Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 Oct 1984

Vol. 353 No. 4

Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1984: Motion.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Deasy)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:—

Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1984.

The proposed regulations are being made under the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Act, 1979, which was introduced by a previous administration mainly to secure a financial contribution from the farming sector towards the cost of the bovine TB and brucellosis eradication programme. The Act provided that the levies could be varied by regulations and rates of £1.90 per bovine animal slaughtered or exported live and 0.3p per gallon of milk produced were introduced with effect from 1 January 1984. The original levies introduced by the then Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Gibbons, on 1 September, 1979 were withdrawn on 1 February 1981.

In the national plan 1985-1987, the Government decided that, from November 1984 to the end of 1985, an increased contribution should be sought from the farming community towards the cost of the disease eradication programme. The rates of levies proposed — a doubling of the present rates to £3.80 per bovine animal slaughtered or exported live and 0.6p per gallon of milk — will apply from 5 November 1984, and are expected to yield an additional £7 million in 1985.

Regarding the live export of cattle, I would refer to a matter raised a few minutes ago by Deputy O'Keeffe. We as a Government are very interested in continuing to trade with Libya. We have nothing but the highest admiration for the wonderful work that has been done in this regard by some leading cattle exporters.

We would like to reciprocate the very strong market which has been generated. We would like to do as much trade as possible with Libya. I want to clear up any confusion or misconception which may have arisen on this matter. There have been a number of statements to the effect that the Government were not interested in doing business with the Libyan Government or buying Libyan oil. We would be only too glad to do so but — and this I must stress — the price has to be competitive. If the terms of the sale of Libyan oil are competitive we will be only too glad to do business with them. We have nothing but the best relations with the Libyan Government, and I would like to contradict any impression which some people have attempted to give to the contrary. We are very anxious that that trade continues.

In 1983 we sold 77,000 head of live cattle to Libya and almost 7,000 tons of beef. That is a very valuable trade and we want to retain it. At present a technical delegation is preparing to go to Libya to discuss the terms of any such sale. As I have repeatedly stated, I would be only too glad to go to Libya to conclude any such deal if the terms are right and the oil prices are competitive. I have been willing to go there over the past few months and I will gladly go there in the coming weeks if necessary.

It has been made clear that a meeting of the Joint Commission would not take place unless there was a commitment to buy Libyan oil. That has been an inhibition because we have said that we are only prepared to buy at a competitive price. As everyone knows, there is a very difficult situation in the world oil market because of moves by a number of countries to undercut the prices being demanded by most oil-producing countries. That has created an uncertain climate and it will be some days, if not weeks, before the situation is clarified.

We export live animals and beef to a number of oil-producing countries. I would like to give the House an indication of the volume of that trade. In 1983 we exported 191,000 head of live cattle to the United Kingdom, 138,000 head of live cattle to Egypt and 77,000 head of live cattle to Libya. Deputies will gather from that that the live trade is thriving. Our main importer of live cattle is the United Kingdom, our second importer is Egypt and our third is Libya, but those statistics can change from year to year. Libya has been our most constant customer over the past number of years and we value that trade.

In 1983 we exported 110,000 tonnes of beef to the United Kingdom, 52,000 tonnes to other EEC countries, 623,000 tonnes to Iran, 6,616 tonnes to Libya, 9,694 tonnes to Egypt and 67,824 tonnes to other destinations. Deputies will see that we are not exporting to only one particular country. We are exporting enormous quantities of beef and other agricultural products to many oil-producing countries. If we had to pay all those countries the top price for oil, it would mean a considerable expense to the Exchequer and, indirectly, to the Irish taxpayer.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a need for prices to be competitive. We cannot impose additional burdens on the Exchequer and the taxpayer if we can buy the commodity cheaper elsewhere. If the Libyan Government wish to do business with us at competitive prices, we will be only too glad to do so. I want that message to go out very clearly from this House. There has been a great deal of confusion about our intentions. There is no political consideration involved. I read a startling headline in one of yesterday's evening papers which said this was mainly a political consideration, and we have read similar stories in recent weeks. I want to repeat: there is no political consideration involved. This is strictly a business deal.

The following six Middle East countries are major oil producers: Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Iran and Saudia Arabia. In 1983 the value of our agricultural exports was as follows: Algeria, £35.3 million; Libya, £41.1 million, Egypt, £77.6 million, Iraq, £9.8 million — a little low perhaps but the previous year the figure was £40.7 million — Iran £32.2 million and Saudia Arabia £31.7 million. Deputies can see the significance of those exports to these oil producing countries which are members of OPEC. We could also add to that list Nigeria to whom in the past we have exported a colossal amount of fish. If we were to have reciprocal trade with all those oil producing countries, paying the top price for oil, there would be an enormous extra cost to our Exchequer. That aspect has to be borne in mind.

The bovine disease levies were, of course, introduced in 1979 by the then administration. I would point out that at that time they fixed the rates of levy at 0.5 pence per gallon of milk and at £3 per head of cattle. Translated into present-day values those rates would amount to fractionally less than 1p per gallon and just under £6 per head of cattle, whereas the rates now proposed are substantially lower at 0.6 pence per gallon of milk and £3.80 per animal. Adding to this the fact that cattle and milk prices today are much better than they were in 1979 it is readily apparent that the impact of the levies now is far less than it was then. I would ask the Opposition to bear this in mind when speaking on the motion. The rates of levy now proposed could be increased by about 60 per cent before they would represent the same burden on producers as applied when the levies were originally introduced in 1979.

These increases must be viewed in the context of the quite massive investment of Exchequer moneys in the eradication programme to date and the substantially increased funding being allocated for the schemes over the next three years. The fact that we are no longer in receipt of an EC contribution towards the cost of eradication measures must also be taken into account. A sum of £31.5 million is being provided for the operation of the schemes in 1985, that is, an increase of £10.5 million on the 1984 allocation. It is a very sizeable amount for disease eradication, a programme that has not met with the kind of success we would have liked, especially in recent years. The figure of £31.5 million is exceptionally high when compared with figures in previous years which averaged around £20 million. In fact, in 1979 the figure was as low as £14 million. We are providing a very considerable amount of extra money for the disease eradication programme but we want to get results and we intend to get them.

While brucellosis eradication is at a very advanced stage and ultimate success is now well within our grasp, efforts towards eradication of bovine TB have been less successful. For some years past, our eradication measures have managed only to contain the disease at an incidence of around 2.5 per cent of herds. The result is that potential for growth and development of the livestock and livestock products sector is being seriously hampered, with consequent losses to the farming community. The incidence of bovine TB in herds increased in the period 1981 to 1983 despite the vast amount spent on the scheme. This must give cause for alarm.

