A Cheann Comhairle, on the business of the House would you allow me to intervene to say——
Private Members' Business. - Veterinary Dispute: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the failure of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to secure a settlement of the dispute which has brought the bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication schemes to a virtual standstill and calls for an immediate restoration of these vital services.
—(Deputy J. Gibbons).
With the permission of the Deputy in possession, Deputy Hussey.
Yes, I give permission.
I would like to apologise to the House for my responsibility for the break in business which took place over the last hour and a half. The reason was that I did not anticipate, nor could I, on past form, possibly have expected that the business ordered for today would get through so quickly. I was completely taken by surprise by the speed with which the final section of the Criminal Law Bill went through. Even the Schedule I thought might take some time because Schedules here previously have taken a great deal of time. It was actually while I was looking for the Opposition Whip to ask for his agreement to resume the budget debate immediately, which agreement was forthcoming from him, that the business came to an end. I am sorry for my part in that and I hope the House will overlook it.
Last evening I indicated the serious threat to our national herd as a result of this dispute between the Minister and the Irish Veterinary Union. I drew attention to the decline in the national herd in recent times due to the large-scale slaughter of cows and also the export of calves to the Continent. I indicated also the very real threat to our cattle exports to Britain, amounting to £105 million per annum, as a result of this dispute. I am convinced that the Minister is not concerned about the eradication of animal disease since he has allowed the TB testing, which was not connected in any way with this dispute, to come to a standstill. The vets were prepared to carry on this testing but the Minister would not allow them to do so. In recent months there has been an increase of 100 per cent in lesions found at post mortem examinations in the factories. On examination it has been found that all these lesions are new which shows that the infection is of recent origin and can be attributed to the fact that the carrying out of the necessary testing has been suspended.
These facts are well-known to the Minister and to his Department but they are not being published. They are being kept in the little black book in the Department because there would be a national outcry if the general public realised the seriousness of the situation. In the west we have a seasonal influx of young calves from the south at this time of year. This will be a further hazard and will cause a further spreading of disease to our herds. At present there are sufficient vets in the country to deal with disease eradication in the areas designated for clearance without the assistance of lay technicians. If the Government decide to make an attack on disease in the remaining part of the country and if it is found then that the vets are not capable of dealing with the problem I am quite sure that the vets would agree with the employment in some capacity of lay technicians. When we reach that stage there can be negotiations, but at present I believe we are a long way from that goal. We must remember that if the volume of Department work for the vets is cut down it will result in the closure of many practices because vets would not have a sufficient workload to keep them going. This would mean that vets would have to travel longer distances to answer calls and they would have to charge a higher fee for doing so. This fee will have to be paid by the farmer.
A few weeks ago when electioneering in the Mayo by-election I was told of a case in Belmullet where a vet was forced to leave and join the Department due to a shortage of Department work. He could not survive in the practice that was available to him. The people from that area have to travel 40 miles to Wesport and Ballina in order to get a vet to treat their cattle and this, I submit, is something that can happen in other areas if it is not possible for the vet to survive in his practice. It is not fair to farmers, who are the people we are concerned about. There are people who at present have to pay for the testing of their cattle before they offer them for sale.
I heard the Parliamentary Secretary telling the House yesterday of the great times farmers were having. We hear this when the farmers for one reason or another happen to be getting a good price for their stock. For the past two years farmers have had to sell their stock at sacrifice prices. We have a responsibility to see that our national herd is maintained at full strength. A serious decline has taken place in our national herd in recent times. I hope we will see the end of this dispute before too long. It is the Minister's responsibility and the whole country is waiting for him.
The Minister has bent over backwards to meet the veterinary people. We now have the Animal Health Council on which they have representation under an independent chairman. They should give the Minister's plan a trial. It is only for three years and if it is not seen to work it can be scrapped. The plan has been given a trial elsewhere and we should determine whether it can be equally successful here.
This is a very serious matter for the farmers because if there is a breakdown in livestock sales we could have a repeat of 1974. I do not think the Minister can be expected to retreat further. He has the full support of the farming organisations and they are the people who have been sitting in on this dispute day after day. They went into it with an open mind, like I am doing, and they have decided the Minister has gone as far as he can and that it is now up to the vets to give the scheme the trial period suggested. The talk about redundancies in the profession is wildly exaggerated. There will be redundancies in farming if those people do not toe the line. After all, they are a professional body who should be acting a little more responsibly. They have been given five representatives on the Animal Health Council, like the farmers, and what we are looking for is harmony between the two groups. Both are mainly concerned with one thing, the eradication of this terrible disease so that we will be able to take our rightful place in all the European markets. That is what the Minister's plan is about and I appeal to the vets to act responsibly and to give it a trial. As I have said, it is only for a matter of three years.
