual in the rest of the country. Committee members have received details of TB and brucellosis incidences in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The picture is complicated. The prevalence of both diseases in Northern Ireland is a cause for concern.
While the control of TB is a long-term issue, I have taken some steps ahead of the outcome of policy evaluation to bring brucellosis under increased control. During 2001 biennial testing was replaced by annual testing in the high-incidence divisions - Enniskillen, Newry and Armagh. Culled-cow blood-sampling commenced in both the slaughter plants used for the over-30-months scheme, and a bulk milk-sampling scheme was introduced whereby all dairy herds are sampled monthly. That has allowed the temporary postponement of routine blood tests in dairy herds and a reduction of the backlog by up to 100,000 tests. Nevertheless, the testing backlog is a serious problem for the Department. There is undetected infection, and a significant increase was experienced in the first three months of 2002.
In response, I have made available more veterinary resources as the foot-and-mouth disease controls have been relaxed. I have directed the Chief Veterinary Officer to treat brucellosis as his highest priority, thus allowing the Department to maximise the use of existing resources and redeploy staff from other areas in TB hot spots.
Finally, I am relaunching a publicity effort aimed at reminding farmers of their role in disease control. While we are still at an early stage, there are encouraging signs in two of the three worst affected areas - Enniskillen and Armagh - that brucellosis is being brought under control. We are starting to see a reduction in breakdowns in those areas. However, we continue to have grave concerns about brucellosis around Newry, and we shall continue to take every possible step - where appropriate with our counterparts in the Republic of Ireland - to bring brucellosis under control.
In conclusion, I stress that no Minister could ever sort out those diseases alone. The Department has done much and will continue to do whatever it can to control brucellosis and TB. However, there is much that farmers could do to help themselves, chiefly by way of taking sensible biosecurity precautions.
That is all I have to say for now. I shall be happy to take questions from the Committee.
The Chairperson:
In your paper, you make it clear that Great Britain has been free of brucellosis since 1993. Why?
Ms Rodgers:
I cannot answer that question.
Mr McIlroy:
One of the main issues, which will probably be addressed later, is that we have seen different levels of disease on either side of the border. Although Northern Ireland was technically free of the disease in the early 1990s, the infection returned. That is one of the fundamental reasons why we need co-operation between North and South to tackle those diseases. It has been a big factor in our overall control.
The Chairperson:
So the land border has caused the difficulty. It is amazing that Great Britain has been able to free itself of brucellosis.
Ms Rodgers:
The sea is the greatest guarantee for us, and for Great Britain, in the control of animal disease, as was seen in the foot-and-mouth crisis. That is why I understand from veterinarians, who are the experts, that treating Ireland and Great Britain as an epidemiological unit in animal disease containment makes sense. Great Britain does not have the problem; the disease travels up and down Ireland across the land border.
The Chairperson:
Before 1993, when brucellosis was present in Great Britain, did the authorities there take any steps that you are not currently undertaking to eliminate the disease?
Mr McIlroy:
One aspect of the brucellosis review was to examine what control measures were in place in the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain. There was nothing radically different, but the Minister, through the Chief Veterinary Officer, receives adequate resources, getting testing done and animals removed. Those basic steps are being tightly enforced. We are also examining our overall policy and such issues as compensation.
The Chairperson:
So there is nothing that is not being done in Northern Ireland which was done to eliminate brucellosis in Great Britain before 1993? Can you say that with your hand on your heart?
Mr McIlroy:
With my hand on my heart or on my papers, Mr Chairman, I understand that to be so.
The Chairperson:
So we cannot learn any lessons which we might put into practice?
Mr McIlroy:
There is always something to learn. The value of the policy review is that we have examined what has been done in the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain. Officials in the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in the Republic of Ireland saw the review, so comments on their experiences could be included. There were, however, no fundamental policy changes.
The Chairperson:
The Committee has already raised the matter of large compensation payments for brucellosis. Our attention was drawn in a Government paper to the fact that there was to be a reduction in those payments. Have you any comment to make on that?
Ms Rodgers:
Certain issues that you have raised are the subject of litigation, and it would be inappropriate of me to comment on them, except to say that some compensation awards have been held up because of queries. However, those are being dealt with. I cannot comment any further.
The Chairperson:
But money will be available from the Department if those claims are established in court?
Ms Rodgers:
We shall simply have to pay. We shall be answerable to the Public Accounts Committee in everything, and we must be careful, from an accounting point of view, that, when we pay out compensation, we do so correctly and according to the rules.
