Committee for Agriculture
and Rural Development

Friday 11 October 2002

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Inquiry into 2001 Outbreak
of Foot-and-Mouth Disease

(North of Ireland Veterinary Association/
Association of Veterinary Surgeons in Practice in Northern Ireland)

SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE TRANSCRIPT
HAVE NOT BEEN EFFECTED

Members present:
Rev Dr Ian Paisley (Chairperson)
Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr P Doherty
Mr Douglas
Mr Dallat
Mr Ford
Mr Kane

Witnesses:
Mr D Stewart )
Mr M Maybin ) North of Ireland Veterinary Association / Association of Veterinary
Mr J Hill ) Surgeons in Practice in Northern Ireland
Mr A Hillen )

The Chairperson:
I welcome Mr David Stewart, Mr Michael Maybin, Mr John Hill and Mr Andy Hillen.

Mr Stewart:
My colleagues and I represent a joint delegation from the North of Ireland Veterinary Association and the Association of Veterinary Surgeons in Practice in Northern Ireland. The two associations include the majority of vets in Northern Ireland who are involved in practice, Government research, teaching, industry and other areas.

During the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, our members were directly involved in the diagnosis of the disease, the eradication of outbreaks, and clinical inspections to see where the disease was going or where it had been. Most practices were involved in collecting blood samples for serology, and they were all involved with animal movement controls.

There were questions about how foot-and-mouth disease came into the county. It is now generally accepted that it entered GB in waste food that was fed to pigs. From there it spread to sheep, which were moved to France, the Netherlands, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. That was outlined in a letter that was sent to the Committee some time ago.

The single European market is partly to blame for the outbreak, because it allowed the free movement of animals and goods, removed quarantines, and reduced the amount of checking of animals at ports and at the point of destination. We had to rely on checks at the point of origin. Foot-and-mouth disease is difficult to diagnose in sheep, as there are few clinical signs. One difficulty with the present status is that sheep may be incubating the disease when they are inspected before movement. If they are not inspected at the ports, and there are few checks at destination, the possibility of detecting the disease early is reduced.

Trade legislation is laid down in Brussels, so it is difficult to influence it in the regions. Our associations recommend the introduction of codes of practice for animal imports. That may be done through the animal health body of the vision group, if it ever comes into force.

We are aware that the main reason for moving animals across borders is economic. The value added tax (VAT) advantages of moving animals to the Republic of Ireland are well known. Many lambs from Northern Ireland are transported live to France, and when they are killed there they are classed as French lamb.

The veterinary associations have felt for a long time that there are welfare implications in that type of trade, where animals move such long distances, as it increases the risk of spreading disease. However, a small number of traders are involved in it, and an even smaller number of them are rogues.

The Department of Agriculture's contingency planning did not foresee the spread of disease by sheep. The Veterinary Service was stretched, and it did well to cope with the relatively small outbreak that we had. Future contingency plans should include plans for the deployment of private veterinary surgeons at an earlier stage for disease surveillance, clinical inspection and animal movement controls. Training should include everyone liable to be involved, with contingency plans updated every two years and all possibilities covered, including animal welfare.

We are well aware of the trade and economic consequences suffered by other people not directly involved in the industry, particularly food processors. We feel that, although everyone was very co-operative in Northern Ireland, if there were another outbreak there might be less co-operation from those not directly involved. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's animal and public health information system (APHIS) must carry a great deal more information. Although there is already good information on bovine herds, pig herds and sheep flocks are not well-documented on APHIS.

Obviously, future outbreaks may develop in different ways. Vaccine technology is advancing. Marker vaccines will probably become available that will allow us to test and differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals, which will be very useful. Sufficient laboratory capacity and expertise must be maintained to deal with future problems.

The use of the military was effective. There were many communication problems between the Department and the Minister and the veterinary surgeons. Information went to the press before it came to us. There were incidents of farmers coming to us and asking about matters that had already gone into the press. Politics and disease control did not mix.

