|
|
|
|
APPENDIX VII
17th October 1985 DAIL COMMITTEE McCabe/Farrell Report Farrell/Cahill Report. The I.V.U. welcomes the interest of the Public Accounts Committee in B.T.E. The I.V.U. has asked for an independent Report on B.T.E. which would include a cost analysis. This has been turned down by the Minister for Agriculture and by Senior Management in the Dept. of Agriculture. The most important part of B.T.E. is to have a test carried out on every bovine animal. This national herd test should be carried out in the shortest possible time. This national test should be followed up by proper epidemiology to ascertain where the affected animals originally got the disease and where it is then likely to spread. The intradermal bovine T.B. test is only 82% accurate on an individual animal basis. It is therefore important that a follow up test be carried out. Failure to identify T.B. is due to the inefficiency of the tuberculin used, the anergic state of the animal or through human error. In the past ten years the national herd has only been tested four times. This is not cost effective because between tests the disease has spread. Disease is spread directly animal to animal or through contaminated w or premises The I.V.U. says that the veterinary practitioner has in difficult conditions carried out his B.T.E. work to high standards. Veterinary expertise has not in the past or in the present been deployed to the best advantage. In thirty years of trial and error a veterinary surgeon has never been given an opportunity to manage the B.T.E. scheme. Even at this late stage a veterinary surgeon should be put in complete control of B.T.E.
7 March 1985 To the Veterinary Surgeon named in the Address Dear Sir/Madam It is obvious to me from discussions with quite a number of veterinary surgeons that there is widespread misunderstanding within the profession of the background to the present dispute between the Irish Veterinary Union and myself, as Minister for Agriculture. Accordingly, I am writing to all veterinary surgeons on the Register so that everyone concerned will have a clear appreciation of the facts. The basic position is that the Government are prepared to spend £85.5 million on bovine disease eradication over the next three years provided certain conditions are met These include (1) farmer nomination of the veterinary surgeon to be replaced by direct nomination by my Department for testing purposes and (2) the appropriate fee to be paid direct to the veterinary surgeon doing the test. These changes were called for by the Government because of the lack of progress on bovine TB eradication for very many years and because of their conviction that the BTE Scheme is unlikley eve to eradicate TB unless significant modifications are introduced including a greater measure of central control and co-ordination. The changes called for by the Government are, indeed, not the only changes being made but they are the ones which gave rise to present difficulties. I would emphasise here once more that they are not negotiable. It was appreciated from the outset that these requirements could initially cause some inconvenience. Mindful of this situation, my Department proposed that, in order to achieve a smooth transition from farmer nomination to nomination by the Department, round testing for TB and brucellosis in 1985 would be offered to those practices which carried out such work in 1983. For each listing period each practice would be asked to indicate in respect of each herd which veterinary surgeon associated with the practice would do the test. Provided that the practice’s proposals were reasonable (i.e. capable of a achievement) and were consistent with effective management of the programme, my Department was prepared to allocate testing on the basis of these proposals, the emphasis being on testing being completed as and when required. A similar discipline would be required of herdowners. There was to be a high degree of flexibility built into this arrangement so as to provide for situations where veterinary surgeons, through no fault of their own, would be unable to carry out testing of herds allocated to them within the agreed time schedule. Provision was also to be made for unexpected contingencies which could prevent a veterinary surgeon from carrying out a scheduled test. The test could be re-allocated to a colleague by phoning the District Veterinary Office. It was even envisaged that, in certain emergency situations, a veterinary surgeon |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