In their national plan, the Government have cited the final elimination of TB as a priority and to that end a fresh onslaught is to be made against the disease. While substantially increased funds have been allocated to the eradication programme over the next three years, including an additional provision for stock replacement, the Government have made it clear that availability of these moneys will be subject to the introduction of a number of radical changes in the operation of the disease eradication schemes. These are set out in paragraph 7.36 of the Government's national plan and include direct nomination of veterinary surgeons for TB and brucellosis scheme testing; payment of testing fees to a veterinary surgeon who carries out the scheme test thus making the veterinary surgeon personally responsible for the proper execution of the test; earlier removal of reactor animals; tighter official supervision of all trading at marts; strict enforcement of all procedures and prosecutions in all cases for breaches of disease regulations; the establishment of a central epidemiological unit in my Department to co-ordinate and assist in the analysis of disease outbreaks, prevention of disease and so on. In addition, I have arranged for the establishment of an advisory group on research and investigation into various aspects of TB. Experts from UCD, An Foras Talúntais, the practitioners and my own animal health research staff will be involved. The general aim of the group will be to pinpoint areas of research which they consider require further pursuit.

The health status of the national herd is of major importance to the future development of Irish agriculture. In the interest of our very valuable meat and livestock trade, both domestic and foreign, it must be obvious to all that bovine TB and brucellosis must be totally eradicated. The cost of the schemes to date — over £750 million at present-day values, excluding administration — has proved a massive drain on Exchequer funds over the years. If administration costs were included, the total cost would be in excess of £1,000 million in present-day values. The Government are convinced that, with the co-operation of all interests concerned, the extra funding now being provided, allied to the changes set out in the national plan, will give renewed impetus to the eradication programme and will bring about a significant reduction in disease incidence levels.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): I wish to give notice to the House that we are opposing this motion for many reasons which I will outline. The approach by the Minister and the Department with regard to the eradication of bovine TB is vague, to put it mildly. The emphasis they have put in their approach to eradicating the disease is not in accordance with the facts. I welcome what the Minister has said regarding the importance of the national herd to our economy and to our meat exports and I agree with him. I have said in this House and elsewhere that the Minister will have my full support in the eradication of bovine TB. When the Minister was appointed about two years ago he made the same remark that he intended to get results. He went so far as to say that he would be prepared to stand on corns if necessary to get results but after two years in the Department I am afraid the results that have been achieved have fallen short of what is necessary.

The Minister spoke about the amount of taxpayers money involved in disease eradication. I question the percentage that goes to the farmers by way of compensation in the grants, the hardship fund and the special restocking grants that are now available. I should say about 25 per cent of the total cost has gone to farmers and the rest has been spent elsewhere. Now the farmers by way of increased levy are being asked to contribute more but, at the same time, their power, in particular their right to nominate their own veterinary surgeon, is being taken from them. This is a step in the wrong direction. If the Minister and the Department are interested in eradicating this disease they must realise they will not get it by coercion but will only get it by encouragement. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter.

There are many other very laudable suggestions in the document Building on Reality, but I wonder will they be implemented? Can they be implemented? Have they been implemented in the past? One bone of contention I always had was the slowness of the procedure in bringing people to court who do not co-operate with the disease eradication regulations. This procedure has taken many years. I should like to see an improvement in it, but there is no mention of that aspect in the suggested improvements. I cannot see how the “farmer nomination to be replaced by direct Department of Agriculture nomination of veterinary surgeons to carry out all testing and blood sampling (other than thirty-day testing) under the bovine TB and brucellosis eradication programmes” will speed up the eradication of disease. I fully endorse the suggestion in chapter 2.51 on page 45:

The final clearance of bovine TB from the national herd remains one of the most urgent problems facing agriculture. It is evident that despite substantial cost to the Exchequer, little progress towards complete eradication has been achieved over the last few years.

It is worth examining why we have not achieved the progress we would like to have achieved over the past years. I will outline ways and means of how this can be achieved. The chapter goes on:

Faced with a situation where it is essential to get rid of the disease in order to safeguard our exports of livestock and livestock products, the Government must be satisfied that funds committed to the eradication programme in future are spent effectively.

I thoroughly agree. It goes on:

Since the present arrangements for tackling the disease have not proved effective, the Government believe that there must be radical changes in those arrangements. Subject to the introduction of these changes, details of which are set out in chapter 7, substantial additional funding is being set aside for disease eradication, including new special assistance for herd depopulation. There will also be an increase in the bovine disease eradication levy...

Increased moneys are being made available but at whose expense? At the expense of the farmers. The farmers' own money is being spent on the eradication of disease. The right of the farmer to nominate his own veterinary surgeon to carry out bovine TB testing is being removed. At the same time, the amount of the levy is being doubled. This is not acceptable to farmers in all fairness and justice. On the one hand there are increased penalties and, on the other hand, his right to nominate his own veterinary surgeon is being removed. This is the veterinary surgeon who knows the health status of the herd and the other circumstances of the farmer.

In my contribution to the debate on the plan from which I have just quoted, I welcomed the steps proposed for the elimination of bovine TB and I promised the Minister my full support in the implementation of these measures. It was a pity that the Government decided in the very next paragraph to double the disease eradication levy paid by farmers and take a further £1 million out of farmers' pockets. The impression is given that only the Government are seriously concerned about the progress and the deficiencies of our TB eradication programme. Farming organisations and various organisations representing veterinary surgeons have already outlined how the disease should be eradicated.

It is very wrong to give the impression that the Government are the only people concerned about the disease eradication programme. No one is more disturbed about the lack of progress than the farmers themsleves. They have contributed very largely over the past number of years towards the eradication of that disease. They need the positive assistance of the Department's officials and particularly the administrative section of the Department. I should like to see more flexibility at local level and at county level in our efforts to eradicate disease, rather than having the technical people at local level hamstrung by bureaucracy.

Like everybody else, farmers contribute indirectly to the cost of this scheme. They also contribute directly in milk and livestock levies. Those levies are now to be doubled and quite rightly farmers will be more critical than ever about how the programme is managed. Through their representatives farmers should have a major say in how the programme is managed in the future.

There are dangers in imposing such levies for specific purposes. At first glance £3.80 may seem a small deduction from the price of a bullock, but it could be a substantial proportion of the profit on fattening the animal. It is the same with the milk levy. The farmer's own livelihood is threatened by disease. It is his herd and it is in his best interest to see that everything possible is done to secure disease eradication.

For the benefit of the House I should like to outline the amounts being paid by farmers in respect of animals slaughtered. The disease eradication levy will now be increased to £3.80 per animal slaughtered. The cost of the veterinary inspection amounts to something in the region of £3.25 per animal. There is also the CBF levy of 70p per animal, which makes a total of £7.75 a year. When talking about the disease eradication levy one is also including other levies as well. The House should see this matter in its proper context.