There were welfare problems, particularly in pig herds and some sheep flocks. Those have to be addressed, and contingency plans made to cover such matters. Public support may not be as good in the future. We were lucky; support was beginning to wear thin by the end of the outbreak. Although security is still very poorly understood at farm level, we continue to preach it.

The Chairperson:
Can I take it from what you have said that there was no real contingency plan for such an outbreak?

Mr Stewart:
There was such a plan, but it was probably inadequate.

The Chairperson:
Did you know about it?

Mr Stewart:
No.

The Chairperson:
Do you know of anyone else who knew of it outside the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development?

Mr Stewart:
I do not think so.

The Chairperson:
Is there a contingency plan now, as far as you know?

Mr Stewart:
As yet, we know of no contingency plan.

The Chairperson:
That is the sort of evidence that we have heard from almost every witness. It is quite alarming; a country such as the United States has a contingency plan in operation all the time. It not only has such a plan, but puts it into operation every so often to see that it works as a well-oiled machine. Should there be a contingency plan, and should it take in the entire Executive and all those concerned, including farming organisations such as yours and the meat producers and exporters?

Mr Stewart:
Yes.

The Chairperson:
So you want an all-inclusive contingency plan which people know about, so that, once the red button is pressed, they will know what to do?

Mr Stewart:
Yes.

The Chairperson:
What about vaccination?

Mr Stewart:
Vaccination is a difficult subject. There are many strains of foot-and-mouth disease, and we need to know which one we are dealing with before we can start the vaccination process. There is a role for vaccination. For example, ring vaccination could be used to contain an outbreak in a particular area. However, each outbreak will be different. The merits of vaccination would have to be decided on at the time of an outbreak, as opposed to large amounts of vaccine being stored.

The Chairperson:
If there were another outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and mass vaccination were carried out, would people not be reluctant to buy meat that they knew came from a vaccinated animal, because of the awful scenes they witnessed of many animals being shot and burnt? Even if the Government said that the meat was safe, people would wonder why millions of pounds of meat was destroyed if it was safe and could have been saved through vaccination.

Mr Stewart:
I would be happy to say that vaccinated meat was safe.

The Chairperson:
How many people could you convince of that?

Mr Stewart:
The difficulty is convincing people. Having said that, most pieces of meat come from animals that have been vaccinated for something during their lives. Many animals were burnt, not because they were not safe for human consumption, but in an attempt to contain the virus in an area, instead of moving infected meat.

The Chairperson:
I accept that, but people were left with a sense of revulsion. People thought that if such measures were necessary, they would not want to eat the meat.

Mr Savage:
Do you feel that enough money has been spent on research and development over the past few years? Now that safeguards have been put in place, do you feel that you are sufficiently aware of the situation? If there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on the mainland in Great Britain, could it be carried by humans who travelled here, and passed on to livestock?

Mr Stewart:
The recommendation was that vets who were working with infected animals should not come directly from England to work on farms here. It was recommended that they leave a gap of seven days. There has not been a great deal of research and development done locally, but in most of these matters, we pick up on research that has been done elsewhere and work with it. I am not aware of the amount that has been done.

Mr Hill:
With regard to the disease being brought into the country, aircraft fly into the UK, including Northern Ireland, every day of the week. It is fair to say that foot-and-mouth disease may well have been in the UK many times. The point is that the virus made the jump from the aircraft to the animals. Unfortunately, the safeguards to prevent that happening again are not in place, so far as we are aware. That is one of the problems. Some ethnic communities import meat every day from all over the world, and there is the possibility that the virus could come into the country in that way.

Mr P Doherty:
Is there a need for a single major laboratory in the island of Ireland to handle disease control?

Mr Hill:
No, we need regional laboratories. Some years ago, there was a threat that the veterinary laboratory in Omagh would be closed. We made a strong representation that it should be retained. Any farmer in the UK should be within 50 miles of a veterinary investigation centre. Sense prevailed, and the veterinary laboratory in Omagh was kept open. That is extremely important for disease surveillance in this country.

Mr Bradley:
Should the desired contingency plan be an all-Department project in the Assembly? What level of co-operation should exist between the Assembly and the Government of the Republic of Ireland in that contingency plan?