Mr Savage:
The figures for Northern Ireland do not look good. Is there any information to suggest that those breakdowns in the Northern Ireland herds might have been caused by cattle imported into Northern Ireland?
Ms Rodgers:
I cannot answer that question specifically.
Mr McIlroy:
That information is not available to me at this time. Some of the early breakdowns were associated with cattle from the South.
Mr Savage:
I am not thinking so much of the South as of such places as Scotland.
Mr McIlroy:
There have been no indications that that is the case. I understand your question clearly now, and it reinforces what the Minister was saying. If we eradicated brucellosis from Ireland, our control procedures would ensure that it did not enter by any other route, simply because we should require all animals to be tested.
Mr Savage:
Have we established that diseases other than TB and brucellosis have not been brought into Northern Ireland?
Ms Rodgers:
Diseases apart from TB and brucellosis?
Mr Savage:
I am not just talking about Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland. Cattle have come in from other places, such as the continent.
Ms Rodgers:
All animals coming in from other states must be certified for a clean bill of health. It would be difficult for a diseased animal to enter Northern Ireland.
Mr Savage:
In some cases, where breakdowns have occurred and farms allowed to re-stock, breakdowns have happened again within a short time. Is there anything which might be done which is not currently being undertaken to prevent breakdowns recurring?
Ms Rodgers:
I expect the review to examine all those issues. Your question will be dealt with when the report is presented to the Committee. I cannot pre-empt what will be contained in the policy evaluation, which will examine all those issues.
The Chairperson:
When will the review be completed?
Ms Rodgers:
The brucellosis review is currently with the Department of Finance and Personnel.
Mr McCusker:
We hope that the review will be completed soon. The Department of Finance and Personnel must approve the recommendations and the economic side before we can go public. The completion of the review is expected at any time, but the papers sometimes take longer to produce.
The Chairperson:
I thank you for your promise to let us see the review.
Mr Savage:
I welcome the news that reactors are being removed from farms more quickly. Once a reactor is discovered on a farm, the quicker it is removed, the better. The Department must be congratulated.
Ms Rodgers:
Thank you, but I should be happier if you did not accuse me of being responsible for things outside my control, such as the O'Hare Report.
Mr Savage:
I shall give credit where credit is due. It is a step in the right direction. However, certain other matters worry me.
Ms Rodgers:
Forgive my digression, but the report of the O'Hare review group out for consultation has nothing to do with the Department. No decisions have been taken on it.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Time will tell.
Mr Murphy:
With regard to prevention and control, what precautions have been taken to stop or minimise the spread of brucellosis and TB in south Armagh and other areas? Farmers claim that British Army patrols often carry those diseases from one farm to another, especially when slurry is being spread on fields.
Ms Rodgers:
In my initial remarks I detailed what extra precautions have been taken, and the additional staff and veterinary support which have been put into the hot spots, of which Armagh is a prime example. We make our position clear and advise the Army of the danger of spreading disease when crossing fields and of the need for precautions. I understand that TB can be spread in many ways; for example, it is said that badgers are carriers of TB. It can also be carried by birds and aborted foetuses. There is no single reason for the spread of the disease; however, we take every precaution and ask everyone else to do so. We explained the dangers and the need to take precautions to the British Army, and advised farmers of the need for biosecurity. The Department does everything possible to ensure that everyone with a role to play is aware of all necessary precautions.
Mr McIlroy:
The local divisional veterinary officer is regularly in contact with those involved, including the Army. I reinforce what the Minister said: that every attempt is made to ensure that individuals do not spread diseases in their operations, in particular brucellosis.
Mr Murphy:
Does the divisional veterinary office notify the Army of any breakout of disease on a farm and require it to stay off that land?
Mr McIlroy:
The Army will be notified at some stage of disease in an area. It will not necessarily know of every outbreak of disease on every farm.
Mr Murphy:
Should the Department not inform the Army immediately?
Mr McIlroy:
We can inform the Army immediately, and that is the procedure in some divisional offices. There is no problem ensuring that it becomes common practice. However, brucellosis is a more localised problem, and we therefore concentrate our advice on those active in an area or townland.
Mr Kane:
I take it that the badgers are not notified.
Mr Ford:
If I am correct, Minister, you said in your opening statement that your powers were in some respects inadequate with regard to disease control. Are the powers any different in the Republic of Ireland or in the jurisdictions of Great Britain? Would research benefit Northern Ireland?
