Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1986 > Committee on Public Expenditure > Report - Review of Public Expenditure for the Eradication of Bovine Tuberculosis

DÁIL ÉIREANN

AN 22ú TUARASCÁIL ÓN GCOISTE DÁLA UM CHAITEACHAS POIBLÍ

ATHBREITHNIÚ AR AN GCLÁR CAITEACHAS PHOIBLÍ LE HAGHAIDH EITINN BHÓLACHTA A SCRIOSADH

_______________________________________

THE 22nd REPORT OF THE DAIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

REVIEW OF THE PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PROGRAMME FOR THE ERADICATION OF BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS

October, 1986.

Table of Contents

-Orders of Reference

-Membership of the Committee

-Foreword

-Introduction

-The need for T.B. Eradication

-The cost and cost-effectiveness of T.B. Eradication

-Concerns arising from the review

-Conclusions & Recommendations

-Appendices (i) Interim Memorandum

DÁIL ÉIREANN

ORDERS OF REFERENCE

21 June, 1983:- Ordered

(1) That a Select Committee (which shall be called the Committee on Public Expenditure) consisting of 17 members be appointed to review the justification for and effectiveness of ongoing expenditure of Government Departments and Offices and of State-sponsored Bodies not included in the Schedule to the Order establishing the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies in such areas as it may select and to report thereon to the House recommending cost effective alternatives and/or the elimination of wasteful or obsolete programmes, where desirable.

(2) That the Committee have power to appoint such sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any matter comprehended by Paragraph (1) of this Order.

(3) That the Committee and any of its sub-committees shall, unless they decide otherwise, hold their meetings in public the conditions specified in Standing Order No. 74.

(4) That the Committee or any of its sub-committees have the power to send for persons, papers and records and, subject to the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, the Committee have power to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist it or its sub-committees.

(5) That every report which the Committee proposes to make shall, on adoption by the Committee, be laid before the House forthwith whereupon the Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

(6) That the Committee or its sub-committees, shall refrain from publishing confidential information regarding the activities and plans of a Government Department or Office, if so requested by a Member of the Government, or of a State-sponsored Body, if so requested either by a Member of the Government or by the State-sponsored Body concerned.

(7) That the Committee present to Dáil Éireann an Annual Progress Report on its activities and plans.

(8) That Members of the Government and Ministers of State be notified and be allowed to attend and to part in the proceedings without right to vote.

(9) That the quorum of the shall be 5 and that the quorum subcommittee shall be 3.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

Foreword

The invitation issued by the Committee to the public to submit areas of public expenditure in need of reform produced a substantial number of criticisms, allegations and comments on the T.B. Eradication Programme, as a result of which the Committee decided to place the matter on its agenda of work for 1985.

In December, 1985 after the Committee had undertaken certain background research work, the Department of Agriculture officials were invited to give evidence before the Committee.

Following this preliminary hearing it was agreed to defer a further review until the Department itself completed its review and evaluation of the 1985 Round which because of the veterinary strike earlier in the year ran on until April, 1986.

Meanwhile the Committee invited the Dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine U.C.D., to formulate an expert panel to advise the Committee. Their report which was subsequently the subject of a public hearing of the Committee is contained in Appendix.

When the Committee reopened public hearings on T.B. Eradication in May, 1986 it had the additional data provided by the expert panel and the written submissions of the IFA, the ICOS, the IVU, the IVA, the Association of Concerned Veterinary Practitioners and written replies to a series of questions put to the Department.

The Committee then heard evidence from all these groups and after formulating a series of draft memoranda on different aspects of T.B. Eradication for informal discussions with various interested parties, the task of drafting a report was assigned to a sub-Committee under the chairmanship Deputy Colm Hilliard T.D..

A draft report was then referred to a plenary meeting of the full Committee and after some minor amendments was unanimously adopted.

This report highlights the need for change in the funding, management and operation of the T.B. eradication scheme essential to its cost effectiveness.

It could be said that it does not sufficiently acknowledge the excellent work done by many officials of the Department of Agriculture in seeking to make a success of the Accelerated Programme commenced in 1985. Unfortunately their efforts yielded very little because of other deficiencies and in particular the lack of follow-up to disease identification and the lack of funding to follow through with herd testing in 1986.

Introduction

T.B. Eradication in Ireland commenced with a pilot in 1954. It has since become a significant profoundly disappointing results, employing over 1300 civil servants, 800 veterinarians in private practice and over £1000m of public funds in to-day’s terms. The cost to taxpayers of T.B. eradication in 1985 is estimated at £39m and the IFA submit that the cost to farmers is about three times that including the £13.7m paid in levies on livestock and milk to fund disease eradication.

This is not a review of the T.B. Eradication Programme but within the remit of this Committee this report reviews the justification for and the cost effectiveness of public expenditure on the programme.

