Mr. Joe O'Flaherty:

There are a number of questions on Johne's disease, and I offer my apologies that my colleague Lorna Citer, the programme manager, is not available to be with us here today.

There were questions on the programme which AHI, together with the stakeholders, is attempting to establish at the moment. The pilot programme ran for three years and finished at the end of last year. We learned a considerable amount from that programme in which between 1,200 and 1,300 farmers participated. The challenge now is to take that to the next level. As a nation that exports as heavily as Ireland does and is as heavily dependent on exports as is Ireland and particularly for a nation that has such skin in the game in terms of value added commodities or value added products like infant formula, it behoves us to be as ambitious as possible with our future Johne's disease control programme.

Having said that, there are certain constraints around Johne's disease and Deputy Cahill mentioned the test sensitivity there. That is one constraint. The tests that we are using in the programme in Ireland are the same tests used in programmes internationally. Programmes internationally have demonstrated real progress in reducing the prevalence of JD. While the tests are not by any means as sensitive as tests for BVD, for example, they are a sufficient tool. For JD, one has to think of the test as a support for management. The key intervention for JD is the management on the farm relating to the treatment of the young calf and the interaction between the dam and the calf. Testing is an adjunct to good management. The BVD scheme on one side is a programme based on a really high class, very sensitive, specific test which allows one to identify animals and remove them from the herd. Handling Johne's disease is much more about good management, with testing being an adjunct to good management. In that context, the test has been shown internationally to be sufficient to make progress. The other significant constraint on Johne's disease is that fortunately we have quite a low prevalence relative to other countries internationally and that is a good thing.

On the other hand, that low prevalence translates into a very weak economic driver for the farmer to control the disease because if there is one positive result out of a 100-cow herd, the economic impact of that is quite limited. There is not a strong economic driver at the farmer's level to control this disease in the same way as there is for BVD. There is a challenge in respect of the test and the economic drivers.

We have a draft business plan with our stakeholders which we intend to present to them at a meeting next week, and the way we have sought to take this forward in it is to take our lead from some of the progress that has been made internationally regarding JD and expand the scope beyond the disease. Questions were asked about salmonella control. We know that the measures put in place on a farm to control JD will also contribute to controlling a disease like salmonellosis. There are synergies to be built from the JD programme with disease control in the context of other issues, between JD control and farm biosecurity and between JD control and reducing antimicrobial usage on farms. The view that has been taken, which is largely supported by stakeholders, is that by broadening out this programme, we can make it more sustainable, more attractive to farmers and more financially viable, particularly if we can continue to attract in some support from both the State and private sector stakeholders. The business plan in front of stakeholders at present proposes that there would be support for farmers from both the Department and the private sector to encourage them to stay actively involved in the JD programme.

Senator Lombard asked some questions on timescales for eradication and so on. We need to be thinking of Johne's disease in the context of control rather than eradication. To my knowledge, Sweden is the only country in which JD is absent. In countries where JD has been established or has become endemic, the disease has remained. It has not been possible to eradicate but it can be substantially controlled. Our objective in Ireland would be substantially control Johne's disease. We can do that by getting participation in the programme up to the highest possible levels. In terms of the current year, the level of ambition needs to be moderated. We will seek to grow participation in the pilot programme but for 2017, assuming that we can get agreement from stakeholders. However, we would not be expecting, for example, to double the level of participation in the first year. That would certainly be our ambition for 2017 and to go beyond that in subsequent years.

On the Senator's question regarding the interaction with Northern Ireland, we are very fortunate to have very close and warm relations with Animal Health and Welfare Northern Ireland. My colleague, Dr. Graham, contributes their BVD eradication programme and their chief executive officer, Dr. Sam Strain, has contributed significantly to our Johne's disease control programme. While I take the Deputy's point with regard to Northern Ireland lagging behind the Republic of Ireland in respect of BVD somewhat, we are at least in a position where the technical design of the two programmes is practically identical. In the context of the BVD programme, we are looking at a technical design that is identical. There is very good cross-pollination from one jurisdiction into the other. On those grounds, I think we can be reasonable optimistic that we will develop an all-island approach to JD. In the context of BVD, the objective is all-island eradication. As Dr. Graham has said, our modelling work shows us that 2020 continues to be the point by which we can achieve eradication.

Finally, returning to Deputy Cahill's reference to the three years of tag testing, it certainly is the case that the programme was initially promoted as involving three years of tag testing followed by three years of surveillance, which was intended to be blood-based surveillance and, for dairy herds, milk-based surveillance. Due to a change in the facts on the ground and the level of prevalence of the disease not reducing as quickly as had been anticipated, largely due to retention of persistently infected animals, the modelling work and the work of the technical working group indicated that it would have been imprudent to move away from tag testing in the time frame that we had originally indicated.

On the point of legislation to oblige the removal of infected animals, there is certainly a lesson to take forward into other programmes but we should bear in mind that, constitutionally, the obliged removal of an infected animal from a herd would trigger compensation by the State. At the time of our early discussions with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on the drawing up of legislation, there was not an appetite to go down the route of compulsory compensation as would be typical in the TB or brucellosis eradication programmes.

I will conclude my remarks. I think our chairman would like to comment on the point of vaccinations.