Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 231: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will support a matter (details supplied). [40433/08]

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I outlined my Department's policy on AHCS1 forms in my replies to recent questions from the Deputy.

With regard to the further queries from the Deputy, I do not accept that the statement in the first paragraph of the letter submitted by the Deputy that the number of AHCS1 forms is much higher than expected contradicts the assertion that "occasionally they are not identified until some time later". In fact, there is no contradiction between these two statements. Most of the AHCSI forms are submitted shortly after the test but occasionally some are submitted outside of the 14 day period for completing the test. The position is that, in the period immediately following the introduction of the AHCS in 2004, the number of AHCS1 forms submitted was relatively high as the testing practitioners became familiar with the new system for the electronic transfer of data. However, most of these changes were administrative in nature and did not involve a change to veterinary certification. As the practitioners became more familiar with the system, the number of AHCS1 forms has diminished significantly.

The position in relation to the treatment of AHCS1 forms by the DVOs is that cases involving the addition of animals to a test report are investigated and testing practitioners submitting additional animals on an AHCS1 are queried as to the nature of the circumstances that required the addition of the animal and are required to justify the change to the original certification. The submission of these forms is also specifically addressed by my Department in the context of an updated and formalised quality control protocol for practitioners who conduct TB and Brucellosis tests. In addition, SVIs in the local District Veterinary Offices (DVO) deal with the various quality control issues, including AHCS1s, in their own local areas and a number have chosen to do so by writing individually or collectively to the local practitioners while other offices dealt with such issues at group meetings and/or during the course of routine visits to meet the practitioners or a combination of all these means.

With regard to the fourth paragraph of the letter submitted by the Deputy, I understand that the Departmental letter quoted from was not in fact issued to all veterinary practitioners but rather relates to a letter issued by the SVI in the Kilkenny DVO to testing practitioners referring to his perception of the situation in the local area. It is accepted that this letter states that monthly quality control reports show that the number of animals erroneously omitted from the TB test is much higher than he expected. The clear objective of the letter is to reduce such incidences and I am assured this objective has been met. The letter states that animals notified on AHCS1s which are left out of the test will not be accepted and will be returned to the practitioner. Contrary to the interpretation provided to the Deputy, the intention of this statement is that the animals will be returned for test and not that the physical AHCS1 form will be returned to the testing veterinary practitioner. The test requirement of a 5H test in such circumstances is clarified in the final paragraph of the letter in question. The actual forms are held on individual PVP files in each local office and, as I indicated in my reply of 4 November, are not returned to the PVP.

As also indicated in my reply of 4 November, a detailed breakdown of the very precise and detailed information requested by the Deputy is not readily available and it would place excessive demands on scarce staff resources in the Department to compile this data. The position is that the 5H form is a catch-all category for example for either TB, Brucellosis tests or both at individual animal level and it covers a variety of situations such as tests done post-importation so that passports can issue with a valid test date, animals missed from tests (either TB, Brucellosis or both) and not tested as a part herd test within the 14-day window of the original test (some of which may indeed have been the subject of a rejected AHCS1) and bulls being tested to enter an AI station or the Tully Bull performance test station. To date, in 2008 some 3,800 individual animal tests were recorded under the 5H heading in the course of 1,112 separate testing events across all DVOs. However, AHCS does not discriminate further in the reason for the individual test event.

I strongly refute the allegation that I clouded the issue or misled the Deputy in my reply dated 4 November 2008. The meeting suggested in that reply was intended to be used to brief the Deputy on background and purpose of AHCS1 forms and to let him have sight of various letters issued by DVOs and not for the purpose suggested in the letter submitted. That offer of a meeting remains.