With a view to being in a position to adjudicate on that however the Committee had first to be in a position to recognise the importance of a T.B. Eradication Scheme.

A separate evaluation led to identifying the value of T.B. Eradication.

Because of the failure to eradicate T.B. and the failure even to reduce the disease over the past decade or more the Committee had to evaluate evidence on the technical, administrative and financial constraints under which the scheme has operated.

Given the importance of maintaining the saleability of Irish beef and dairy products throughout the world and the importance to that of improving the national animal health status the Committee was forced to the conclusion that drastic action to remove technical and administrative constraints was essential to a cost effective T.B. eradication programme. The Committee also identified the inconsistent and inadequate funding of the scheme as a major contributor to its cost ineffectiveness in the past.

The Committee concluded since the option of cannot be contemplated and the scheme even as fully and effectively implemented as it was in 1985 is not enough to eradicate T.B. but that a new start under new management with new authority and with secure funding over a 4 - 5 year period is now an urgent necessity. It is not the task of this Committee to design that new scheme nor is it within its sphere of competence.

CHAPTER 1
The need for T.B. Eradication

The statement published by the Department of Finance relating to the expenditure on disease eradication in the 1985 Comprehensive Public Expenditure programmes declares that it is essential and cites the following reasons:-

Though a declining share of total exports, dairy and beef products account annually for almost £2,000m. of Irish foreign exchange earnings. The right to sell these products in EEC member states or indeed to benefit from EEC exports funds for third country sales depends on there being an approved T.B. eradication scheme in place.

Ireland has an excellent status as a world exporter of food products. The one mark on its escutcheon is its failure to eradicate T.B. The existence of the eradication programme however seems to be sufficient for the moment to maintain the right of access but sustaining the reputation of Irish beef and dairy products in the long run requires more.

The second reason cited by the Department of Finance offers no justification whatever for the T.B. Eradication programme. The standards applied for the free movement of animals in Ireland under the premovement testing and under the normal round testing are simply not acceptable for live exports from Ireland. The inspection of abattoir handling the 320,000 cattle slaughtered for the domestic market may not include the normal checks for T.B. lesions as it is applied in meat export premises and the carcasses of infected cattle, if not subjected to veterinary inspection may be disposed of on the domestic market.

Likewise, carcasses of cattle which have been slaughtered as tuberculin reactors and which have passed veterinary inspection at meat export plants may be sold on the home market.

So, whatever protection disease eradication may offer public health in Ireland, the scheme as operated inspection system as operated in their design yield a higher exposure by the public to T.B. in Ireland than is permissable in other European countries. The Committee acknowledges that there is legislation pending to change the inspection system in the abbatoirs serving the domestic market to bring them into line with that applying in export premises. This will also have the effect of extending the disease levy net to cover those animals thus adding £1m to income derived by the Exchequer from the disease eradication levy. This change alone will not provide that the T.B. Eradication scheme can be justified by the need to eliminate a public health hazard. Other actions would also be required to reduce exposure to bovine T.B. by beef consumers in Ireland to levels tolerated in other countries.

While the question of public health can be advanced as a reason for eliminating T.B. it is clear that it cannot be advanced as a reason justifying the present T.B. scheme.

Equally the third reason quoted by the Department of Finance can only be justified by disease eradication. In fact a prolonged disease eradication scheme adds enormously to the risk of farming for those 80% plus of herds which have been clear for over a decade and equally enormously to the cost and inconvenience of those who have in that time been locked up had their herds and therefore their incomes reduced through compulsory slaughtering And all farmers have to carry the cost of premovement testing, of disease levies and of whatever negative effect the persistently high incidence of T.B. in Ireland might have on dairy and beef product prices.

It is arguable that the sum of these costs and risks may be higher than the alternative loss of productivity arising in the national herd from tuberculosis. In any event the facts shows that the T.B. Eradication scheme has been ineffective in reducing losses arising through the disease while adding costs and risks to farmers.

Termination of the eradication scheme is not an option, however, But considerations such as access to markets, public health, livestock productivity and farmers’ risk levels demand T.B. eradication scheme to facilitate compliance requirements, but successful eradication of T.B.

The Committee is satisfied that despite the fact we have had a T.B. eradication scheme for 32 years we do not have a scheme which sufficiently, seriously and consistently tackled T.B. as to ensure its eradication. The scheme to date could be described more accurately as a T.B. containment scheme. And even at that it has failed dismally to contain the disease in certain cases countries where in the worst instances there has been a four fold increase in the incidence of the disease in the past decade.

The Committee considers that it must be clearly established, agreed and understood by all concerned that the only justification for public expenditure on T.B. eradication is that the purpose is to eradicate disease. Public expenditure cannot be justified by a token scheme designed to supervise an annual harvest of reactors simply to comply with international trading requirements.