Part of the statutory contributions of the dairying sector, of all of which I have not details, would comprise of the co-responsibility levy of 2.9p per gallon, which levy was allowed to be increased substantially, at the last review of agricultural prices by the Minister in addition to the super-levy which will be imposed on a number of our dairy farmers in the very near future. We have the increased disease eradication levy of 6p per gallon, making a total contribution of 3.5p for every gallon of milk delivered. That is only part of the story. There are other levies, butter inspection levies and so on, which could amount to anything between 4p and 5p per gallon deduction on every gallon of milk supplied. This will give the House some indication of the contribution being made by the farming community towards disease eradication up to now and the concern of that community. This certainly gives the lie to the statement made by the Minister and his Government in their document that there is only concern about disease eradication at departmental level.

For the benefit of the House, I would like to outline the amount paid on the disease eradication levy by the different sizes of dairy farmers. To take the example of a dairy farmer with a herd of 30 cows, he would pay £1,050 in a full year. A farmer with a herd of 40 cows would pay a total of £1,400 in a full year; with 50 cows, £1,750; with 60 cows, £2,100; with 70 cows, £2,450; with 80 cows, £2,800; with 90 cows, £3,150, and so on. Again this is a very sizeable contribution from the farming community, in particular the dairying sector. It is a clear indication that our farmers are making their contribution towards disease eradication. That is in addition to all the other levies which are being imposed upon the farming community at present.

I spoke earlier about the present system whereby the farmer would nominate his own vet who should be the vet attending his other calls and that the local district veterinary officer instruct this veterinary surgeon when a test has to be carried out. It is now suggested that this right of the farmer to nominate his own vet be removed. I wonder what is the real purpose behind the suggestion. It is not in the interest of disease eradication. The Department know only too well that the serious problem does not lie in that area. I assume that there is a more sinister involvement, that this goes far deeper than specifically disease eradication. I hope that I am wrong, but I am practically certain that I am right in this. I say that the Minister for Finance could have a say in this decision and that the background to it is not totally confined to the Department of Agriculture. I cannot see an improvement following on getting rid of this right of the farmer. I ask the Minister to spell out specifically the reasons for this. There are objections from the farming organisations and, indeed, from other interests involved.

Mr. Deasy

On a point of order, I want to point out that the farming organisations supported my suggestion fully.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): I think that the Minister's information is wrong. The information that I have is that the farming organisations do not support the view. I ask the Minister to check on that.

Mr. Deasy

No, I discussed the matter with them.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): The Minister will have an opportunity to reply afterwards. I ask him to deal specifically with that aspect. Now that the farmer will be making a greater contribution towards disease eradication, the Department, the Government and the Minister, have an obligation to carry out more research into the root cause of bovine TB. I suggest that the Minister consider carrying out a blood test, which I understand is the practice in other countries. This practice may have to be introduced here to accelerate eradication of this disease. Testing, even with the best will in the world, is not 100 per cent perfect. There are many problems, the time of testing and many other matters. Would the Minister outline his views with regard to the suggestion of a blood test to ensure a more speedy eradication of the disease? I understand that this method has been successful in some countries.

As I have already stated, we have fallen down very badly in the area of research. I should like to see the research section of the Department improved and strengthened. In recent months we had a very serious breakdown in the scheme in a number of parts of my county for no apparent reason and my inquiries only within the past few days have not resulted in ascertaining why that sudden breakdown occurred. We should be equipped fully with research facilities that can identify the source speedily and readily so that we can eliminate that source immediately when this happens. In this situation there was a test which indicated that all was clear and a few weeks later the farmer concerned was carrying out the test for the disposal of the animals and it was found that these animals had a disease. Some of them with lesions were killed. Again there is no apparent reason for this sudden breakdown.

There is the question of the type of germ. It is the same in this country as in other countries? We have carried out research in this area. When the disease is chronic in herds does the germ live in the soil? Does it live in sheds? What is the outcome, if any, of research that may have been undertaken on wildlife as a carrier of this disease? It is appropriate when we talk about the eradication of disease and a greater financial contribution by the farmer, to carry out more research on wildlife and possible further slaughtering of wildlife — to consider all this in order to improve research facilities. The Minister might like to give the House his views on this when he is replying.

I am asking the Minister also if any other types of tests can be carried out. He has an obligation at this time in the interest of the herd owner and of the economy to examine every possibility to ensure that this disease is eradicated as soon as possible.

I suggest that two reads of testing each year in all herds should be carried out by the veterinary surgeon nominated by the farmer and paid by the Department. Perhaps we should do away with the DEDs as areas for this purpose and replace them with a system using natural boundaries such as rivers, roads etc. In this way everybody is taken in and a whole block could be tested, depending on the size, in about four to six weeks, certainly within eight weeks. The district electoral division would not necessarily take in all farmers in a block. A farmer living on one side of the road could have his herd tested whereas the farmer at the other side who would be in a different DED may not have his herd tested at the same time. My suggestion should be considered in order to ensure that all the animals in a block in an area are tested at the one time. The system we are adopting at present is not foolproof in so far as carrying out tests on every animal in an area is concerned.

What I suggest may be a radical change, but we need radical changes if we are to eliminate this disease once and for all. I agree with the Minister that perhaps we have been tinkering around for far too long with this. Again I emphasise that the veterinary surgeon should be nominated by the farmer because this veterinary surgeon makes normal calls to the farm. He knows the status of the herd and of the land the farmer would have and the land he would take in grazing. He would know the complete scene with regard to that farm and the herd on the farm and would be fully aware of the situation. We need full and total co-operation from the farming community in disease eradication.

In order to ensure that the reads of testing are carried out speedily over as short a period as possible I suggest that the veterinary surgeons concerned would have an opportunity of employing assistants who would be provided by the Department. This might be only a 12-month operation. According to this motion the double levy will be in operation until the end of December of next year.

With regard to the identification of reactors, the veterinary surgeon who reads the test should issue the reactor permit on the spot. We all know that at present the herd is read and if there are reactors it takes some time to have these punched and from the time of punching until the removal of the animal further time elapses and in the meantime the disease could spread further. The veterinary surgeon who reads the test should also issue the reactor permit there and then. I do not think that that is impossible. It could be done and this would obviate the delay which is very apparent at present. At present also a herd owner can sell his reactors to a dealer. Once a reactor is identified that animal should go straight to slaughter, to the factory. I hope that this arrangement will be in operation in this great drive that the Minister is suggesting to eradicate this dreaded disease.

The grant system will have to be examined carefully. There is a need to update the amount of grants paid and to increase the amount in the hardship fund. Above all, a replacement fund must be introduced to compensate those whose herds are liquidated. The Minister should consider increasing the grants for small and young cattle. If those grants are introduced the farming community will co-operate.

Over the years I have held the view that if we had an adequate compensation system, it need only be a once-off effort rather than a mediocre scheme like that operated for many years, the disease eradication programme would be speeded up. If farmers were fully compensated they would not hesitate to liquidate their herds if required to do so.