Ms Rodgers:
The review and evaluation of our policy has dealt with exactly that. It examines what has been done in the Republic and in Great Britain to see if anything might be done or copied to tackle the situation.
Mr Ford:
So it specifically concerns powers which you have noted in other jurisdictions.
Ms Rodgers:
I do not yet have the report of the review. Perhaps Mr McIlroy might comment on that question.
Mr McIlroy:
I support what the Minister said. A fundamental part of our research concerned other jurisdictions' powers and where our own must be enhanced. The policy review takes care of all that, and, if accepted, it will be incorporated in the animal health Bill.
The Chairperson:
Mr McIlroy, you put your hand on your heart and said that you thought that you were doing it regularly.
Mr McIlroy:
It is still ticking.
Mr Ford:
At its last evidence session with the Department, the Committee requested a breakdown of percentage figures for brucellosis according to divisional veterinary office area. However, it did not receive them. The Committee highlighted the situation in Enniskillen, Armagh and, in particular, Newry. Is there evidence of the disease's spread throughout Northern Ireland, or has there been growth in those areas only?
Ms Rodgers:
I believed that the Department had supplied the figures which the Committee requested; however, I shall check whether that is so. There is evidence of a downturn in two of the three hot spots, but not yet in Armagh. The disease seems to be concentrated in those hot spots; there is no evidence of its spread into other areas.
Mr McIlroy:
There is always some spread outside those areas, but no fourth hot spot has been established.
The Chairperson:
Will the Department provide percentage figures for the local herd?
Ms Rodgers:
Yes.
The Chairperson:
It would be interesting to see them; the Committee asked a question on that.
Mr Bradley:
I wish to ask about imports in the parochial sense. Closed or restricted herds can be relocated to rented land, regardless of distance and without any requirement to give notification of their movement. That potential is a major concern in my area, where a herd which was closed or restricted because of TB could be moved into the locality from more than 25 miles away because its owner could pay more for the land than local farmers could afford. As a result of that movement, the entire area is closed. That major problem must be addressed. Can anything be done about it?
Mr McIlroy:
Such problems were addressed in the policy review of the Department's powers, which also covered restricted herds. Many definitions of movement relate to a transfer of animals within a holding, which can include out-farms, and so on. Such movement can be important in the epidemiology of brucellosis in particular, a matter addressed in the policy review.
Ms Rodgers:
Your question is fair.
Mr Bradley:
I refer not solely to brucellosis but also to TB. The matter must be addressed tomorrow rather than in a few months, for it is causing the diseases to spread like wildfire.
Ms Rodgers:
The matter is being addressed.
The Chairperson:
Minister, in your letter of 27 May you supplied statistics on compensation appeals, as promised at our last meeting on 3 May. The figures relate to the number of appeals set against departmental valuations between January and March 2002. Two of the five appeals, which involve 10 animals, stand out as having produced significantly different outcomes. One compensation valuation increased from £750 to £1,600, while the other rose from £2,500 to £4,250. In the Department's response to the Public Accounts Committee's report, it said that it would investigate appeal cases as a result of which there had been a significant increase on the original figure. Has your Department investigated the two cases in which the level of compensation almost doubled?
Ms Rodgers:
The differences between the original and revised figures are not significant in cash terms. They involve a few thousand pounds rather than £1 million, the amount awarded in some areas. Nevertheless, the point is also being addressed in the review.
Mr Kane:
Has the Department considered introducing legislation granting it full control over badgers, the carriers of brucellosis?
Ms Rodgers:
At the risk of repeating myself, that is also being addressed in the review.
The Chairperson:
It is good that you are carrying out the review.
Ms Rodgers:
Pilot schemes have been carried out on badgers in England and in Offaly, in the South of Ireland. I expect some proposals on that in the final review.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Past allegations that brucellosis has been spread deliberately were really attempts to run down the industry. That is irresponsible, since there is no evidence of such deliberate infection. Where there is only suspicion of infection, those claims should be avoided. Unfortunately, we continue to hear revised theories on how the disease arises. Some blame it on the Army and do not examine the real cause. You put your finger on the key factor, which is good animal husbandry.
Examining the figures in the table which you gave us, we do not seem to be comparing like with like. The table for Northern Ireland shows a provisional cattle population figure of 1·6 million, and states that 1·8 million tests were carried out. In England, the cattle population was 5·7 million, but only 903,000 tests were carried out. The number of reactors in England was 3,000, but in Northern Ireland there were 8,000. Half the number of tests resulted in proportionately the same number of reactors in Northern Ireland. We are not comparing like with like. More tests were done in Northern Ireland than in the Republic, so it is obvious that more reactors would be discovered. There is a strong possibility that, if more tests were done in England, Scotland and Wales, more reactors would also be found in those places.