While it is acknowledged that the 1985 Round of testing was highly successful by the standards of earlier rounds in identifying the disease, continuation of that programme for a further two years as originally planned or even indefinitely would not lead to eradication of the disease.

The number or herd numbers, the freedom of movement of cattle, the lack of adequate disease identification and an explanation of cause of breakdown, the lack of notification of breakdowns, the lack of laboratory based tests, the lack of adequate cross-checking on field tests, the lack of an effective research backup and the lack of a strong epidemiological function in the scheme are inconsistent with the objective of T.B. Eradication though compatible with a T.B. eradication scheme to comply with the requirements of international trading.

The Committee is convinced that public expenditure is necessary and warranted on disease eradication given by the Department of Finance. It does not consider public expenditure justified however on the present T.B. eradication scheme given these deficiencies.

Summary

If the objectives set by the Department of Finance are to be achieved the need is for effective T.B. eradication rather than simply a T.B. Eradication scheme to meet the requirements of international trade. The Committee sees these objectives as appropriate and warranting public expenditure. The Committee considers the present scheme complies with international trading requirements but has serious defects and limitations which have and will continue to make eradication of T.B. elusive. A new scheme designed to reduce disease prevalence to that prevailing in Northern Ireland would require additional expenditure for a 3-4 year period. This the Committee considers to be the best means of cost effectively pursuing the objective of T.B. eradication.

CHAPTER 2

The Cost and Cost-effectiveness of the T.B. Eradication Scheme 1954 - 1985

T.B. Eradication commenced on a pilot and voluntary basis in 1954. It was gradually extended with compulsory measures and new areas were introduced until the entire country was covered. In 1966 the country was officially declared T.B. attested and in 1966 the Diseases of Animals Act was introduced providing a new basis under which the scheme operated.

A total of 27 District Veterinary Offices were established throughout the country to provide the administrative and technical support while the scheme itself was operated under contract primarily by veterinarians in private practice. This was supplemented from time to time by the veterinarians employed directly by the Department.

The scheme is operated under the supervision of a principal officer who reports to an Assistant Secretary with the support of the Central and Regional laboratories with a total staff of and the Departments administrative staff with the technical and advice of the Deputy Director of Veterinary Services.

In practice the regional laboratories have little involvement in the scheme and although total “laboratory and other staff” are given by the Department of Finance as 226 for the disease programme, the Committee is informed that the laboratory staff specifically for T.B. is 2 Veterinary Surgeons and up to three support staff.

The total Department of Agriculture staff involved is just over 1300 at present. This includes 196 Veterinary staff though, of course it excludes the 800 veterinary surgeons in private practice who are paid a fee relative to the size of the herd with a minimum of £16.88 per herd.

TABLE

A. Department Administration:

This figure was revised upward in 1983 to add 37 additional administrative staff, 10 veterinary staff, 5 agricultural officers and a total of 226 laboratory and other staff hitherto not included in the disease eradication programme.

The original figure published by the Department of Finance was £8.75. This was later adjusted to include these larger staff numbers to £13.658m. This adjustment coincided with a Government decision to double the levy on cattle and milk for one year.

The Committee recognises that all of these costs are not ascribed to T.B. Eradication but it is by far the most important disease from a public expenditure point of view and accounts for over three quarters of the direct costs of disease eradication. It is assumed that the administrative cost apportionment is proportionate.

Recognising that the 800 veterinary surgeons in private practice doing part-time T.B. testing do most of the testing work and recognising the serious deficiencies in laboratory, administrative and epidemiological support, the Committee is appalled that there are over 1300 people providing support to the scheme and that these costs continue even when as has happened in the past no testing takes place.

The Department officials have argued that the level of administrative cost is reasonable while the Committee considered that prima facie it could not be justified and concluded that it should be given the closest examination to coincide with a major overhaul of the scheme and computerisation of records.

This task of computerisation is now in hands and gives the opportunity if historical records are adequate and the system meets the needs of the disease eradication programme of improving both the administrative support and productivity.

Though considered primarily in the context of data base the computerisation programme should, in the view of the Committee, coincide with a major review of the Administration of the Programme and of the allocation of herd numbers. This in turn will allow for an overhaul of the laboratory and field support system and a considerable transfer of resources to those elements which have been lacking up to now.

B. Veterinary Fees

As can be seen from the table, veterinary fees at £11.2m for 1.37 tests per animal in the national herd is a small part of the total cost of the scheme. Unfortunately, it seems to be treated as the only variable. As a result, it reflects directly the financial decisions taken about the allocation of funds to T.B. eradication with the result that even a 10% cut back in funds for T.B. eradication could mean a cut back of up to 50% in testing. Total abolition of the T.B. eradication scheme if it were an available option would be more cost-effective.