Many suggestions have been made with regard to the administration of the scheme. The introduction of computerisation in the operation of the scheme is essential. Identity cards should be abolished and replaced by a movement permit for all animals. A lot of time is wasted writing up cards under the present cumbersome system. On every occasion that an animal is moved a movement permit should be issued. There would then be a record of the movement of all animals. We must bear in mind that in Ireland, unlike continental countries, there is a greater movement of cattle. Cattle can be moved three or four times in their lives here while the movement of cattle on the continent and in the UK is very limited. The introduction of a movement permit would also speed up the disease eradication programme.

The increasing of the national herd will be a key factor in determining agricultural output in the future. I agree with the Minister when he said that we must be conscious of the importance of our cattle export trade. The export business is the most important agricultural enterprise we have. When one considers the numbers employed in our meat factories one realises the importance of our export trade and of the disease eradication programme.

I should like to refer to the remarks of the Minister concerning the Libyan deal. I disagree with his impression of the deal. I agree it is important that we continue to recognise the importance of the Libyan trade to the cattle industry and our economy. The Minister has said that he has done everything possible to ensure that the deal continues but I do not think so. I accept that there is an imbalance in our trade with Libya but I do not think the Libyans are too concerned about that. They do not hold any strong views that we should buy their oil. The Government should recognise the value of the trade with Libya for our economy. I understand that the Government did not meet their commitment in regard to arranging a meeting of the Joint Commission. The Minister should make himself aware of the facts of the case and ensure that the trade with Libya is copperfastened. He must ensure that the trade continues. It is within the Minister's power to ensure that the trade with Libya continues.

In view of the importance of the cattle industry to Ireland I urge the Minister not to introduce any changes that will slow down the disease eradication programme. I have my doubts about the decision to deny farmers the right to nominate their own vet to carry out the tests. That is a backward step and one the Minister will regret. Vets are aware of the disease status of herds and the position with regard to the number of cattle on a farm and any land taken on conacre away from the main farm. Nobody has advanced a reason why that right should be taken from farmers. If the Minister comes forward with a good reason for that decision I will accept it, but his case will have to be very good.

I have already spoken about the procedures adopted when reactors are identified by veterinary surgeons carrying out the testing. We all know that under the system obtaining the relevant veterinary surgeon sends his report to the district veterinary office which report is then interpreted by the district veterinary officer. In order to obviate this delay I reiterate that the farmer should not be allowed to sell reactors to dealers. I know that the vast majority of farmers send their reactor animals straight for slaughter but there are the odd few who do not do so. These are loopholes that must be closed. It is in these areas that problems have been caused over the years. The process of bringing people to justice, whether they be farmers, veterinary surgeons, dealers or anybody else who do not comply with the regulations obtaining, should be speeded up. In this respect the course of the law is much too slow and there is so much damage perpetrated in the meantime. There must be inbuilt safeguards to ensure that there is no selling of reactor animals to dealers, rather that they go straight to the factory for slaughter. Indeed, the veterinary surgeon identifying such reactors should issue a reactor permit on the spot.

The experience of recent years has clearly shown that the progress of eradication of bovine tuberculosis has been most unsatisfactory, that the present national incidence of this disease cannot give anybody satisfaction. The recurrence of the disease within herds and within districts clearly confirms the ability of the infection to persist in the environment, which is where further research is needed. Modern methods of intensive animal management renders the rapid spread of infection more likely. In addition the transportation of animals over long distances renders more difficult the task of retracing the paths of such spreading infection.

The current incidence of bovine tuberculosis poses a serious crisis to the health of our national cattle herd, indeed one might add to human health also, as exemplified by the disruption of trade and the effects of the restrictions occasioned under the eradication scheme. The disease has serious implications for farm incomes. The eradication of bovine tuberculosis requires an appreciation of the characteristics of the organism at all levels, which would include its survival in the environment and its mode of infection. I doubt that sufficient research has been carried out in that area. That is why I reiterate that the Minister should strengthen the research section within his Department. This would ensure that when we do have an outbreak of the disease from time to time it can be speedily detected with the necessary action being taken as soon as possible.

Because tuberculosis is transferred or transmitted very quickly from animal to animal all off-farm movements of cattle should be conducted on the basis of there being a movement permit granted, that the identity card should be replaced by a movement permit. I would strongly recommend such movement permits because of the likelihood of transmission of the disease in the movement of cattle. This stipulation with regard to a movement permit or pre-movement test should apply to movements of all cattle, of young calves, of cattle destined for slaughter or for export as well as in regard to farm-to-farm movement. All cattle should be identified by means of an approved ear tag at the time of sale. I am now talking about calves, all of whom should be identified by means of an ear tag at their time of sale. This is now possible with the implementation of the calf premium under which system all calves must be tagged and identified.

It is important also that records be kept of the transport of cattle together with information relating to their movement being retained and being made available by the registered haulier for regular inspection over a period of, say, one year. This might prove to be inconvenient. But if we are serious about eradicating the disease such a system could be introduced on a trial basis for, say, one year. At this stage we should grasp the nettle ensuring that every avenue is explored in the speedy eradication of the disease irrespective of how radical any suggestions may appear.

There is another area in which the illegal movement of cattle within or without the State should be controlled rigorously. Here I am referring to herds adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of known infected herds, which cattle would be likely to be exposed to infection. The relevant herd owners should be informed officially of the presence of the disease in their neighbourhood as soon as possible, have their herds checked, tested and encouragement given them to adopt every precaution necessary to maintain the disease free status of their herds. I understand that this is being done at present, but nonetheless I should like to see a more positive approach being adopted in this area. I am aware that on occasion, in some places, the approach may have been somewhat haphazard. I should like evidence of greater monitoring of that aspect, that where there is an outbreak of the disease, neighbouring farmers be notified immediately with the necessary fire brigade action being taken.

I should like to see also a situation obtaining which would bring inspections within the jurisdiction of local authority areas. Perhaps this is an area which should be carefully examined. It may require a fundamental reorganisation of present structures and procedures. There should be adequate provision for the statutory reporting of all cases of the incidence or suspected incidence of the disease in cattle at slaughter. This procedure should be revised at local authority level because this can constitute an enormous source of infection, with widespread slaughtering of cattle without such cattle being monitored, without reports being drawn up, if they are found to have the disease — in other words, that there is no control being exercised at this level. I ask the Minister to indicate whether ways and means can be worked out to have greater control at this level.

The system of financial aid for herd owners, and the payment of routine and hardship compensations should be rationalised. Consideration must be given to young pedigree stock and compensation should be considered for the loss of the potential progeny of infected animals. It has been suggested to me that grants for fodder should be given. It may not be possible to introduce all these benefits but they must be considered if we are fully in earnest about eradicating this dreadful disease.

