I asked for permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment because, as many Deputies know, it is a matter which is causing some concern in the farming community. It is one that in the next few weeks could cause a number of problems and a great deal of worry. In view of the press reports and the discussions that have been taking place in the past few days, it is important that we look at the implications of recent measures.
The measure I refer to is the Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) (Amendment) Order, 1982 dated 14 June. The operative section of the order is the provision which stated the following:
An animal which is six weeks of age or under may not be moved into or out of a holding or other land unless —
(a) it bears an approved ear-tag and is accompanied by an identity card issued by the Minister in respect of that animal, or
(b) it is moved to a place which, for the purpose of these Regulations, for the time being stands designated by the Minister as an ear-tagging centre.
This measure changes the situation in two principal ways. The first is that from now on all calves will be ear-tagged and will require an identity card. The second change is that by comparison with the present situation up to now calves under six weeks of age could be moved from clear herds without any formality. This was the situation as set out in the regulations. I stress the point that up to now the regulations provided that no animal could be moved from a locked-up herd without a test.
In practice the situation was different. We know there was an amount of movement of calves from locked-up herds without tests and this appears from the evidence brought forward to have given rise to a number of problems. What is causing concern today is the fact that while the regulations provided for the situation I have outlined, in practice this did not happen. It is only since the new regulation was brought into force that people have begun to realise the full import of what the existing regulations meant.
Equally, it would be fair to say that it is not until now that there has been a real prospect that even the existing regulations could be fully enforced on the ground. The reason I asked to raise this is that while the change in the regulations may not, on the face of it, appear to be very great, the difference it is going to make in practice could be considerable. It is incumbent on us to look at the situation and see what can be done about it.
I will give an example of the kind of thing that can happen. Take the case of a dairy herd which is locked up, perhaps through no fault of the farmer, where an outbreak of disease has been identified. That farmer is in the position that 20 per cent of his calves are retained in the herd for rearing and you will usually find that a corresponding number of heifers are coming on. Eighty per cent of calves born in that year will normally be sold. When the herd is locked up and with the full application of the present regulations, 80 per cent of the calves cannot be sold. In intensively run heavily stocked dairy farmer, with the full implementation of these regulations, the farmer concerned is now obliged to find a way of carrying five times as many calves as he normally would. He would have to carry those, plus any subsequent calves, until his herd is re-tested and found to be clear. It is the full realisation of this which is causing the serious problems to which I have referred and which, over the next few weeks, will give rise to a great deal of worry and discontent.
I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the extent and nature of the evidence which led him to make this extension of the order. Tagging and identity cards are a separate matter — that has to do with the calf subsidy scheme — but it has provided an opportunity to do something that has wider implications. Would the Minister also indicate what consultations, if any, he has had with the veterinary profession, the animal health council and with the farm organisations, because the nature of this particular measure is such that it needs a full examination on all sides to make sure that we are proceeding in a manner that will get the wholehearted support of the farming community for an objective we all share, to get rid of this disease, especially TB. What can we do to deal with the very serious economic problems that will now be more explicitly faced by the farmers concerned?
Last Friday, when we were discussing the agricultural Estimate, I had a number of comments to make about the difficulties in disease eradication caused by the present economic circumstances. There are many farmers around the country who are almost afraid to test because the economic penalty or disadvantage they suffer as a result of the identification of disease in their herd is now so severe that they have no possibility of absorbing the shock of this in their operations. I would like to ask the Minister to say what can be done to meet this situation, in the interests of the farmers concerned who are going to suffer serious economic difficulties, and in the interests of making substantial progress in this vital area of TB eradication. I want to make it very clear that I have raised this so that it can be discussed by farming organisations representing the professional interests of farmers, the veterinary profession on whom we rely for the ground work, and the animal health council which has shown a very serious commitment to getting on with the job.