The Committee considers that it is foolhardy and counter-productiv to seek to effect savings in the T.B. eradication scheme by cutting back the level of disease identification, through cutting back testing.

It would be even more foolhardy and counter-productive to seek to effect economies in the scheme by seeking to avoid reactor compensation. This could be done by liberalising the interpretation, changing the rules on inconclusive tests or by exerting pressure on those with high numbers of marginal or inconclusive tests. The Committee heard evidence to the effect that this does in fact happen though the Department of Agriculture deny it.

The Committee had also considered the rate of veterinary fees which is arrived at through negotiation and examined the submissions to Arbitration made by the Veterinary Union. The Committee had to accept as reasonable the basis of Arbitration and can only urge that the Department continue to seek the best value available for taxpayers’ funds.

However the question of cost-effectiveness of private veterinary practitioners undertaking T.B. testing is quite distinct from the question of cost. The Committee considered that there were many aspects requiring improvement, with some issues giving rise to serious concern.

The Committee considers that the Department of Agriculture was obliged to insist on its right to nominate veterinarians undertaking work on its behalf, even if this led to an unfortunate and damaging strike in 1985.

The Committee, however, considers that the right of nomination has since been seriously eroded. In fact, the Department has actually taken the initiative in assisting veterinary surgeons to seek the nomination of farmers and, furthermore, the Irish Veterinary Union seems to be given an involvement in the nomination process. This is clearly in conflict with the Department’s obligation to nominate veterinary surgeons with whom they would enter into contracts and to effectively managing the scheme.

This is borne out by the fact that none of the 130 veterinarians who resigned or were expelled from the IVU because they were involved in check testing on behalf of the Department during the 1985 strike have since been given work under the scheme.

The true value of the right to nominate in terms of cost-effective management of the scheme, depends on the extent and effectiveness of the Department’s monitoring and support for field testing. These the Committee found to be defective. It must be recognised that the tests are done under field conditions and are subject to a wide range of variables including the time lag between innoculation and reading. The regulations lay down exactly how the test should take place but not sufficient to ensure consistent and reliable testing across 800 individuals in very variable field conditions. The technical support and monitoring system must therefore be comprehensive, frequent and largely supportive though it should also form the basis on which veterinary surgeons are engaged in contracts for rounds of testing in the future.

Reactor Compensation, and Depopulation and Stock Replacement Funds

The expenditure under this heading (£9.4m. in 1985) has not been as variable as the level of testing reflecting the tendency to have a steady crop of reactors regardless of the level of testing. This is a point that gave rise to considerable concern for the Committee. The expectation would be that if the scheme were proving successful the number of reactor animals would have peaked. Equally the expectation would be that if a particular phase or stage of the scheme was proving more effective in identifying the disease which is the sole purpose of the round testing then this would be marked by a rise in the number of reactor animals. But the pattern of reactor slaughtering over the decades of the scheme neither show a peak nor any significant change to changed testing regimes.

Reactor compensation is paid according to a prescribed scale ranging from £285 to £85 per head slaughtered within 10 days of the issue of a movement permit. In fact the Committee was told the average delay to slaughter is 6 days. This can and should be shortened further by regulating the terms of reactor compensation.

The basis for public expenditure on reactor compensation was also considered by the Committee. The purpose in paying compensation is to reduce or remove the loss to the individual farmer arising from a national eradication programme thereby reducing the risk of farmers avoiding testing. The payment also assumes a differential between the value of T.B. reactors and other comparable cattle. This would, of course, be true of younger animals, pedigree stock and animals not ready for slaughter. It is less true, however, of animals which would in any event be going for slaughter and which for the most part produce marketable carcases. The price differential in these cases derives more from the inconvenience imposed on the abattoir in that reactor animals must be slaughtered separately with greater care given to the carcase and to the offal to avoid contamination and because of its exclusion from EEC benefits and supports. It is the view of the Committee that the extent of the differential may not be justified and may be removed by more cost effective means than Exchequer compensation.

The Committee considered how the fund might operate to assist in setting up a support system which could be used to ensure effective disinfection on reactor farms and the case made to the Committee that the compensation fund should be in a position to compensate farmers where buildings must be demolished to eliminate foci of infection.

The Committee considered that these and other factors, including the pricing of reactor animals, should be taken into account in a review of the compensation fund with a view to increasing its cost-effectiveness and tying it directly to the disease levies payable by farmers on milk and cattle sales.