It is important to appreciate the crucial role of the cattle industry in regard to our economy and the necessity to increase our exports by about 20 per cent in volume in a short time. It would mean a vast increase in earnings of about £130 million because of the relatively low levels of agricultural imports compared with manufacturing industry. Considering that, our export potential could be £400 million. We have guaranteed markets and we should particularly concentrate on the Libyan trade.

I emphasise the importance all of us place on the total eradication of this disease speedily. Now that we are to have increased contributions from farmers I hope their organisations will be given a greater say in the allocations of these moneys and how they will be spent on disease eradication. Our immediate target should be to reduce the incidence of the disease in the coming 12 months through embarking on a campaign of encouragement and co-operation, not of coercion. We should particularly emphasise the importance of a disease free cattle herd to the economy. Such a course should help us substantially to reduce the disease in 12 months. We must have co-operation between farmers, veterinary officers and departmental officers, administrative and technical. We must ensure disease free status for our herds.

Mrs. A. Doyle

The bovine TB eradication scheme is of the utmost importance to our dairy, meat and cattle trades with serious implications for the agriculture and food industries at a time when health certification is vital to successful marketing. The tool of levy impositions is not the only way surpluses can be controlled. No one will dispute the wisdom of returning to the annual round TB test as announced in the national plan. Nobody will disagree that "the final clearance of bovine TB from the national herd remains one of the most urgent problems facing agriculture".

Despite the enormous cost to the Exchequer, for more than 30 years little progress towards complete eradication has been achieved. The Minister used the expression that "the programme has not met with the success we would have liked". I would put it much stronger than that. I would say the programme has been an abysmal failure to date. Further funds must be committed to the eradication programme. Hence the increase in the levy for one year, from November 1984 to December 1985, which will yield £7 million. This figure pales when viewed together with the total cost of the scheme in the next three years — £31.5 million in 1985, an additional £27 million in 1986 and £27 million again in 1987, a total in the next three years of £85.5 million. This figure, added to that spent in the last 30 years of £346 million, demands that immediate stock should be taken of the position.

A question has been asked whether we will get better value for money than heretofore. A price cannot be put on the importance of a TB free status for our herd, as an agricultural net exporting country. I must refer to the figures disseminated by the Department of Agriculture in relation to it. I would urge that the Department's information office would cease to issue figures based on the incidence of the disease. Their last figures are at best misleading and, at worst, an effort to paint a rosier picture than that which exists. The figures given for disease incidence only include the results of the round test and do not take into account animals that go down on the pre-movement test, the check test or tests at meat plants. It is questionable whether the figure for inconclusive re-tests is included in the figures for incidence given by the information office of the Department. Frankly, a false impression of the seriousness of the position has been given by the Department, perhaps inadvertently. Farmers know, vets know, the DVOs and the middlemen know the facts, and these facts make grim statistics.

These facts would be included if the Department of Agriculture issued figures relating to the prevalence of the disease rather than the incidence. To the uninitiated there is not a lot of difference between prevalence and incidence, but in practice there is. The prevalence figure includes all herds which have broken down or are restricted from any check test, round test, factory test or pre-movement test, that is, any and all positive reactors should be included in the figure for the prevalence of the disease. This is the figure we want to know from the Department.

I urge the Department of Agriculture to stop treating the agricultural community either as fools or genuises because very few except the latter will detect the subtle difference between incidence and prevalence of disease, but most realise that the figures given by the Department are painting the wrong picture. It is time we spoke the truth plainly. Give us the figure for prevalence of tuberculosis in our cattle population, the total number of restricted herds. I need not add that this figure for prevalence of the dicease bears no relation to the official figure for incidence.

Only 17 per cent of reactor herds showed up in the round test. In 1983, 49 per cent of the reactor herds showed up on a special check test, 10 per cent at meat plants, another 8 per cent in the pre-movement test and 16 per cent from inconclusive re-tests. In other words, of all the reactor herds only 17 per cent were revealed through the round test system. Enough said. I hope the message is quite clear.

Approximately one million animals were subject in 1983 to the 30-day pre-movement test. A similar test is in operation in most European countries. Of these animals, 1,200 reacted in 770 different herds. This was apart from the round test. The 1984 round test figures are highly suspect as they are calculated against 70 per cent only of the herds which were tested. In selecting the areas to test, the district veterinary officers did not just use random sampling, to give credit where it is due. They were highly selective samples chosen with a great deal of knowledge of the local situation. The herds selected for testing were those where problems were suspected or known to exist. This last round of tests completed in February of this year involved 175,895 of the 195,488 herds in the country. The official figure for incidence of reactors is 2.24 per cent. Bearing in mind that this represents according to the disease prevalence figures only 17 per cent of infected herds for the 12 months up to February 1984, one in 500 animals reacted in the round test.

The tuberculin test used here involves Weybridge avian serum and Rotterdam bovine serum, a British top and a Dutch bottom, as they are referred to in the trade. The comparative analyses of the reaction was originally worked out using a British top and bottom. I am unaware of research work done on the efficacy of the present system. It is perhaps a questionable scientific practice to introduce a differently sourced serum without assessing its implications on the graph, as it were.

In February last I put down a question to the Minister for Agriculture asking if he was satisfied that the actual test being used in the TB eradication scheme was sufficiently accurate and specific, the research that had been done on the problem and the funds allocated for it in the last 30 years. I also asked if any other country was using or had used this particular test, the number of reactors subsequently slaughtered that turn out to be free from any symptoms of the disease, the number of clear herds that have spontaneous outbreaks of TB and if he would make a statement on the matter. The first part of his reply stated that the tuberculin test was the most reliable test available and that it had been the basis of bovine TB eradication programmes throughout the world. I take issue with this reply because I would prefer him to have stated that a tuberculin test is the most reliable test available at present. We are not using a test that is used in any other country inasmuch as our serum is not sourced in the same way as the serum used in other countries. I question the scientific efficacy of the practice of using a British top and a Rotterdam bottom. A tuberculin test is perhaps the most reliable test available, but nevertheless it is not very reliable. Surely we cannot claim that our test is identical to any other when we are the only country in the world using it. The principle may be the same as any tuberculin test but our source of serum is quite different.

Reactors killed at factory level show a 25 per cent incidence of lesions. Hidden in the overall reactor figures is a high proportion of the "false positives", that is, cattle that have gone down in the test but when examined histologically at post mortem have shown no sign of the disease. This is a very worrying and difficult aspect of any eradication scheme. All reactors must be examined histologically and a report sent back to the vet and the farmer concerned. We need their ongoing operation and understanding if we are to come to terms with the situation. If the farmer is kept fully informed and up-to-date on all his animals that go down he will appreciate the reasons, financial and otherwise, for his appalling dilemma. Eradication of TB must be based on the histological examination of all lesions rather than the interpretation of an inaccurate test based on the measuring of lumps on cattle. This cannot be overstressed.