Mr Stewart:
Everyone, from top to bottom, should be involved in both the setting up and the operation of the contingency plan. Undoubtedly, many problems arose because people did not know what they were doing. Everyone must be aware of what each person has to do if something were to happen.

With regard to your all-Ireland statement, unfortunately we have a land border, and diseases do not recognise borders. Therefore, any disease control must be on an all-Ireland basis.

Mr Dallat:
First, for my peace of mind, perhaps you could elaborate a little on what you meant by politics and health not mixing.

Secondly, you made an excellent point about sheep being moved about to qualify for VAT, to get a better price or to boost numbers for subsidies. How important is it that that issue be addressed, presumably at a European level, so that that particular risk is eliminated?

Mr Stewart:
In relation to your first question, about politics and disease control not mixing, decisions were made at ministerial level that some people in the Veterinary Service knew about but were not allowed to tell us until press conferences had been held. Had those decisions been disseminated down through the profession before the press conference, we would at least have been in a position to answer farmers' questions. Much information was coming out through press conferences and on the news. If we missed hearing 'Farm Gate' in the evening, the 6.00 pm news or whatever, we had farmers on the phone who had already heard the news. Political gain was being made by keeping information until it could be given to the press.

Your point about the movement of sheep is a good one. The sheep that came into Northern Ireland were certified to come in for slaughter. They were supposed to go to a killing plant outside Portadown, but they did not. Had those sheep gone into that killing plant, even though they were infected with foot-and-mouth, there is every possibility that we would never have had an outbreak in Northern Ireland.

Mr Kane:
On the issue of illegal imports, why were Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials at ports and airports not carrying out their duties effectively regarding the inspections of imported stock? If officials had carried out effective inspections at the ports, foot-and-mouth disease would never have entered Northern Ireland. Was it not the case that the Department knew of illegal imports, and that they had gone on for quite a considerable time? The Department is partly responsible for foot-and-mouth disease entering Northern Ireland in the first place. What are your comments on that?

Mr Stewart:
The Department of Agriculture was carrying out some inspections at the ports. Unfortunately, under EU legislation, officials can only stop and inspect 10% of consignments. Therefore, officials were probably only carrying out the permitted number of inspections. The sheep may have been in the incubation stage of the disease, and, even if each animal had been unloaded and clinically inspected at the port, the vets might have not been able to detect it. It is possible that, had the sheep been inspected, the disease might have been diagnosed; it is also possible that it might not.

The illegal movement of the sheep, after they left the port, contributed to the problem. It is possible that the Department could be criticised. A copy of the certificate from Longtown in Cumbria should have been forwarded to the Department to inform it that a number of sheep had been certified to enter Northern Ireland and go to Craigavon Cold Stores in Lurgan. When the certificate did not turn up, alarm bells should have rung, and perhaps the sheep should have been picked up then, rather than at the port.

Mr Kane:
Was it perhaps the case that the staff were drinking too much tea, sleeping, or just did not bother checking?

Mr Stewart:
Probably not. I was not there to see what went on. However, the Department claims that it is doing the permitted number of checks. Had the checks been carried out at the factory, the disease would have been identified more effectively.

Mr Douglas:
You said that the free market has caused us problems. People want to bring breeding stock to Northern Ireland, and we must ensure that a balance is found. The draconian laws in New Zealand mean that stock must be quarantined for six months before it enters the country. Is there anything that we could do to change the current situation whereby stock is not checked at the ports?

Mr Stewart:
About 10 years ago, in conjunction with the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Department developed codes of practice for the importation of various animals. They were launched publicly and largely ignored. We have spoken to the union about the need to relaunch them. The difficulty is in getting farmers to spend money on the required tests, but something must be done.

Mr Hill:
The Department was very much against the change in the legislation that allowed the free movement of animals across Europe. Northern Ireland had double quarantine status because animals had to go through quarantine in Great Britain and then in Northern Ireland. In the year before that legislation was scrapped, about 300 animals were quarantined on an island in Lough Neagh. The following year, 10,000 animals entered the Province and brought with them all sorts of diseases, if not necessarily notifiable diseases, and, unfortunately, our disease status suffered dreadfully because of that. If there is any way in which the Assembly can encourage people to do their own security on their farms or through Government facilities, that would be excellent.