The depopulation fund and stock replacement scheme which accounted for £1.7m of the total cost in 1985 allows for additional payments to farmers whose herds are severely affected to assist in funding the rebuilding of the herd. The fund covers this exigency arising either from T.B. or brucellosis. Where a farmer gets out of dairying he can benefit from the stock replacement scheme to the maximum of £3,600. Otherwise the maximum is £2,400 and the depopulation fund allows for a maximum additional benefit of £6,000.

These schemes are necessary to guard against extreme hardship but the Committee considers they should be included in a wider and more flexible reactor compensation fund to include buildings and other factors and linked directly to the levy.

D. Other Expenses

Very little breakdown of expenditure under this amounted to £2.65m. in 1985, was available to the Committee. The main items were the travel expenses of the Department staff involved in T.B. Eradication and the purchase of the reagents used in T.B. testing.

It now appears that the tuberculins being purchased and used as the basis of testing over many years were inappropriate to the particular circumstances in Ireland. There is no doubt that many animals reacting to the new tuberculins now used were being pronounced clear when tested with the older tuberculins.

This, of course, undermines the effectiveness of the scheme at the most critical point - that of disease identification.

The Committee acknowledged the rate of progress in identifying and developing better reagents but it is not satisifed that the switch to the newer, better reagent was made with the speed which the seriousness of the disease and the cost of its eradication demanded. Equally the Committee has no basis for assuming that the Department is now better geared to effect a change if, in the future, better reagents and better identification and eradication techniques arise.

Summary

It is self evident that the expenditure on T.B. eradication , for many years now, been cost ineffective, if the exercise is to eradicate the disease. It can be and indeed is argued that the object was to operate a T.B. eradication scheme to satisfy, inter alia, the requirements of the EEC and the market place. Such an exercise, in the view of the Committee, could never be cost-effective.

Many reasons can be given as to why the scheme has been cost-ineffective. The conclusion of the Committee is that seeking cost effectiveness by reducing the funding for the only two elements of cost that seem to be treated as variable - veterinary fees and reactor compensation is profoundly counterproductive and has contributed significantly to the failure of the scheme to date.

The Committee furthermore concludes that the computerisation programme should be accelerated to coincide with major restructuring of the administration of the scheme which is unsustainably high; and that laboratory and technical field support for the scheme which has been inadequate should be restructured.

The Committee also concludes that it is vital to the cost-effectiveness of the scheme that the Department has a comprehensive, frequent and supportive field test monitoring service which is used as the basis for nomination of veterinary surgeons for further rounds; that the flexibility of the compensation fund and the Department’s capacity to respond to new developments including new reagents is vital to the cost-effectiveness of the scheme.

Following a review of these issues the failure of the scheme to date can evoke little surprise.

CHAPTER 3
MATTERS ARISING FROM THE REVIEW

The primary concern of the Committee in the course review of the T.B. eradication was of course how public expenditure on T.B. eradication could be rendered more cost effective. The history of this scheme over the last 32 years and the evidence given on present procedures, management systems and results gave rise to a large number of issues on which the Committee has felt obliged to express its concern.

1. The Committee was concerned that for 31 years of the 32 years of the scheme no clear targets were set either for the level of intensity of testing or the level of disease incidence which it aimed to achieve, within a given time frame.

2. The Committee was concerned that the organisational improvement in recent years in the management of the scheme was focussed entirely on more effective round testing. This is not equivalent to better disease eradication and many of the additional requirements were not adequately provided for within the administrative system.

3. The Committee was concerned to find that there was continued and profound scientific dissension on the reliability of the testing system which is the basic tool of the eradication programme. It seemed to the Committee that the Department, led by its scientific officer, were out of step with the facts as to the reliability of the tests in Ireland and with the internationa literature on the subject. This was leading to continuing difficulties due to the fact that there was an over-reliance on a test which the Department claimed officially to be 99.9% reliable. The facts indicate otherwise.

4. The Committee was concerned by the high, and it seems, rising level of frustration being expressed by those people Department to their recommendations.

5. The Committee was concerned with the nominal nature of the epidemiology unit established as part of the accelerated disease eradication programme and the poor follow-up in identifying precisely the source of new T.B. outbreaks.

6. The Committee was concerned to find that no special measures were introduced to deal with the special problems in Ireland that have led to the persistence of the disease in the face of a continuing disease eradication programme and, in particular to the problems of high frequency of movement, commonage, conacre, fragmented holdings etc.

7. The Committee was concerned that the information links from the veterinary officers in meat export premises back to their counterparts in the district veterinary offices were slow and inadequate and not conducive to the speediest collation of all data relevant to the disease status of herds within that district.

8. The Committee was concerned to find both from the point of view of T.B. eradication and of human health checks on animals slaughtered for domestic consumption were inadequate although it is understood that legislation is pending to deal with this.