This motion has been put down in order to give the House an opportunity to discuss a very critical situation in the economy. There are millions of pounds involved in our cattle exports and we must carry on with our TB and brucellosis testing. It is time we launched an all-out effort in this eradication campaign. This year and last year very little has been done and if this dispute is not settled all the good work of the past 20 years will go by the board and we will be back where we started. That is a sad thing to say. We have a deadline to be rid of brucellosis by 1978 and if we fail in this regard it is obvious that our exports will be hit.
The motion condemns the failure of the Minister to secure a settlement of the vets' dispute which has brought to a standstill the bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis schemes. It is of vital importance that these schemes be recommenced immediately. When changes are proposed discussion should take place between the parties concerned. One can draw a parallel between the vets' dispute and the dispute within CIE regarding one-man buses. In the latter case the Department concerned have not forced into operation the scheme which was envisaged whereas the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries have endeavoured to force through their proposals. CIE are discussing with the unions involved how best the change should be brought about.
The Chair would prefer the Deputy to confine his remarks to the issue before the House.
I am merely pointing out that the Minister could have taken a line from CIE. The buses continue to run while the testing of cattle has stopped. There is a big difference in the type of action taken in regard to CIE compared with the attitude adopted by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Because of his failure to reach agreement with the veterinary union the Minister has brought about a situation in which the farmers are at a loss to know what is the position. We know that as a result of all this the State has been saved millions of pounds but farmers must foot the bill for tests carried out on their cattle during the dispute.
Is the Minister aware that another result of this dispute is the nonpayment of various grants whether they be in respect of handicapped areas, of the beef incentive scheme or any other. This situation has arisen in cases where the owner of a farm has died or has transferred the holding to a son. Because no testing of herds had taken place in the name of the previous owner, the grants are not being paid. In such cases the Department have been writing to those who applied for grants telling them of this situation.
The veterinary profession are rendering an excellent service. Last evening, though, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister tried to say that only a few blackguards were holding up the scheme and that these should be prosecuted. This is a very cheap effort on the part of the Department to endeavour to belittle the profession. For many years farmers and vets have worked side by side. Any vets I know are reasonable people. In order to qualify a very high standard of education is required and, apart from this, there is control regarding the number who are accepted into the faculty. Therefore, many people who would like to become vets do not find it possible to embark on the relevant course of study. As I see the present position, the union concerned are taking action for the purposes of safeguarding their future. Many vets earn very little money for some time after qualifying. In those early stages they generally work for somebody who already has a practice established. The Minister should bear in mind that some of these younger people may have no income for some part of the year.
The union have stated unequivocally that if they can be sure of full employment for their members they have no objection to being helped by lay people. At Kinsale in 1973 the Minister guaranteed the profession that they would be employed fully in their work for the next five years, that is, up to 1978. Can the Minister give that guarantee today?
Yes.
Is he guaranteeing that there will be no unemployment as a result of lay people being engaged to carry out certain duties? In today's edition of The Irish Press the IVU are reported as stating:
We have consistently pointed out that should the Department increase the tempo of the eradication schemes to the extent that a greater number of personnel is required than is available in the veterinary profession, we will be quite prepared to work out how additional para-veterinary personnel can be incorporated to expedite disease eradication.
Has the Minister any comment to make on that statement? The union have told him that a substantial amount of money is necessary in respect of the scheme which is in dispute. It is very urgent from the point of view of our cattle and the whole meat processing industry that we tackle on a much larger scale and more efficiently the whole area of animal disease eradication. The veterinary union have said that when the necessary injection of capital has been put into this work they will not have the personnel necessary to operate the scheme fully and that at that stage they will be prepared to discuss with the Minister the question of arranging for the engaging of para-veterinary personnel or, if you like, lay people. There are many tasks in relation to the testing of cattle that can be undertaken by lay personnel. What was the cause of this stoppage in the first place? Who decided on a change? Deputy Hussey has told us of the abnormal increase in the number of lesions found during post-mortems on cattle. Even at this late stage we must urge the Minister to bring together again all the parties involved in the dispute. It is all right for Deputy Hegarty to say "stand behind the farming organisations, they are now on the Minister's side". That may be so but can these organisations bring pressure to bear on the veterinary union? The livestock trade has spoken tonight in favour of the IVU. Can we expect a situation in which the various organisations involved in the agricultural industry will be fighting among each other while the vet who is at the bottom rung of the ladder will suffer most? The farming organisations have a big role to play. Last night we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that their association were called in to help in the situation. However, my understanding is that they offered their services but their offer was not availed of. I should like to know what is the position.