We need an all-Ireland policy, but we also need an all-islands policy, for, if England, Scotland and Wales have found the right approach, we must learn from them how to keep a lid on the disease. That will not be done simply by carrying out fewer tests. If we tested only a third of our cattle population, as England appears to have done, we should have found a lower incidence of reactors. I wonder whether the Department has taken on board anything that England, Scotland or Wales have done to suppress the disease.
Ms Rodgers:
The Committee requested the relative incidence of TB and brucellosis in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland, and that is what I provided. The figures are complex, and the situation is complicated. I have given the relative figures as I was asked to. With regard to England, Scotland and Wales, we have already learnt that we must treat the islands' land masses as epidemiological units. As the Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer has indicated, as part of the review we are evaluating and considering what has been done in Great Britain and the Republic, and whether there is anything that we can learn from that. That is simply common sense.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Is it a legal requirement in any of those jurisdictions to report abortions?
Ms Rodgers:
Yes.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Is that a legal requirement in Northern Ireland?
Ms Rodgers:
Yes.
The Chairperson:
The figures which you gave us were what we requested. The point of the question was that, if you consider the number of tests done, you will see that there is not really a direct comparison. However, we did not ask you for a comparison; we asked you for the figures which you have now given us. When you consider that England conducted fewer tests but has more cattle, the result cannot be compared with that for Northern Ireland, where more tests were carried out.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
I have looked briefly at the 2001 figures for England. Did England test less than one fifth of its cattle population, while Northern Ireland carried out more tests than it has cattle? Is that how you read those figures?
Ms Rodgers:
Yes.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Since more tests are being done, the increase in identified cases is understandable. Proportionately we cannot make a comparison.
Ms Rodgers:
It could be argued that we do more tests because we have more problems. They may not be as keen to do as much testing, since they are content that they do not have the problem we have.
Mr McIlroy:
It is complicated. However, the Minister is correct. In parts of Scotland and the north of England, tests are carried out every two years; Northern Ireland herds are tested at least every 12 months. There is therefore an immediate reason for the differences.
Ms Rodgers:
We are taking measures to deal with a growing problem, whereas they do not have the same predicament. Obviously, we do more testing.
Mr Armstrong:
I hate to harp on. However, we test every animal in Northern Ireland which exhibits symptoms to ensure that we do not have a problem with BSE. Officials in Wales and Scotland - countries with similar stock levels - are not looking for BSE and therefore think that they do not have a problem. The regime in Europe is to keep checking to ensure that BSE is not a problem, but officials in England and Wales are not checking whether the problem exists.
If brucellosis figures in the Irish Republic from 1997-2001 are compared with stock levels, they are greater than those in Northern Ireland. In 1997, there were 125 cases compared to 25 here. It is therefore not like for like. We are ensuring that we have a disease-free country, but other countries are not so stringent. I agree that we should continue testing, but other countries could have the same problems.
Ms Rodgers:
You can deduct what you like from statistics, I am told. Those figures tell how many animals were tested, but the real story is told by the percentages. In England, they are 0·4 and 0·6; in Scotland, they are 0·3, 0·001 and 0·003; and in Wales they are similar. The figures for Northern Ireland are increasing - 0·035, 0·51 and 0·53, and those for the Republic range from 0·37 to 0·45. If the percentages show that there does not seem to be a huge problem, there will not be the same amount of testing. A European regulation states that testing for BSE is compulsory. Symptoms of BSE are not obvious until the disease has reached an advanced stage. It can be harboured in an animal without being detected. There is no test for a live animal.
Mr Armstrong:
If testing for BSE is increased, more cases will be detected.
Mr McIlroy:
We must be careful about the status of programmes in different countries. England, Scotland and Wales had annual testing, and when disease levels were reduced they started to test some areas every two years. However, the two-year tests are not highlighting problems in them. The only difference in their testing is the frequency, but they are not identifying problems.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
I hate to point out a slight difference, but what the Minister said about the percentages is not entirely fair, for we are not comparing like with like. If one country tests only a fifth of its herd every two years, while another country tests its entire herd every year, the percentages do not tell the real story. I do not wish to get into a mathematical argument, but the percentages do not tell the story that the Minister thinks they do.