Mr Armstrong:
Would you say that our health standards have dropped because of EU legislation?

Mr Hill:
Unfortunately, yes. We are battling that almost every day. Diseases come into Northern Ireland that will never make the headlines the way foot-and-mouth disease did, and we have diseases that we did not have 10 years ago.

Mr Armstrong:
Have you any plans to look at the problems brought on by EU legislation? We are open to all sorts of diseases that could cause problems for our breeders.

Mr Hill:
Under legislation, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development must look out for scheduled diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease and others. However, there is little else to stop the free trade of animals, and, unfortunately, there is little to stop people trading in animals and inadvertently bringing in diseases.

Mr Armstrong:
Every animal has a passport. I presume that that passport must be examined at certain places so that the animal can be traced.

Mr Hill:
It is all down to traceability and being able to identify animals. That is easy with bovines, but very difficult with sheep. Unless we want an implant in every animal - which would be economically unviable - and a satellite to trace their movement, I do not know how it could be done. Much more research must go into that.

Mr Armstrong:
We all had to have passports, and now we find that because of EU legislation they are not needed. However, we still all have to have identification wherever we go.

Mr Hill:
That is true, but free movement also allows for free trade. Unfortunately, unwanted diseases come with free trade. There is also good trade. It is a difficult paradox.

Mr Ford:
You referred to the need to involve private vets in any future contingency plans. Has there been any discussion between the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and your associations on how that might be done? What can be done to ensure that people regard biosecurity as a necessary ongoing measure, as opposed to something that everyone deals with during a crisis and then gives up on?

Mr Stewart:
We have had no discussion with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on contingency plans. It is very difficult to convince farmers of the need for biosecurity; it all depends on the stock on the farm. The poultry industry is very good on biosecurity; the pig industry is slightly worse; then comes dairy cattle, followed by beef cattle; and the sheep industry does not know what biosecurity is.

We are talking to farmers about biosecurity. We have also carried out health plans for quality assurance to begin biosecurity. Unfortunately things may not work out well. It is difficult to convince farmers of the need for biosecurity, and we may need to have a penalty for not doing it.

Mr Maybin:
Biosecurity would work if it was included in grants and subsidies, such that if a certain level was not attained, the grants could be taken off farmers. They should be doing it for their own good and the good of everyone else, but unfortunately I do not think that they will.

Mr Savage:
Mr Stewart, you mentioned the communication problems that you had at the start. There seems to be a bond between the farmer and the vet. Has communication become any easier?

Mr Stewart:
The problem was not the communication between the farmers and the vets. The problem was communication between the Department and the vets.

Mr Savage:
Has that improved?

Mr Stewart:
At the moment it is fine, because there are no problems. In an emergency situation it was difficult, and we appreciate that. In the course of normal day-to-day work, talking to the Department is not a problem. However, during the outbreak, the Department did not communicate well with us. We found that information was given to the press before we heard it. Most veterinary practices nowadays have fax machines, and it would not have been difficult for someone in the Department to fax a note to tell us what was happening.

Mr Savage:
Do you have enough personnel to deal with a future outbreak?

Mr Stewart:
Probably not, if we had a massive outbreak. There are enough veterinary personnel to deal with an outbreak similar to the last one, but if we had a Cumbria-style outbreak, we would have to get vets from elsewhere.

The Chairperson:
In view of what you, and some of your colleagues, have said, is there an urgent need to consolidate and, perhaps, update existing animal health and welfare legislation?

Mr Stewart:
Yes. There is a great need to do so.

The Chairperson:
Are you prepared to supply the Committee with further information on the way you think the legislation should be updated and the sort of welfare legislation that you would like?

Mr Stewart:
It will take some time, but it can be done.

The Chairperson:
Thank you, Gentlemen. Your contribution has been most helpful. We do not know if this inquiry will see the light of day, but it might.

11 October 2002 (part ii) / Menu / 11 October 2002 (part iv)