As an ordinary farmer I would say that all farming organisations were wrong when they decided to put their men at the helm in semi-State bodies because, then, they were depending for their positions and for personal gain on the Minister of the day. We all remember a period in 1974 when cattle were being sold for almost nothing, when there was no one to speak up for the small or the transitional farmer and when no one but this party pointed to the plight of the farmers.
Perhaps the vets, at least the stronger ones, will be able to overcome the effects of this dispute but the farmers will suffer as a result of it. We all know that when a few vets join together in the operation of one big business, they can earn huge incomes but we must not forget the young man starting off in the profession. He is the one for whom I am concerned.
Is there anything wrong in starting all over again with the scheme, in giving it even a one-month trial? Let them all come together because if this is to go on and on, it will get worse. There is no good in everybody on the Government side saying: "They have the gun to our heads". Every day one reads the papers one finds that somebody has the gun to the head of the Government, from the way they are talking. I never heard so much crying in my life; we have nothing but the word "gun". We seem to be gone mad discussing the gun in this country and we have it now even on a discussion on the eradication of disease. The Parliamentary Secretary said that numerous times last night and he said that lay people were taking blood samples in the various hospitals. I understand that these lay people have to have qualifications and must be well qualified for this work. I am surprised at him making that statement because these people cannot really be considered as lay people at all. No parallel can be drawn between the two situations.
The Minister will have to accept responsibility for what is happening in agriculture. I suppose it is hard to find agreement when you have a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary with two different approaches to agriculture. One of them campaigned very hard for our joining the EEC and the other opposed it very strenuously. They do not seem to be of one mind at all. They have two different outlooks and there is no good in a person who opposed something saying that he accepts majority rule. He will still have his first thoughts at the back of his head.
I heard the Parliamentary Secretary saying how satisfied the farming community were. Coming down to earth and meeting the people is a great thing and I can tell the Minister that there is a grave unrest at all levels. One has only to look at a document published recently, "The Cork Marts Newsletter" which states that even in two years' time, with the breeding stock gone, we will have 270,000 fewer animals available as finished beef. Is that not a terrible situation?
You cannot have them and sell them.
You can have them and sell them and keep them in this country, but the cattle are gone and there were never more orphan weanlings before. Their mothers are dead and gone because there was no policy to enable the farmers to keep them. Never in the history of the country were there so many thousands of weanling cattle and the young cows are gone to the canning factories and sold off. They are not there to produce this year. It is our duty to build up the herd and let us not say that we have too many, to go out and get markets, but help when there is a tough period. No help was given last year and there will be unemployment in the meat processing trade this year and there will be more of it if this dispute is not settled rapidly and fairly.
The Minister is seeking to put it across that he is saving the country all this money and the Parliamentary Secretary said that £93 million was spent and was not well spent, as he said, on disease eradication. There is one group of people who did not get too much, the people who had to sell the reactors, whatever kind they were. Those of us who know the rural areas know that the limit put on them was very low and is still low, in relation to the price of cattle and what you have to go if you are buying for replacements. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary did not mean that the people who had reactors were over-paid. I can assure him that they were not and that they find it very hard to carry on, having reactors this year, maybe four or five more next year and a few more the following year. The buck has to stop somewhere and it really stops with the Minister who fails to send out the work to the vets. He promised them in 1973 full involvement for the next five years. Does he say tonight that every vet has full employment until the end of 1978 at least? The vets have said that if that be the case, they will discuss with the Minister the people who are to be employed if the workload is too much.
There must be a big injection of money to create that situation and the Minister knows that as well as I do. It requires a lot of money but it is money which will pay off very well. We are spending money less wisely in other areas and the Minister should state what he is going to spend within the next two or three years. There is only one way out of the situation, that is, to provide the huge input of finance which is so necessary. This is 1976 and will we get an extension of the deadline in 1978 to export our cattle? There is a grave doubt about that. The British farmers' union are kicking at the moment and they kick on the least pretext. They say that they are able to prove that our cattle are not disease-free going into England. All that has to go back to the Department and the Minister, as the head, will have to accept responsibility. There is no use in his saying that he has the organisations with him. Let him go down the country and he will find out that many of them are against him and do not believe in these ideas at all.
