Nirthern Ireland-TB Erradication.

NORTHERN IRELAND.

Bovine TB audit report ’a mixed bag’ - Tom Elliott

Ulster Unionist MLA Tom Elliott has called a Northern Ireland Audit Office report on the control of Bovine Tuberculosis, ’a mixed bag’.

He noted that the Report revealed that the bovine TB skin test fails to detect up to one-in-four infected animals and that DARD should consider introducing another form of testing.

"Well, frankly that is what I have been calling on DARD to introduce for years. It has been known for years now that the skin test is not an entirely reliable test, and I am disappointed that DARD has not taken these concerns on board.

"What was the point in aiming to eradicate the disease if we aren’t even using efficient testing procedures in the first place? Hopefully now, with this latest Report, they will take real steps to introduce a new TB test"

Mr Elliott, who is vice-chairman of the Assembly’s Agriculture Committee, also dismissed the Report’s claim that if the Department were to inspect more farms using their own in-house vets, then they would be able to save money.

"I would be intrigued to know how the Northern Ireland Audit Office came to the conclusion that using in-house vets would reduce costs. The benefit of using private veterinary practitioners is that they can come and go as they are needed but, if the Department was to employ a swathe of in-house vets, then they would need to be paid a full salary out of the DARD budget even if they weren’t carrying out a full day’s work."

Mr. Elliott also lambasted the report for implying that private vets are somehow not up to job. He stated: "The Report implied that private vets are somehow less capable at detecting infected animals than the DARD in-house staff are.

"The report then goes on to say that concerns had been raised about the quality of work being carried out by private vets. Well, first of all, that is an incredibly unfair remark to make as the in-house DARD vets only undertake 1% of the ’routine tests’.

"They do however test a significant number of herds that are at risk or are known to have had infected animals. Therefore, to make a comparison between private vets who carry out nearly all of the routine tests and in-house vets who carry out many of the at-risk tests is both unfair and unreasonable.

"That is why I have to disagree with some of the sentiments in the Report which seem to suggest that private veterinary practitioners are apparently less capable when compared to their colleagues in DARD. The reality is that private vets provide an invaluable service to the farming community throughout Northern Ireland and without them DARD would find it extremely difficult to meet the EU directives which set the required level of testing across Northern Ireland."

He then highlighted what he described as, ’ one of the most alarming points raised in the Audit Office Report’, the suggestion that if an animal that was removed from a farm and was subsequently revealed to have been disease-free, that it should be valued less than an animal which was infected with the disease.

Mr. Elliott stated: "If an animal is removed from a farm at DARD’s request, then the owner should be paid the same amount whether it was infected or not. The Audit Office have to remember that prior to the test, all the animals have there estimated values.

"Therefore, if an animal is removed by officials, then the farmer should receive the same financial compensation for the animal whether it is infected or not. It is not the farmer’s fault that the animal has been removed, therefore he should not be penalised. I am completely opposed to the idea of DARD introducing a varying rate of compensation as it is wholly inequitable."

Concluding, Mr Elliott said that, despite the Report’s flaws, he did agree with aspects of it and, in particular deliberate fraud.

"Unfortunately, a very small minority of farmers do make fraudulent claims which casts a shadow over the whole farming industry. Therefore, I agree that the Department should devote significant resources in the fight against fraudulent claims. The disease has been constant threat to farmers over the last decade and, despite a massive fall infected herds, unfortunately the current infected rate is still significantly higher to that of 1997."