Ms Rodgers:
We can agree to differ on that matter. A percentage is the only way that -
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Statistics and damn lies.
Ms Rodgers:
Where different sets of tests had been carried out, the only way that I could make a comparison was by examining the percentages, for they were the only common factor.
Mr Armstrong:
I think we all agree that there is a problem.
Ms Rodgers:
There is a major problem, which we are addressing and hope to be able to contain. In two of the hot spots there are reasonably hopeful signs. The same problem in the Republic has been decreasing at a faster rate than ours, which seems to be increasing. In Great Britain, they do not seem to have the same problem as we, so we are carrying out more tests for very obvious reasons.
Mr Ford:
With regard to Mr Paisley Jnr's point about statistics, why is the final column - B as a percentage of A - the number of reactors as a percentage of the total population, rather than the number of reactors as a percentage of the number of animals tested? There does not seem to be any logic to that, since it shows that you can reduce your rate to zero if you do not carry out any tests.
Mr Johnston:
I put the statistics together. The original version stopped at the third column, which details the number of reactors. I thought that the Committee might have found it difficult to compare the figures in that form. To provide a very crude basis for comparison, I included the final column, which does not demonstrate anything particularly scientific. It was included to give the Committee a grasp of the comparative position of each country. There are all sorts of other ways in which the information could be presented, and if the Committee would find it helpful, we should be happy to do so.
Mr Ford:
Reactors as a percentage of the number of tests carried out is not a crude statistic - it is an accurate representation of what was tested. However, reactors as a percentage of the total population is a meaningless statistic which is entirely dependent on the number of tests carried out.
The Chairperson:
There is no doubt that we have a substantial problem, and, just as they have done in Great Britain, we must push to ensure that we eliminate it. Having a border with another country poses a major problem. The fact that we are examining that and realise the seriousness of the situation is positive.
The Committee noticed that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's press release provided advice on dealing with brucellosis. The terms of reference for the Committee's inquiry include an undertaking to assess the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's publicity campaign on tackling TB and brucellosis. We should like to establish how well the newspapers picked up on the press release. Is there an agreement that such press releases are printed in the farming press?
Ms Rodgers:
Yes, there is an agreed programme.
The Chairperson:
You may not be able to answer now, but could you write to the Committee to say how the information fed out by the programme and the press adverts was responded to?
Ms Rodgers:
Do you wish to know how the farming community responded?
The Chairperson:
Yes.
Ms Rodgers:
It is rather early for a full assessment. Perhaps it might be useful if we supplied you with our programme of advertisements monthly.
The Chairperson:
Thank you. That would be helpful.
Mr Douglas:
There has been a great deal of praise for the way in which everyone in Northern Ireland dealt with foot-and-mouth, a sentiment with which I am sure we all agree. However, during that six-month period when no testing was done, it seems that brucellosis spread. Does the Department have any proof or figures to clarify whether that was the case?
We all talk about brucellosis-free status. Does that really mean that there is no brucellosis, or is there an acceptable level? A number of years ago, Northern Ireland was counted as brucellosis-free when it was not.
Ms Rodgers:
It would appear that, because we had no choice but to stop testing during the foot-and-mouth outbreak, there was an increase in brucellosis. That is logical, and we are now redoubling our efforts to bring the levels back down.
The term "brucellosis-free" denotes an acceptable level of brucellosis. I do not think that we can eradicate it. We should like to, but when you say "brucellosis-free", you are talking about it being at a minimal level rather than that which we have.
Mr Douglas:
What might that minimal level be? I am sure that you are aiming for it.
Ms Rodgers:
I do not have that figure to hand.
Mr McIlroy:
Single-figure breakdowns.
Mr Douglas:
Botulism is a serious issue for those caught up in it - perhaps as serious as brucellosis. However, it is not a notifiable disease. Might that status be considered in future? I hope that compensation can be paid to those farmers who are losing out. Can they not get compensation until a disease is notifiable?
Ms Rodgers:
They cannot get compensation if it is not a notifiable disease.
Mr Douglas:
That is a problem for individuals who have had it in their herds. It is very serious for them and often not of their own making. The question must be considered.
Ms Rodgers:
It is being investigated. We are taking it seriously, for I know that it causes a great deal of distress for those farmers who have been hit.
Mr Savage:
One point has been missed with regard to brucellosis. How many abortions were reported in Northern Ireland last year?
Ms Rodgers:
I do not have those figures to hand, but I can certainly provide them.