The Parliamentary Secretary said last night that the farming organisations were invited in by the Minister but it is very hard for people who are invited in, who are appointed to semi-State boards, to stand up to the Minister. I think these organisations made a mistake and went completely wrong. They were very quiet during the winter of 1974 and the spring of 1975 when if you took a cart and trailer into a mart, having sold your own calves, coming out it would be full of calves which your neighbour had been unable to sell. They were giving them away. The farming organisations were silent.
Now when they are selling them, you are quarrelling.
Because the Minister made no provision for the small farmer to carry the cattle. The Italians codded him in Europe. They are codding those in the Labour Party who were against joining the EEC. Thousands of cattle have gone off and they are now saying what they will make in two years' time. Why could help not be given to our people? Who said the farmers are well-off? Who is controlling the price of fertiliser and the price of feedstuffs? The Minister has said that the farming organisations asked that these be controlled and the Minister for Industry and Commerce said it as well. Rock sulphate at the moment has dropped greatly in price but there is no guarantee that it will get down to the Irish farmer.
This dispute is at a very dangerous stage when various organisations are getting clung into each other and the good relations which existed between those involved in the cattle trade, the farmers and the vets, are now being jeopardised. It is a bad thing that farming organisations should tell their members to go against the veterinary profession. They should, in my opinion, act as mediators. I appreciate that every Minister wants a mediator to help and there is no harm in having one, but in this case their position was weakened, due to the jobs which some of them had accepted from semi-State bodies. It is very hard to talk up to a man when he is putting the thumb down in those circumstances. Let the Minister come to the point. There is not much between the veterinary profession and himself. He promised them full employment and they say that if the Minister gives the injection of money, they are willing to consider other people outside the ranks of qualified vets for the running of this scheme, but until that is done, the responsibility lies with the Minister.
At the outset I should like to answer questions raised by Deputies Hussey and Meaney this evening. Deputy Hussey said the vets were prepared to carry on TB testing but were not allowed do so. This was also stated by Deputy Gibbons yesterday. That is far from true. The vets said that if I did not give up the idea of introducing lay technicians they would withdraw from all State work. In fact, they withdrew from all State work for three weeks before I brought anybody in. They did so because I said it was my intention to bring in lay technicians. He also said that TB lesions were an indication of new disease but that is not a correct statement.
We all know that our disease levels are well below the acceptable limits in the EEC. Some of the statements made last night, and tonight, could do immeasurable harm to our exports and that is why I want to make my statement. I was interested to hear that the Mayo vet was forced to join the Department. I can assure the House that we have no trouble in getting people to join the Department now. They are pleased to undertake the Department's work. There is the great fear being spread around that if we do not accede to all the requests there will be a great shortage of vets. This was tried on in the Mayo by-election where all this thrash was put through the letter boxes but it did not work. It was also stated that all testing ceased last year. The fact is that 100,000 diseased cattle were removed last year in the course of testing.
It has been impressed upon us that we should provide lots of money for disease eradication. I agree this is extremely important but I should like to remind Deputies, particularly those who have not looked at the Book of Estimates, that we provided this year £17.8 million for brucellosis and TB eradication. In the last year Deputy Gibbons was Minister £7.2 million was provided and that gives an indication of the way we are thinking about disease eradication. It was also stated that I promised the vets in Kinsale in 1973 full involvement. I still promise them full involvement but there is a difference between full involvement and guaranteeing any profession full employment. I remember a few years ago looking at the situation in relation to doctors when we were exporting 66 per cent of them. There is no profession where there is absolutely full employment.
There was a time.
The statement by the Parliamentary Secretary last night that I invited the farming organisations in has been questioned. I am sorry it has been questioned because when a Parliamentary Secretary makes a statement it should be accepted. I invited them in and I should like to avail of the opportunity to thank the leaders of the two farming organisations for the immense effort and time they devoted to helping me find a settlement. I am glad to say that they are fully behind me and I am extremely grateful for that help.
The size of the herd, something which has no bearing on the matter at all, has been brought up again. I should like to state that there are more cattle here now than there were when Fianna Fáil left Government and the figures prove that. According to the Central Statistics Office, between June and January we disposed of no fewer than one million cattle. One cannot have the money in one's pocket and the cattle on one's farm at the same time.
When did the breeding start? It was Fianna Fáil who increased the number of cattle.
The Opposition have fed the farmers of this country on a diet of crisis and depression. Unfortunately, for a while they succeeded. Mention has been made of fertiliser usage but more fertiliser was sold in January this year than was sold during all of last year. That is an indication of the confidence of the farming community.
The Minister must be allowed to make his statement.
The Minister is talking about fertilisers.
I mention fertilisers because it was referred to by Opposition Deputies.