Double strength serum is used for testing reactor herds and questions can be asked about this. A recent incident illustrates what I mean. Eleven cattle went down in a locked-up herd. On subsequent post mortem examination the lesions showed that there were 11 cases of timber tongue and not one case of tuberculosis among them. The double strength serum was offered as part of the explanation.

Given tuberculin of 80 per cent sensitivity, I could perhaps accept that the test sensitivity as to the status of herds could be as high as 98 or 99 per cent. However, when it comes to isolating the individual reactor animal the sensitivity drops dramatically, despite the claims to the contrary by officialdom. It is a good test from the overall herd status point of view but it is not very specific in picking up all the individual reactors. Over the years the test has consistently failed to pick up the TB animals.

It is considered in many quarters that the epidemiology of the disease could be even more important than the TB test. It has never been established how TB spreads from animal to animal or from herd to herd. Many theories abound concerning deer, badgers and watercourses. At last the Department have agreed to issue a licence to test badgers in County Longford. We have been asking for this for years in Wexford but without success. There has been great reluctance on the part of the Department in this regard. I accept that there is no such thing as a spontaneous outbreak of TB but there are sudden outbreaks and breakdowns.

The sudden breakdowns in herds which have been clear for years cause heartbreak on our well-run, well-managed farms.

The badger poses an interesting question. There was a sudden outbreak recently in a herd which had been clear for years. The farm was bordered by a river and a wood which were covered by badger sets. The farmer in desperation took a bulldozer to the sets and cleared them away. He was clear in the next test, yet the proper licence for TB testing those badgers was not forthcoming from the Department. I am glad to see they appear to have had a change of heart in this regard. The evidence may be circumstantial but it is surely strong enough to investigate it at any rate.

I do not know to what extent the Minister for Agriculture took the conjoint report of the IVO, IVA and IVU into account when arriving at the proposals in the National Economic and Social Plan as outlined at page 139. We must remind ourselves that the farmer will no longer be allowed to nominate the veterinary surgeon to do his testing, that the same veterinary surgeons, farmers and middlemen co-operated in the virtual eradication of brucellosis. The goodwill is there The network is there and it has proved that it can and will work in disease eradication.

I am not privy to the logic behind the removing of the right of farmers to nominate their own veterinary surgeon to do the testing. It could be to weed out the small percentage of rogue vets — you get these in every section of society and I stress that they are a very small proportion — or it could be to give young veterinary surgeons a chance, or it could be to ensure that they get paid the full value for their testing work. While the disease eradication scheme owes no veterinary surgeon a living — it is far too serious a problem to look at it in those terms — I question the wisdom of the Government's policy of interfering with the practice structures in a free enterprise society. I urge the Minister to handle this problem diplomatically and with the agreement of the veterinary profession and the farming organisations to come to a satisfactory arrangement for next year's complete round of tuberculosis testing.

I was delighted by the reference in the Minister's speech to his research project. This is an area we have shamefully neglected. Last February I asked about research in a parliamentary question. The reply I was given said that no such research had been undertaken here but that all batches of tuberculin were laboratory tested to ensure that potency was maintained at the highest levels. We have spent the bulk of £350 million in 30 years on an issue as serious as this, and yet we can stand up and say that no research has been done on the problem in this country. In a country where our scientific and medical endeavours have been hailed throughout the world for generations, we have done no research on the problem.

I welcome wholeheartedly the Minister's reference to establishing an advisory group on research and an investigation into the various aspects of tuberculosis. He said that experts from UCD, An Foras Talúntais, the practitioners and his own animal research staff would be involved. He said that the general aim of the group will be to pinpoint areas of research which they consider require further pursuit. I would like to expand on the possible areas of research because this is an area to which I have given some thought over the past months. We should study the problems associated with bovine tuberculosis eradication in general and try to establish the reasons why eradication in this country has been so slow and so unsuccessful over the years. We should try to establish the common root of the spread of infection in individual animals and herds. We must find out if possible the reasons why herds which have been cleared following several tests become re-infected so quickly, and why bad herds and bad areas seem to remain indefinitely in that category. We must try to clarify the real status of the passed animal in infected herds by detailed ante-mortem and post mortem examination. It would be important to try to establish if re-infection occurring from animals missed by the test results from the farm environment, from animal or human contact or from outside areas of new infection. This appears to be the nub of the problem—epidemiology.

A very detailed study of a limited number of difficult herds should be undertaken, especially in isolated closed herds. We must try to establish the role played by wildlife, pets and other carriers in the spread of the disease. An important part of any project such as that mooted by the Minister would be the follow-up at the abattoir of all reactors and all passed cattle for the limited number of difficult herds under examination. This would involve the slowing up of the kill rate of these animals in the abattoirs and a follow-up with microscopic and cultural examination of the lesions. It comes back to what I said earlier: we must have a histological examination of all reactors and that must be the basis of the eradication of tuberculosis, not just an objective assessment of lumps on cattle.

I would ask the Minister to ensure that the research is independent and directed by the veterinary faculty of the veterinary college. It is most important that the research be independent. We do not need more of the same. We have very wise men in our Departments and semi-State organisations up and down the country who have grown up trying to solve the problem of tuberculosis, but, in my view, at this stage we need new initiative and a fresh approach to the problem. We have dozens of young veterinary surgeons coming out of our veterinary college every year looking for jobs. I urge the Minister to consider incorporating a scholarship scheme for two or three young veterinary surgeons each year with the research project. These young people with initiative and new ideas are hungry to get to grips with problems such as these. As I said, the research project and the scholarship system could go hand in hand and could prove very valuable to solving this appalling problem.

If we can insist on getting value for money in the next three years, which has not happened over the last three years. I would have no hesitation in supporting this motion but when we remind ourselves that by 1987 we will have spent £431.8 million since 1955 on this problem, I sincerely hope we are not just offering the agricultural and industrial community more of the same.

Mr. J. Leonard

I am glad of this opportunity to examine this area which has caused grave concern to farmers. This is a very expensive scheme. The Minister told us that to date it has cost £750 million, excluding cost of administration. This scheme has been operating in a very haphazard way in many areas. Irrespective of what the Minister said, we still have not clearly identified the cause of tuberculosis. This problem has taxed the brains of many people. In my view, the Department should introduce pilot schemes throughout the country. I maintain that in areas where there were breakdowns, the Department should have done their best to identify the root cause of this disease. It has caused more damage to the development of agriculture than anything else.

As far as the super-levy is concerned, we would have been in a much more favourable position were it not for the loss incurred by brucellosis. There is also the question of the psychological effect on the farmer whose herd is suffering from brucellosis or bovine TB. While progress has been made in eradicating brucellosis, it is very worrying to read about the fairly high incidence of bovine TB. A farmer who has very carefully built up his herd in the hope that it will be a very valuable asset for the future can suffer grave hardship if his herd is affected by disease. Some of the most careful farmers have been hit, irrespective of the care they have taken in not allowing their stock to mix with other herds, in not buying in stock and in having good fencing.