9. The Committee was concerned to find that despite the position of the Department of Agriculture on its right to nominate the veterinary surgeon for work on the T.B. eradication scheme this right now seems to have passed with the agreement of the Department, not only back to the farmers but indeed to the Irish Veterinary Union. This seems to reflect on the capacity of the Department to manage the scheme and will undoubtedly reduce their capacity to insist on adequate professional standards under the scheme.

10. The Committee was concerned to find that for smaller animals and cow beef the price paid by meat factories seemed to reflect the level of compensation rather than the real market value.

11. The Committee was concerned to find that despite the dramatic differences from one county or district to another in the instance of the disease, the approach to disease does not allow for the high level of variability of the problem.

12. The Committee was concerned to find that the level and quality of the technical and laboratory support for the district veterinary offices left much to be desired.

13. The Committee was especially concerned to find the very high cost of administration in the scheme and that all of this seemed to be treated and to be in fact a fixed cost.

14. This problem was compounded by the fact that funding from the Department of Finance for the scheme was erratic. As a result entirely false economies were commonplace in the scheme with years of work on identification or monitoring of the disease being thrown away for the sake of saving a few million pounds and yet leaving most of the cost of the scheme to continue in place.

In fact this problem seemed to the Committee above all others to be central to the explanation of the failure of the scheme to date.

15. Though in recent years the contribution by farmers through disease levies has been dramatically increased the Committee was concerned to find that this was inequitable between farmers and taxpayers on a number of counts.

(i)where some counties have up to nine times the incidence of others it may well be argued that it is unfair to have a flat system of levy deduction.

(ii)inequity also arises from the fact that while levies apply to animals for export they do not apply on animals slaughtered for domestic consumption.

(iii)the Committee was also concerned to find that the balance of contribution towards the cost of disease eradication between farmers and the Exchequer be, and be seen to, equitable.

16. The Committee was concerned to find that the interpretation of the T.B. test applied to animals for live export severe than that which applied for the movement of animals within the State thus undermining the effectiveness of the scheme.

17. Equally, the Committee was concerned to find the range of different strengths and interpretations admitted under field conditions for the supposed 99.98 per cent reliable test.

18. The Committee was concerned to find that the audit and monitor procedure applying to veterinary testing seem to be in adequate and the penalties for incompetence or inconsistently reliable testing were also inadequate.

19. The Committee was also concerned to find the late and slow start to computerisation of the national herd which is such a vital part of streamlining the operation and administration of the disease eradication programme.

20. The Committee found that premovement testing was open to abuse and, in fact, could be, and probably is, counterproductive in the control of disease, apart from being a considerable cost and inconvenience to farmers. Though it is claimed to be a legal requirement under EEC regulations the test of a selection of animals from the herd is scientifically unsound. Its cost therefore can hardly be seen to be justified in terms of disease control.

21. The Committee found that monitoring of cattle movement and compliance with regulations was inadequately controlled except through livestock marts.

22. The Committee considered that with 190,000 separate herd numbers there was too much room for abuse. The Committee shares the Department’s concern about this possible risk of lateral spread of the disease.

23. The Committee was also concerned by the lack of information within the Department, as managers of the T.B. eradication programme on commonage and conacre, and their total lack of control or monitoring of either, despite the prima facie evidence that these are common sources of new outbreaks of T.B. in areas hitherto clear.

24. The Committee acknowledged that the 1985 round of testing was successful in that it was done on time with a speedy follow-up of second and subsequent tests. However the Committee was concerned that even three years of such an intensive programme could not, on its own, bring the disease under control. There are additional requirements including an effective epidemiology unit, an effective research and development programme to identify supplementary tests and an adequate field task force to follow-up on the cleaning up of disease after reactors are identified and to identify the source of the infection.

The Committee’s concern is that these additional vital though relatively inexpensive elements essential to an effective scheme receive neither the funds not the priority they warrant.

25. The Committee is concerned that the disease eradication scheme does not take due account of the various modes of spread particularly in its lack of monitoring of movement of cattle, the variation in interpretation of pre movement tests and the whole quagmire of misinformation and potential for abuse within the issues of fragmented farms, poor fencing, uncontrolled use of conacre and the possibility of more than one herd number being under the control of one farmer.

Until these issues are tackled we can continue to expect to have to pay compensation on up to 40,000 reactor animals slaughtered each year in the knowledge that these bear no more than a tenuous correlation with the incidence of the disease and to lock up about 3,000 reactor herds each year releasing about the same number who were locked up in a previous year.

The fact is that the problem areas have shifted around without the size of the total problem being reduced as a direct result of ineffective management controls within the system and inconsistent funding of of the scheme. No doubt this is compounded by an inadequate monitoring of the testing operation and abuse by some farmers and livestock dealers. But the primary problem which is leading to the continuous waste of ineffective disease eradication is the Committee is convinced the of funding continuity, the poor back up to the round testing and poor programme management.