Go back to the good old days.
During the period of this dispute Deputy Gibbons, and the other Members of the Opposition, acted responsibly and I wish to acknowledge that. The matter was raised periodically at Question Time and my replies were understood and accepted. However, the timing of this motion is most unfortunate and badly chosen. Jumping on the band wagon at a time like this can do our exports immense damage. If the motion was designed for that purpose it could not be better timed. The references yesterday to disease-laden calves were deplorable. The fact that they were made by an ex-Minister for Agriculture makes them all the more deplorable. He must know that this is untrue. He knows that the Italians were extremely pleased to get 130,000 of our calves last year. He is also aware that they operate the strictest health control on their calf improts. These calves in the main were from the South of Ireland. It is easy to attribute this sort of statement to some other organisation and it was in that context that the statement was made.
Calves are not tested until after they are six months old.
There is a good reason for that. The veterinary profession of whom the Deputy has spoken so highly stated on many occasions that calves under six months are no disease danger. Deputy Gibbons has a hard neck to talk about disease levels. One would think he was never Minister for Agriculture and that Fianna Fáil were never in power. Fianna Fáil were in power for 35 years and in the early 1930s they were being exhorted by the veterinary profession to start eradicating disease but we had to wait until former Deputy James Dillon started to eradicate TB. To criticise me in view of all this for trying to find a more efficient and economic way of eradicating disease beats the band. All I can say is that Deputy Gibbons would try anything when he tries this sort of thing. It would be very easy for me to let things jog along in the old way, things getting worse rather than better. This course would avoid trouble but it would not eradicate disease.
Who is talking about a hard neck now?
Deputy Gibbons should know this because I can give him figures but figures are not so useful when we make them public.
The basic question that arises here, and most people are now well aware of it, is whether these schemes are to be operated to eradicate disease or to provide employment for vets. That is the main question. The people on the opposite side of the House are supposed to be talking for farmers, supposed to be concerned about farmers and farmers' cattle. There is one thing certain, that is, that they have provided good employment for some vets and I do not begrudge them what they have earned but I am entitled to look for results and I am also entitled to maintain a continuous search for more economical and more efficient ways of achieving results. I do not think anybody can quarrel with that. I am dealing with taxpayers' money.
There are two major schemes involved in this issue and there may be others in future. Deputy Gibbons also referred to the possibilities and what we should be doing and should not be doing. The first is in regard to TB and this was officially declared eradicated in 1965 but it was necessary to go on testing cattle as a control measure. In the ten years since 1965 the vets have been paid over £16 million in fees for TB testing. I want to put it on record that I am not satisfied with the results which have been achieved over that decade. Nobody could be satisfied when reading the figures. In addition to what has been paid in fees over that period out of public funds another £17 million has been spent on the difference between the purchase price the Department pays to farmers for reacting animals and the resale price paid by the factories for the same animals. The process of testing and removal of reactors must go on but we must somehow improve the methods to ensure better results.
This is why I am pleased that agreement has now been reached for the setting up of an advisory council to keep the whole situation under a close and, I hope, critical eye and that was my reason for proposing this sort of council: Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, two members; Irish Farmers Association, three members; Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, Limited, two members; Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, three members; Irish Veterinary Association, two members; Irish Veterinary Union, two members; Veterinary Council of Ireland, one member; National Agricultural Advisory, Education and Research Authority, two members, when it comes into existence and in the meantime An Foras Talúntais will do the nomination; the General Council of Committees of Agriculture, two members, with an independent chairman appointed in consultation with the council.
I was anxious to set up such a council as this because it gave full involvement for all the people who had an interest in disease eradication. On that council farmers are well represented, the veterinary profession is well represented and I would hope that it would be an impartial body and would do a first-class job.
Could I ask the Minister does he consider farmers are well represented with two members?
I am satisfied that they are well represented. I have not approached any of these bodies as yet to find out whether they would be prepared to act but I hope they will be prepared to act.
The TB question is only half of the problem. The more immediate problem is brucellosis and the methods to be used in eradicating and controlling it. The disease is a scourge for farmers and as yet we have not made great progress in getting rid of it. No matter how we set about the job, the cost will escalate rapidly and steeply. I have been really shocked at the forecasts of the cost of eradicating brucellosis. The figure last year was £5.5 million. I am advised that by 1979 this will reach a figure well in excess of £27 million. I simply do not know where the money is going to come from. So, the House can understand my anxiety and concern to get a job done that is worth the money. Six counties are already cleared, seven more are in process of eradication and in the balance of the country work is proceeding on a voluntary basis. As I said, even last year we removed no less than 100,000 cattle when we were supposed to be doing no testing. As everybody knows, vets do not test cattle for brucellosis. They simply take blood samples and these samples are tested in the Department's laboratory.
