Dr. Eoin Ryan:

Of the five outbreaks, not a single one led to a secondary outbreak. That was specifically due to the controls that were imposed. It is not just that; it is also that we were able to lift those surveillance and protection zones as soon as could have been done because things had been implemented strictly. That enabled farmers in those areas to restock and carry out their normal business in the absence of secondary outbreaks, which would have impacted them.

Under the legislation if the Minister directs that poultry, birds, animals or things such as eggs or feed material be destroyed due to a category A animal disease, such as avian influenza in this case, compensation is payable at market value. There is no provision in the legislation for payment of consequential losses by those in the situation the Senator described. Also, it may not just be avian influenza; it could be a different disease. Whatever the disease, people are affected by similar controls being put in place. It certainly is a significant issue. We are acutely aware of it because, like the Senator, we regularly engage and meet stakeholders on this, and not just those in the poultry sector. It is something that we are very conscious of.

The compensation provisions are set out in legislation for those where there is an infection in a flock or a herd and are based on circumstances where things are directed to be culled or destroyed. There are no legislative and administrative provisions for people in the situation outlined by the Senator. We are acutely conscious of the burden placed on those people. It is probably not a huge comfort for the individuals affected, but the fact that the zones were lifted as soon as could be and that there was no subsequent spread of disease, is really significant for the industry as a whole. I would not underplay that.