The Committee’s recommendations are designed to address these problems. Even with full implementation, however, without assured continuity of funding the waste will continue until considerations such as the exportability of Irish milk and beef products and human health outweigh the financial considerations.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee had many different issues to consider in drawing conclusions on the problems of the T.B. eradication programme and had to consider the very different, and often conflicting, points of view of the Department of Agriculture, the veterinary expertise presented by the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and the Irish Veterinary Association, views expressed by the representative interest groups of veterinary practitioners and farmers. But the primary concern of the Committee was to establish a basis which the continuing and necessary operation of a T.B. eradication scheme, could be justified in terms of cost-effectiveness given the high proportion of its costs which falls directly on the Exchequer and on taxpayers. The Committee concluded that it was essential to the national interest that a T.B. eradication scheme be made effective as a matter of urgency.

The Committee also concluded that this would require a much tighter degree of more effective regulation in the movement of cattle, a more realistic data base from which to operate the scheme, a more supportive technical laboratory support service, a more comprehensive auditing and monitor system on the testing operations of private veterinary practitioners and above all a more clearly focussed, effective and properly equipped management operation for the entire programme assured of adequate funding between an appropriate balance of farmer levies and Exchequer grant over a period of up to five years within which the objective should be to achieve the level of disease control now applying in Northern Ireland in the first instance. To this end the Committee makes the following recommendations:-

1.The Animal Health Council and the Department’s expert consultative group should be restructured and merged and charged with the task of formulating a new disease eradication programme by the end of 1986 with the objective of achieving, before the end of 1991, a comparable T.B. status to that now applying in Northern Ireland and to spell out the funding requirement, staffing requirement and controls requirement for its implementation.

2.On the assumption of an adequate and sustained commitment of the necessary funds an Executive Unit should then be established to take over the District Veterinary offices under a competitively recruited management control and with the new restructured Committee acting as its Advisory Council.

3.The Advisory Council of the Executive Unit should have authority to determine the appropriate levels of disease levies on the basis that this would fund fifty per cent of the total cost of disease eradication, the balance being met by a direct Exchequer grant. Increases in the levy would, of course, require the approval of the Minister for Finance.

4.Premovement testing within 30 days of export is a requirement of the EEC.

Its scientific validity as a means of identifying the health status of animals is open to question without reference to the herd status. It is an additional expense imposed on farmers and is abused The following recommendations are designed to minimise these flaws taking into account the legal requirements.

-It should be part of the contract of veterinary surgeons undertaking T.B. work that they undertake pre movement testing on the herds for which they are nominated, at the request of the herd owner on a basis of charges laid down in the contract. This should be designed to reduce the present charges and specifically exclude the following practices;

-Veterinary surgeons should be specifically barred from adding an additional charge for the issue of a “severe

-Veterinary surgeons should be specifically barred from testing animals from different herds at the same location.

-Veterinary surgeons should be obliged to return the test results to the DVO which would then issue movement permits as follows:

-for up to 90 days on the basis of a clear round test the herd and the surrounding herds have been clear for two years or more.

-for up to 45 days for animals passing a severe interpretation where the herd passed the round test.

-for up to 30 days where animals pass two successive tests where the herd though still restricted on the basis of inconclusive tests has passed one test and and any other animals passing a single premovement test under the severe interpretation.

5.A herd register system should immediately be introduced and linked to the movement permit system replacing the present identification card. This would facilitate the computerisation programme already initiated and would increase the amount of relevant information available, while making the data more managable.

6.Known reactor animals should be strictly segregated and should be disposable only to an approved number of strategically located abbatoirs. On this basis it should be possible to link the price of reactor animals directly to the price of prime manufacturing beef thereby reduce the requirement for compensation. The T.B. Executive Unit should have the right to nomintae factories for slaughtering infected animals and to agree the price relativity.

7. This approach will make all the more necessary the involvement of farmer cooperatives in organising the collection of animals as has been successfully piloted in Cork and all the more feasible the appropriate follow up interms of disinfection etc. on reactor farms. Provision should be made for co funding by the Executive Unit of approved support programmes along these lines.

8.That it be incorporated in the brief of the Executive Unit, that adequate funds be reserved to maintain adequate and effective epidemiological research support for the scheme.

9.The Advisory Council of the Executive Unit should also have greater freedom and discretion in the operation of compensation funds which should be merged into one. This discretion should extend to compensation for clearance of buildings and for co funding approved reactor movement schemes and disinfection services.