A single laboratory.
That is true.
That is highly inefficient.
Highly inefficient?
Yes. You should have one in Sligo and one in Kilkenny.
Yes. It is amazing how efficient people can become when they go into Opposition. I agree with the Deputy that it would be more convenient for the people concerned.
In those areas which have already been cleared, not in the eradication areas, not in the new areas but only in those areas in which the disease has been reduced to a very low percentage, I want to introduce 25 specially trained laymen to take blood samples. Is this unreasonable? Over a period of three years the council to which I have referred would monitor the work of these technicians and if at the end of that period the council satisfies me that the technicians were not satisfactory, either on grounds of efficiency or cost then they will be withdrawn. I have given that undertaking. Deputy Gibbons agrees that technicians should be brought in. Now he is changing his feet a little bit about how they should be used.
I am not changing one whit and the Minister knows that well.
He is finding extraordinary new uses for them. They are for corralling cattle now and being there as precursors to have everything lined up and in waiting for the veterinary surgeons when they arrive——
The Minister will blame anybody but himself.
——who are well paid. This is a farmer's responsibility and I hope he will take his job seriously in future.
There is nothing new in this. Trained technicians are used for routine work in many countries, in fact, I should say in every English-speaking country in the world, and not only in the veterinary field; they are used also in the medical field. This was laughed at yesterday evening. The system is sanctioned specifically for blood testing by the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
The objection which the vets have to my proposal is not based on ethical or professional grounds; it is based on the maintenance of employment. They have said so quite clearly. The vets, I must say, are not very logical in this because if the prospects for young vets are not good today, a good part of the responsibility lies with their well-established colleagues who between them have corralled all the cattle herds in the country over the years in such a way that a significant part of the TB testing is done now by assistants who receive from the principals something like half the fee which the principals themselves get from the Department. This deprives the farmer of his choice of vet, it reduces the control of the Department over the working of the system and it effectively prevents the young vet from establishing himself in his profession in the traditional way. In short, this system which is enthusiastically defended by the union is doing more to destroy the career prospects of young vets than anything I am ever likely to do with regard to employing technicians.
To sum it up, this is a quarrel I did not seek. It is doing great harm to the farmers and to the country. The veterinary profession is very strong and very well organised but I would remind the veterinary practitioners that it is the farmers who own the cattle and it is the taxpayers who provide the money for the schemes. I want to avail of this opportunity to appeal again to the vets to reconsider their position in the light of what is now being offered, in the light of the fact that these latest proposals have the full support and backing of the farming organisations and in the interest of their own future in disease eradication. I would say to them that so far as I am concerned I will retain no bitterness about this dispute. I can assure them of my fullest support in disease eradication in the years ahead. I hope they will be fully involved and that they will answer this appeal.
In its own interest the veterinary profession should take a long-term view of the situation because it cannot afford in the long run to antagonise the farmers on whom in the last analysis the vets rely for their livelihood. Neither should they ignore the interest of the general body of taxpayers who have already provided many millions of pounds and who will be called upon to provide many more millions of pounds for the eradication of those diseases. Powerful organisations working in vital areas of the economy should be careful not to overplay their hand and I am afraid some such organisations are overplaying their hand. They can damage the economy but they will sink with it. I do not think that is sufficiently recognised. I plead with the vets to remember this. Farmers have very long memories and they should not overlook this.
Deputy Gibbons has advocated a high intensity campaign and a major assault to clear the country of the remnants of TB in cattle and to eliminate brucellosis. On the radio last Sunday I heard him make reference to two trouble spots, Waterford and Kilkenny, where there is still a TB problem. The Deputy lives in Kilkenny.
I do not think I am responsible for the incidence of bovine TB.
The Deputy was Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries for quite a long time.
I put in a special task force——
That is a great surprise to me because I could not find any such record in the Department.
The Minister should check with Mr. McKenna.
I found that the disease level was worse. I am sorry I have to say that. I am trying to be fair to the Deputy——
The Minister is trying to be nasty but he is not succeeding.
The Deputy was very nasty to me and it was most unlike him because he can be a very nice man. My search showed that he did nothing when he was Minister. If I am wrong in this I will publicly apologise to him.
The Minister should check again.
We have a special task force in there now and there were serious objections by the veterinary profession. However, we are doing it and I hope the results will be good. With regard to Deputy Gibbons's suggestion about a high intensity campaign, I would point out that in the current year £17.8 million has been set aside in the Estimates for disease eradication——
But not spent.
