Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I was not aware, and no disrespect to the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, who I know comes from a farming background. We will continue.

I am glad to have an opportunity to discuss this issue. It came out of parliamentary questions to the Minister, Deputy Creed.

The questions from me to the Minister, Deputy Creed, came from a number of small farmers who contacted me about this matter of animal welfare. They described this as a deplorable situation, which, if it is not resolved, could threaten the future of small farms in Ireland.

I have been told the national bovine viral diarrhoea, BVD, eradication programme is industry-led and delivered by Animal Health Ireland. It was introduced in 2012 and became compulsory in 2013 through legislation, requiring all animals born on or after 1 January 2013 to be tested for the presence of the BVD virus. If the animals are found to be persistently infected, PI, they can be disposed of. I have the figures for each year from 2014.

What are the problems causing all the concern, as initially it seemed to tick all the boxes? The first question is, in what sense is it industry-led? It would appear that industry in this case does not refer to farmers but rather companies that are getting funding and making money. That should be cleared up. Animal Health Ireland introduced the BVD programme in 2012 as a voluntary process and I understand 10% of Irish farmers participated initially. I might represent Dublin Central but I know the welfare of animals is the top priority of farmers; it is their livelihood. If this was to improve animal welfare, why was it not immediately taken up by many more farmers? It appears, because it was not taken up, that Animal Health Ireland enlisted the help of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which introduced legislation very quickly to make it compulsory. There is again a question as to what engagement the Department had with farmers on this.

The Minister of State should also comment on what I am told is a naming and shaming system for farm families if a calf tests positive, as all the information is available. There are questions about Animal Health Ireland. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is well-staffed and it might have dealt with this. I believe €2 million was given to the organisation for this programme. It is also a lucrative business for the two pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and sell the BVD vaccination. In February 2018, the Veterinary Ireland Journalpublished an article where Animal Health Ireland and Veterinary Ireland announced a proposal submitted to a rural development programme and a grant of €6 million to keep the BVD and other programmes. It gives the impression that this is for the farmers in the form of an advisory service for vets.

Another reply I received indicated that the control of BVD is vital because the condition compromises the immune response capability of animals and control of BVD will bring overall health benefits to the national herd. Looking at the statistics, there is an impressive reduction in the number of PI animals from 2013. In 2017 the infection rate was 0.1% and to date in 2018, it is 0.04%, suggesting that the eradication programme has been successful in bringing about a major reduction in the number of PI animals being born. The anomaly appears to be with the other aspect of BVD control dealing with overall health benefits. The next statistic indicates there were over 247,000 animal deaths in 2013. This increased the following year, then there was a drop, an increase, a further increase and, in 2017, the number is still over 260,000. In 2011, before the BVD programme, the number was 215,000. Whereas BVD is being eliminated, the other health benefits supposed to come from it are not happening. The data does not capture the causes of animal deaths and in the reply I received, I was told the cost of finding those would be prohibitive. The Department is funding a programme which it argues brings two benefits but only one benefit can be seen. Surely there is a need for a cost-benefit analysis of the money to determine its best use.

See this speech in context