10.Alternative testing by private veterinary practitioners and veterinary officers of the Department of Agriculture should become a normal part of the scheme with initially one-third of all herds being tested by Department veterinary officers in any one year on a revolving basis. Where veterinary practitioners are found not to follow testing procedures to produce inconsistent or unreliable results, contracts under the scheme should automatically be deemed to be voided and the offence pursued through the courts. If there is an offence the T.B. Executive Unit should adopt a policy of pursuing breaches of the professional code vigorously and to the full extent of seeking that they be debarred. Such an approach may require giving increased statutory authority to the Veterinary Council on the lines of the registration boards governing other professional groups such as doctors, dentists, lawyers etc.

11.All veterinary surgeons registered with the Veterinary Council should be deemed to be professionally competent and eligible to undertake testing provided they have given satisfaction past.

12.Immediate and urgent efforts should be made to seek out suitable supplementary tests to assist in the identification of infected animals in herds known to be infected. Blood-testing systems already extensively used in human medicine are showing promising results in Australia. The necessary financial support should be given as a matter of priority to the testing of this new development in Ireland at the earliest possible opportunity and giving the necessary support to fund other developments likely to have an immediate relevance in this area.

13.A comprehensive review of all herd numbers and the farms in which they are held, including out-farms conacre and commonages should be undertaken to coincide with the shift to the herd registration system and computerisation.

14.An Advisory Council involving farmers cooperative involved in reactor assembly and veterinary practitioners should be established in each District Veterinary Office to maintain a continuous review of the operation of the scheme within their own area and to make recommendations as to the necessary adaptations to take account of particular circumstances and disease incidence in that district

15.A number of recommendations of an administrative nature was also considered by the Committee, many of which are worthy of attention by the proposed Executive Unit as a basis for increasing the effectiveness of the eradication scheme in the future. While these may seem relatively minor many of them could have a considerable impact on the scheme.

Among the recommendations of this type adopted by the Committee and considered as appropriate for incorporation in this short report are:

-with a view to achieving the objective of speedier disposal of reactor animals the veterinary surgeon should, at the time of identifying the animal as a reactor, be authorised to issue the necessary permit to have the animal moved for slaughter. This will shorten the present procedure which the veterinary surgeon must first notify the district veterinary office which will then issue the necessary document.

-with a view to encouraging more prompt submission of reports by veterinary surgeons payment for work done under contract under the scheme should be linked to the submission of reports and, if necessary, a penalty system introduced where there are delays.

-while the Committee does not wish to take from its recommendation that the policy of the Executive should be to pursue breaches of contract under the T.B. scheme through the courts there may be cases which could in the first instance be more appropriately referred to an independent Tribunal.

16.Finally the Committee recommends that if, for any either the Department of Finance or the Department of Agriculture reject the establishment of an Executive Unit on the lines proposed or fail to provide the minimum financial commitments for it to undertake an effective programme that the onus be placed squarely on them to produce a feasible more cost effective alternative. Two options are excluded; - to continue as we are and to terminate T.B. eradication.

Acknowledgements

The Committee wishes to thank all those who assisted in its review of the T.B. Eradication Programme whether by making submissions or by appearing before the Committee or by assistance through informal consultations with the Committee and its officials.

In particular the Committee wishes to acknowledge the cooperation given by officials of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. John Butler, Assistant Secretary, Mr. Jim Noonan, Deputy Director of Veterinary Services and other officials who gave evidence.

Professor John Hannan, Dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine UCD who agreed to set up an expert advisory group to assist the Committee and Professors P.J. Quinn and J.D. Collins and Dr. Dodd who served on that Committee and made detailed submissions to us.

Officers of IFA, ICOS and members of the Animal Health Council who assisted.

The I.V.A., I.V.U and Association of Concerned Veterinary Practitioners.

In light of the importance of effective T.B. Eradication in the national interest both from the point of view of export trading and human health, the Committee hopes that its deliberations will be taken as signalling the need for a fresh start with clear agreed objectives and the necessary authority and financial support to see them through.

A major part of the frustration and failure of the past must be recognised as arising directly from inconsistent funding. This is not to exonerate Departmental Management, veterinary surgeons or farmers nor to suggest that the Committee advocates an open-ended financial commitment. But it would plainly be the most false of false economies to seek to effect savings on T.B. eradication simply by suspending or reducing testing or changing interpretation of tests to reduce cattle slaughterings and hence Exchequer payments in compensation.

No Committee on Public Expenditure could condone such attempts at affecting economies or overlook the massive and continuing cost of failure of successive T.B. eradication schemes to control the disease.

It is the importance of bringing T.B. under control which demands that a new start be made with new autonomy, new authority, new supports, new links between farmer and Exchequer funding and clear attainable objectives.

It is the unanimous and wholehearted recommendation of this Committee that this now be pursued by appointing competent management to develop an organisation to do the job which now absorbs 1300 civil servants and has cost over £1000m to date.

Michael Keating T.D.

Chairman.

October, 1986.