Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Sheahan for his presentation. Having his or her herd locked up is a severe and traumatic blow to a farmer. It impacts on the entire family and represents a severe blow to the income-generating capacity of the farm and the farmer involved. The devastation does not end inside the farm gate. It spreads to neighbouring farmers because they are then caught up in something not of their own making and become subject to tests by virtue of their location rather than disease history. When it happened near us, it created a sense of fear and trepidation because farmers nearby could be next. Farmers never received replacement costs for lost animals or herds. The dilemma is exacerbated by the fact that replacement costs will be significant and are a double-whammy for the farmer involved, who gets less for what was taken away and has bigger costs.

A major policy objective is to eradicate TB by 2030. Senator Paul Daly and I come from a part of the country where this is a desirable objective for most people. In our area, every so often we used to hear the mantra to the effect that various Government Ministers were going to drain the Shannon. We can throw this in with the draining of the Shannon. We have committed to draining the Shannon every year and many Deputies and Ministers won or lost their seats on that basis.

I am wondering if this is a bit like that. When I was a young person back in 1974, with black hair, I recall this being a desirable objective at that time. That is 44 years ago. I hope it is achieved for everybody's sake, even from a human health perspective. I am glad that the great work done by former Minister, Noel Browne, against the odds and against the tide as he said himself has been acknowledged by the Department. He was one of the greatest politicians who ever stood in this place.

How much has the State invested to date in the TB eradication scheme? We are down to 16,000 to 18,000 animals, and less than 3.5% of herds are affected. That means that almost 97% are clear. This is important for the export of nine out of every ten animals, which is why all the identification schemes and everything else are in place. The number of herds has declined rapidly since the mid-1950s. The number of animals has gone the other way. We have a smaller number of herds with a larger number of animals. The impact is in reverse.

The Department used a BCG vaccine in badgers in Ireland which were the major source of the disease. Why is the NPWS imposing a 30% limit on the usage of this? Is there any scientific or empirical basis for that being imposed or is it just a figure that the service uses?

We all know about the epidermal or skin test, the annual rounds and the great joy of getting the word that the test is clear once the veterinary practitioner has carried out the review. How extensively has the interferon gamma blood test been used, if it is the case that it is more succinct and precise and facilitates the earlier detection of TB?

Like my colleagues, I intended to raise the impact of deer, and whether they facilitate the spread of TB as a potential host or, at minimum, a carrier or transmitter of the disease. Has the Department carried out any research in that context?

How sensitive is the intradermal tuberculosis test in identifying affected animals and what percentage of animals could be identified by means of a positive test when they are in uninfected? Indeed, the reverse might also be the case, where animals may be identified as being negative but are, in fact, infected.

How many chronically infected herds are there in the country and has there been any impact on these numbers over the past five to ten years?

I studied zoonotic disease and microbacteria years ago and I have probably forgotten it all by now. Very often, however, it can be the experience of a farmer who has a herd infected by TB and who has worked with the Department to take significant preventative steps such as a closed herd policy, a detailed disinfectant policy, increased hygiene with all of the steps that one would normally take, and yet, as Mr. Sheahan fairly said, within three, four or five years, they are infected again. Does this window extend to a decade or more? One can never drop one's guard, which I appreciate. That will be part of the Department's lectures, videos, etc. Is a peak likely again?

This is where it starts on the logarithmic table. It is back to the usual bacterial growth or culture and then it drops off. Is the sensitive period three years, four years or five years where one has to be so careful that one can let hardly anybody in?