Milk suppliers and meat producers have had to pay ever-increasing levies. In August 1983 for each animal slaughtered in the factory the total deduction was £2.90, in September this year the deduction was £5.85 and from 1 November the amount will be £7.75. The deductions have almost trebled in 15 months. There has been much talk about the cost to the Exchequer but the farmer has also paid to a considerable extent. A farmer with a herd of 30 cows will have to pay more than £1,000 and that is a substantial amount. People would not begrudge paying the levy if they thought progress was being made in the eradication of disease.

Previous speakers asked the question how the disease might be eradicated. I have heard veterinary surgeons from the Department mention the advisability of ploughing land and reseeding it in the hope that the germ responsible for the disease might die. It has also been suggested that badgers might be responsible. There is no doubt that they have increased considerably in numbers in the past few years. People who drive at night are well aware of the damage badgers can cause to cars. There is also the possibility that infected water courses might be responsible for transmitting the disease. For this reason, many farmers have availed of group water schemes because they realise the dangers when animals stand in water courses.

We can no longer depend on the EEC. It is a pity that their contribution has been discontinued. There has not been adequate co-operation between farmers and the veterinary profession in the job of tackling bovine diseases. In many instances people were inclined to keep animals whose test showed they were inconclusive rather than disposing of them quickly. In north-west Monaghan we were practically disease-free for years but in the past seven or eight years there has been a recurrence of brucellosis and bovine TB. Many herds were cleared out and this caused not only a financial loss but also a disruption of farming practices. It is a case of desperate cases needing desperate remedies. I doubt if the matter will be remedied by the proposals in the national plan. We have been very wishy-washy in our approach to eradicating bovine TB. We have shown leniency towards many people to the detriment of other good farmers and the industry. It will take much courage to tackle the problem but we must do something because the future of our livestock industry and our exports are at stake.

Our spokesman on agriculture referred to the disposal of reactors. These animals should be disposed of immediately. Dealers should not be allowed to purchase them because there cannot be the necessary supervision in such cases. For years there was a considerable amount of tag-switching but that has been reduced considerably by the use of tamper-proof tags. The disposal of reactors must be given very serious consideration. They should be monitored from the time they leave the farm until they reach the slaughter house.

Figures have been bandied about regarding the cost of administering the scheme. However, one must relate it to the amount of money given to people who had to get their stock replaced. The Minister said:

Adding to this the fact that cattle and milk prices today are much better than they were in 1979 it is readily apparent that the impact of the levies now is far less than it was then.

Many people would question that. The Minister also mentioned:

... payment of testing fees to a veterinary surgeon who carries out the scheme test thus making the veterinary surgeon personally responsible for the proper execution of the test; earlier removal of reactor animals, tighter official supervision of all trading at marts; strict enforcement of all procedures and prosecutions in all cases for breaches of disease regulations....

Those are the very sentiments we have listened to time and again and we still have a very high incidence of TB. I hope the Minister will use his muscle to ensure that the regulations will be strictly enforced and that we will overcome this terrible disease which has cost so much and done so much damage to agricultural development.

Mr. Kenny

It is time we got the act together. Probably every Minister who is appointed in any Cabinet would like to do something in his Department. I have no doubt the Minister for Agriculture and the two Ministers of State want to do something about this appalling and most serious problem. If they do nothing else other than make the farmers aware of the benefits to themselves of cutting down by whatever method possible on the incidence of disease, they will have done a good job.

The basic requirement to get rid of the disease exists, but we have not got the act together yet. A requirement for a productive livestock industry is tight control over all diseases. This is particularly true in Ireland, and it is specifically true in the case of the lifestock industry which contributes so much to the national economy. The 1966 Act consolidated the various disease Acts, and under that Act the various levies and related matters are imposed by law. The reasons why it is necessary to have disease control in the first instance are very clear and have been expounded by other speakers. First there is the danger of transmission of the disease to humans. Secondly, there is the loss of health and productivity in the country's cattle stocks. Thirdly in the case of the TB eradication scheme to maintain exports of live cattle to the United Kingdom. This has since altered radically.

In the early fifties when the scheme began, the tests were free and full market value was given to the farmers in respect of animals which went down as reactors. Other incentives were given such as the water supply grant and the double byre grant in order to have proper facilities on farms so that practitioners could carry out their testing in a reasonable degree of comfort and also because there was a need to tighten up on the incidence of the disease. The present position warrants very serious discussion. I hope the Minister's statement here today is not simply a bland expression of what has gone on since 1954, but is the start of a determined drive to achieve effective results in this very serious area.

There are two root causes for the incidence of TB and the present position of the scheme. The first is the relationship between the Department of Agriculture and the profession of veterinary medicine. When the scheme was launched in 1954 there were no fixed fees and increases were negotiated at irregular intervals. While on the one hand, it was a source of income to practitioners, and in many cases businesses flourished and expanded, on the other hand it led to serious discussions and lack of confidence on the part of some practitioners about the scale and irregularity of the increase in fees. This came to a head in 1974. It is not for me to apportion blame to anybody, but the whole episode had a serious effect on the scheme.

The second cause is the actual operation of the scheme which was a relatively late starter in comparison with Great Britain. One of the reasons for the scheme in the first place was to maintain exports of live cattle to Great Britain. Therefore, it was tackled with a sense of great urgency. When any scheme has to deal with hundreds of veterinary practitioners, thousands of farmers and millions of cattle there will always be cases where inadequate details or irregularities may tend to offset the full extent and effectiveness of the scheme.

At column 1192 of the Official Report of 17 June 1976 the Minister said a few practitioners had thrown their professional and ethical standards out of the window and some farmers whose interest in disease eradication was less than their desire to make money quickly had devised ways and means of defeating the purpose of the testing. He went on to say he was concerned about those farmers. As I said, I am not here to apportion blame but the whole episode had serious repercussions for the scheme.

The incidence of disease has risen. There has not been much change in the past 16 years. In reply to a Dáil question on 15 November the then Minister for Agriculture indicated that out of the 26 counties 20 had an increase in the incidence of bovine TB from 1980 to 1982. He gave details about each county. Other speakers have already pointed out what should be done in their estimation to rectify the problem.

The scheme itself could not have worked to date without the help of the private practitioners. This was of benefit to themselves in terms of the fees paid to them. In 1982, while compensation to farmers for reactor cattle was £3.684 million, fees to veterinary surgeons totalled £7.557 million. The scheme also assisted them in setting up in business. Being younger and probably stronger in many cases, they were able to get out on the farms and become acquainted with the farmers. They got to know the land and they got used to handling cattle. Had one proposal been implemented it could have led to a decrease in travelling expenses paid by the Department. Some private calls could have been fitted in between bovine TB testing and blood testing.