With the co-operation of the veterinary surgeons I hope to spend this money. When the Deputy was Minister the largest amount spent, which was during his last year in office, was £7.2 million. Now he howls at me to spend more money. I said there were more cattle at the latest census date than when the Deputy left office and I will give him the relevant numbers. In December, 1972, there were 5,945,700; in 1975 there were 5,965,900. Will he give up howling about cattle numbers—
How many cows calved in 1972?
The Minister should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.
Fianna Fáil have done an immense amount of harm.
The Minister does not know the answer.
I have told the Deputy he must allow the Minister to speak without interruption.
I thought it was pathetic to see Deputy Gibbons coming into the House yesterday, beating his breast and saying "mea culpa”.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
He made a public appeal to let them back again, that they would be good boys. The fact is they have an incurable disease; it is endemic and they will never get another chance. Even ten or 20 years on those benches will not bring them back to normal.
The Minister stated that 100,000 reactors were bought last year. I should like to remind him that many of those reactors were cattle tested in the previous year——
Nonsense.
When the Minister is giving figures he should back them up with facts. There is a failure by the Department to publish the figures of disease incidence during 1975. Because of the factory inspections and the lesions found in these inspections, as pointed out by my colleague, the figures are not being disclosed by the Department and the country is completely in the dark as to what the situation is.
The Deputy is doing a great job for John Bull.
We know who is doing a good job for John Bull. The Minister has given us no indication as to how we will meet the EEC deadline in 1976. The Minister has not told us what his plans are if his dispute with the vets is not ended. What are his plans for the eradication of disease? The Minister told us nothing about these. In this economic crisis the Government, apart from giving lip-service to partnership, simply stumble along from one crisis to another. Where is this partnership the Government spoke about where this dispute is concerned?
It is in voluntary liquidation.
I should think so. We must always remember that 60 per cent of our economy is based on the agricultural sector and the livestock industry is by far the largest percentage of that sector. We have been famed for our livestock exports for many long years. But that important sector could not be left alone by this Government. The Minister decides without consultation to put in lay testers on the brucellosis scheme. That may be all right as far as it goes but the fact is that disease eradication has got a tremendous setback and the blame for that must lie fairly and squarely at the door of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. All the money spent by Fianna Fáil Minister is going down the drain now because the Minister simply cannot shoulder his responsibilities. This is a serious situation where the cattle industry is concerned.
I would again appeal to the Minister to get down off his high horse and listen to reason from the farming organisations and the veterinary profession. They have done a great deal for the livestock industry and the threats the Minister made ill become any Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Such threats should not be made against any profession.
The imagination of some people is fantastic. I threatened nobody.
It never ceases to amaze me how brilliant the Minister's imagination is. I should, I think, begin at the end as it were and make some comments on the observations of the Minister and his extraordinary intervention in this debate. This debate was concerned with the cessation of disease eradication for the greater part of a year and one of the Minister's opening remarks was that the Fianna Fáil Party, and I in particular, seemed to be under some delusion about the importance of the incidence of disease in animals. His remarks seemed to express satisfaction with the old level of disease in Irish cattle generally in spite of the fact that there has been no disease elimination worthwhile over the past 12 months and he made the extraordinary assertion that the size of the herd is not a relevant factor. This peculiar argument lies in the face of the Government's own statistics which show there was a drop of 553.7 thousand in the numbers of cattle on Irish farms between December, 1974, and December, 1975. The Minister seemed to be under some kind of delusion that this is not a diminution in the size of the national herd. He also seems to be unaware of the fact that we were climbing very rapidly to the 7,000,000 mark in the size of our cattle herd in March, 1973, when the present Government took office.
The Minister reproached the Fianna Fáil Party, with some slight reservations, for our general attitude and accused us of band-wagoning. He said this motion, tabled in my name, was an effort to jump on some band wagon at a most unfortunate time. The Minister had half-an-hour or more to demonstrate the truth of his assertion. Of course, the fact is that there is no truth in it. He did have the decency, however, to admit that the approach of this party from last June or July in the handling of parliamentary questions and otherwise has been a responsible approach and I acknowledge now that the Minister did grant us that much. But, in the light of that, I take all the greater exception to the Minister's lamentable assertion that our motion is untimely.
Our motion now is prompted simply by our reluctant arrival at the conclusion that, since nobody else seems to be able to get some movement into this impasse between the Minister and the vets, it behoves the greatest political party in this House and outside it to make that move. The Minister asserted this motion was an unfair band wagon attempt to derive political capital. He had ample opportunity to prove his assertion, but he did not find it possible to do that because it simply is not possible to do it.