Mr Savage:
Do brucellosis outbreaks happen mostly in the intensive farming sector? I know what is going on in some places. There are intensive fattening units where heifers are being injected, for no one wants a heifer which is in calf. That is the nub of the problem. In many of these fattening herds, cattle are being injected, and, if they are in calf, they abort. We must examine that. I listened carefully, and I did not hear anyone asking about it. Is there any research being done? Abortions could be where many of the problems originate. Half the time no one sees what comes out of such units; it goes into the slurry and is spread across the fields.
Ms Rodgers:
All the breakdowns are investigated, and epidemiological studies are carried out.
Mr Savage:
How many abortions are reported? It comes from that.
Ms Rodgers:
There is a legal obligation to report abortions, so we can only tell you, through our own statistics, the number notified to us. If people are not notifying us -
Mr Savage:
That is where the problem lies.
Ms Rodgers:
There are many areas in which we depend on getting information. Abortions should be notified to the Department.
Mr Savage:
As long as that vaccine is available for people to use, the problem will always be there.
Ms Rodgers:
A court case is pending on that very issue. If people are aware of abortions and do not notify the Department, they are breaking the law. We shall take action on the basis of information received.
Mr Savage:
The owners of large herds are worried that people are being careless, and the situation is snowballing out of control.
Ms Rodgers:
I made that point in my initial remarks. The Department can do a certain amount, but there is also much that the farmer can do. Biosecurity is important in stemming the increase in the disease.
Mr Savage:
I wish to return to the serious question of botulism. One farmer has been calling me for two or three days, as his herd has had a botulism breakdown. How can we control that? That farmer has had his cattle vaccinated twice. He asked me whether the vaccine was effective, but I could not answer him. As Mr McIlroy is here today, I shall ask the question now.
Ms Rodgers:
I shall ask Mr McIlroy to deal with the question on the effect of the vaccine.
Botulism is a difficult problem to diagnose. When we were made aware that there might be a problem, we ensured that our veterinary service worked closely with the private veterinary practitioners. There was an initial problem in getting the vaccine, as it had to be brought from Australia. We took action to have our own supply of the vaccine available at short notice to the veterinary practitioners. That, I should hope, has eased the situation where farmers had to wait three or four weeks to get the vaccine.
Our Veterinary Sciences Division investigates every suspect case. The Chief Veterinary Officer and Dr Seamus Kennedy have raised awareness of the issue on radio programmes. Dr Kennedy was heard on 'Talkback' on the day of my most recent visit to the Committee.
Mr McIlroy:
In addition to what the Minister has said, a meeting is taking place as we speak with the industry to reinforce the need for caution with regard to deep litter activity and the removal of poultry litter from houses. We do not have any experience of the vaccine, but it has been extremely effective in Australia. However, it requires two injections, and a period of time after the second injection. No vaccination is 100% effective, but this one seems to be fairly effective.
Mr Savage:
The farmer I have been speaking to is afraid to let his cattle out, and his silos are emptying. The Department's laboratories are testing some of his cattle. That is a serious situation.
Ms Rodgers:
If you wish to write to us about that specific case, we shall examine it and come back to you.
The Chairperson:
In your press statement of 30 May, you said that abortion must be reported immediately to the local divisional veterinary officer, but you did not state that failure to notify the Department of an abortion was illegal. Should that not have been strengthened to say that notification of abortion is a legal obligation?
Mr McIlroy:
I am undecided on that one. I am not sure if it was omitted or what happened. However, all the previous publicity - the leaflets, pamphlets, et cetera -stressed that it is a legal obligation. It may not be mentioned in that statement.
The Chairperson:
That was an important one.
Mr Douglas:
Every farmer knows what must be done after an abortion.
Ms Rodgers:
I should be surprised if any farmer does not know that there is a legal obligation on them to report abortions. It would have done no harm to mention it, though the statement does say that they must be reported. We can stress that element in future press releases.
The Chairperson:
Minister, thank you for attending. We look forward to a return visit when you have the stakeholders' forum set up. With due respect to my friend Mr Armstrong, I agree with what my son said - farmers will go to the social security office. They must go, and they must be encouraged to go; the bank is friendly with farmers when they are in good financial standing. The bank is your enemy when you owe it money.
Ms Rodgers:
That does not just apply to farmers; it applies to everyone.
[Laughter].
The Chairperson:
You may have collateral, but farmers do not.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
You should have a good credit rating now, Minister.
7 June 2002 (part i) / Menu / 7 June 2002 (part iii)