When I spoke last night I was at pains to say we hold no brief for the veterinary profession. My colleagues who spoke subsequently were at pains to do likewise. What we are concerned about, and what we endeavoured to underline, is that the continuation of this impasse is quite intolerable and must end. Its ending is the responsibility of the Minister and nobody else's responsibility.
I did not expect the uncouth intrusion of the Parliamentary Secretary into this debate last evening and his unwarranted attack on the integrity of the veterinary profession when, as the Minister says, the relationship between the Department and the veterinary profession is at such a delicate stage and when there is such an insistence on the part not only of the farming community but of the country generally on an immediate end to this unimaginably costly cessation of testing. Since the Minister did not see fit to amend or correct the ill-informed and ignorant contribution of his Parliamentary Secretary, it must be taken that he approves of what he said.
The Deputy should know the word "ignorant" is a word that ought not be used in connection with another Member's contribution.
I meant it in its literal sense.
I am not asking for an apology.
I meant it in the sense that the Parliamentary Secretary evinced a total lack of knowledge of the subject. I thought it was intemperate and especially unfortunate at this juncture. Since there was no retraction, amendment or explanation on the matter by the Minister, we must assume the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking officially.
It was a factual appraisal of the position.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, having made his unfortunate contribution and having exacerbated the situation to an even greater degree than has the intransigence of the Minister, to be so good as to refrain from further observations until I have finished.
This party calls on the Minister to make an immediate settlement of the cessation of testing, this abandonment of the health status of the cattle of the country which has been growing over the past 12 months. The calling together of the animal health council is a very wise move by the Minister. I accept, with the reservations expressed by Deputy Callanan, that the personnel section seems broad enough to meet the case. It is absolutely vital to assure the veterinary profession of what they seem most concerned about, that is, the security of the tenure of their lucrative employment. If we are to continue exporting with a proper disease free status, there must be a large scale offensive against animal disease.
The tuberculosis situation can be recovered fairly easily, although there has been regression in the past 12 months. The country did have attested status until the breakdown last year. I freely acknowledge that the problem areas are Waterford and Kilkenny which are causing grave concern. I remember consultations in my time in the Department about the setting up of a special task force. Whether this task force had actually gone into action at the time of the change of Government is not really relevant, but it was under active consideration at that time.
There is a need to examine the approach of the Department's veterinary section and the general approach to the control of brucellosis. I am not happy about the tactics that were in use during our time in Government and which continued until the cessation of work. The Minister may write these words down in his notebook and use them again if he wishes, but I have no hesitation in saying that the pace of disease eradication was not sufficient in our time. We should have expanded it at a much greater rate. We must attack this problem now and I do not mean that there should be a mere resumption of work from where it was left off. We are right up against the 1978 deadline. In my opinion, there is not a hope in hell that we will make it, but if we can do it or if we show that we are doing our best, the EEC might see some way round this impassable barrier. Unless we do that, we can give no guarantee or undertaking to the veterinary profession that there will be continuity of employment both for existing members and the young people coming into the profession.
I have always felt that lay personnel are necessary. The veterinary profession say that under no circumstances will they allow lay personnel to enter the professional field. Having regard to the numbers in the profession and the rather low intensity of the disease eradication programme as it now stands, I think there is a justification for this attitude. Until such time as there is a rapid intensification of the disease eradication scheme, there does not seem to be a sufficient case for the use of lay staff for the taking of blood samples which the vets take to be in the professional area.
Having regard to the very strong convictions they have expressed in this regard, even in the last 24 hours, I suggest that lay staff be incorporated in the task force which will undertake disease eradication in the future and that they be employed in an unprofessional way. I am not trying to make political capital out of this. I am trying to find an end to the cessation that is causing enormous damage. We cannot continue to let the impasse go on indefinitely because it is costing millions of pounds and this amount is shooting up all the time.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to the vital time factor. We cannot hesitate any longer. The Government on the confession of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, have found it necessary and possible to raise hundreds of millions of pounds to produce a distorted system which makes it unprofitable for many people to work any more. The Government are devoting that money to this unprofitable, wasteful and feckless task. Yet, they say they do not have any money to devote to improving the health status of our cattle herds.
I asked the Minister to impress on his colleagues the need for a reexamination of their values. Either spend taxpayers' money purchased in votes for the next election by increasing social welfare payments or spend it on what the country needs most— the cattle herds.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 68.
Tá
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Healy; Níl, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond.
Question declared lost.