One of the best barometers by which to judge the efficiency of the scheme is to examine the number of lesions found in post mortem examinations of cattle officially passed as being reactor free. A report from the EC in 1982 indicated that an average of 1,000,000 bovine would be slaughtered every year in export registered premises. In 1980 the cattle population of Ireland was 6.934 million animals contained in 211,686 herds. The number of positive reactors to TB in 1980 was 1,841 with a lesion incidence of .18 per cent. If 1,841 lesions were to be found in 1,000,000 cattle, with a total population of 6.934 million cattle, it is easy to calculate that you would find 12,700 in the total population.

Of all the animals tested in that year only 6,980 lesions were found in reactor cattle, giving an indication that at least 5,700 infected animals were not discovered during the tests. That calculation can be made for the years prior to 1980, and probably since then with little or very minor deviations. There has not been any great improvement or acceleration in the Irish bovine TB eradication programme. In the early seventies about 50 temporary veterinary inspectors were employed by the Department to carry out tuberculin testing on a random sample of herds normally listed to the veterinary practitioners for testing. At the time, they tested about 18 per cent of the national herd over a number of years and it was found that they discovered approximately three times as many reactors and reactor herds with lesions as did the practitioners. The vast majority of practitioners do a first class job but, as in all professions, there are a minority who do not measure up. The Minister has more or less covered that point.

The Department of Agriculture, and the Minister in particular, should define the fundamental principle of where we stand on TB eradication. Do we seriously mean totally to eradicate this disease, or are we going to continue as we have been doing, rather than aiming for the European standard, hoping by annual testing and effective controls to keep our incidence below the European level? This may resemble the myth of full employment, but I would like definite answers as to whether we can make a genuine effort totally to eradicate this disease which is the scourge of our land and has had devastating consequences for many farmers whose herds have been wiped out.

I am glad that the Minister has referred to a special section for epidemiology in his Department. It is high time that this was brought about. There is need for a special task force to define and determine the how, why, when and where of this disease. The structure is there to work with the farmer, the DVO, the middleman and the practitioner. Brucellosis has been wiped out and it should be possible to do this in the case of bovine TB. There is need of swift action when reactors are discovered. There is also need to show the farmer benefit of a good disease-free herd.

Much talk has been made of our animals. Probably the Protection of Badgers Society will be up in arms about this, but in other countries experiments have been carried out on badgers although not with any great degree of success. In Cornwall and Devon many thousands of badgers were gassed and killed and the incidence of TB was not directly attributable to them.

There is also the question of the facilities available on farms. An economic report issued on 27 October 1978 by the National Prices Commission on the veterinary practice in Ireland stated that the work of the vet on many farms in rural Ireland can be extremely demanding physically and that it often occurs in filthy conditions and can involve some physical danger.

Perhaps it is fair to say about most dairy farms that the animals are used to being handled more frequently than on non-dairy farms. By and large the standards for cattle crushes, concrete yards, availability of water hoses and so on are to a high standard. That is very important. The Department should set about determining the incidence of facilities not being up to standard. They should continue to encourage those farmers who have not been in a position to provide the proper facilities, or who have not bothered to do so, to rectify the position. Fencing, cattle crushes, yards and so forth need to be looked after.

We have all heard stories of the vet using the same needles twice and using different concoctions of serum, the vast majority of which stories have been unproved. The responsibility lies on everybody — the Minister, his Department, the practitioners, the truckers in the middle and, most of all, on the farmer himself. He is handling the livestock and he is the person to whom the income will come. He should have most responsibility in this matter.

If John B. Keane or Brian McMahon were to visit some farms which have not adequate holding facilities on the morning of a round test they would certainly find the equivalent of a western rodeo. One would want a young, physically fit vet who would spend perhaps three-quarters of an hour rounding up the cattle. It really is a case of blood, sweat and tears, with a certain amount of physical danger involved. Of late, with the abuse in many cases of the hormone implantation in cattle, there are bullocks who neither think nor act like bullocks and a vet or his assistants can have trouble.

The facilities available to vets and practitioners should be on a par with the best possible standards and I call on the Department and the Minister to continue to encourage this, either by grants or incentives. The tuberculin serum itself should be researched more adequately. Deputy Doyle has given a very adequate scientific explanation and scientific reports on the type of serum used. As she says, we are now using the Weybridge and Rotterdam serum, but I wonder how effective this really is. Are the Department satisfied with an 85 per cent or 80 per cent effective rate? Is there an Irish tuberculin strain? I trust that the special task force on epidemiology will try to determine this. Should we be using a serum developed for Irish cattle in respect of a potential Irish tuberculin strain? This should be looked at over the years ahead.

Another reason for the spread of the disease was intermittent testing due to rows and problems of one sort or another. A new test would be announced with an appropriate scale of fees and the administration section dealing with it might take some time to get the show on the road, as it were. The resultant intermittent testing has not been a good thing. There should be two rounds of nine monthly tests. The Minister should lay down the rule of law very stringently in this regard. Any vet not measuring up in terms of submitting his reports of work should not be employed again by the Department. That would be a very small minority of practitioners, but this is much too serious a matter to allow that to continue to happen as in the past. Very stern and strict action should be enforced in this area. Two rounds of tests with specific reports issued by each practitioner, one test following closely on the other, would cut out the ineffectiveness caused by intermittent testing.

With the brucellosis disease practically eradicated in many of the north-western and western counties, it might be feasible to have a lesser scale of testing for brucellosis and transfer some of the available finance to the tuberculin area. The double strength serum is available for problem herds and I wonder why this has not been used on a general scale. I would like to hear some reference to the costing of this. Would it be more effective in determining the incidence of TB on a large scale? Should it be used on an annual, or on a double annual test once and for all? I should like a reply to that.

Would the Minister go into the question of the right of the farmer to choose his own vet? I know that the National Prices Commission Report of 1978 recommended, in its concluding remarks, that the Minister should have the right to make the appointment. I want to raise the case where a vet might have set up a firm over a long number of years and might employ three, four, five or six assistants. If the testing is to be done by the veterinary surgeon himself and he only is to be paid, the firm set up by the veterinary surgeon stands to lose substantially. Is there some clause in this providing that if an assistant in a firm of veterinary surgeons carries out the testing the money is paid to the firm, or is it paid to the assistant himself directly?

The facilities on farms have been referred to. I would like some word on the people who transfer the cattle from the farms to the abattoirs to be slaughtered and to the factories. There is need for examination of the trucks used and for spraying areas in all factories and abattoirs. No truck carrying TB reactor cattle should be allowed on the public road without being sprayed with the appropriate disinfectant, but that is not the case. Movements of cattle all over the country are in trucks with slurry falling out over the public road which could be a potential carrier of the disease. In many countries for much less, cars and vehicles of all descriptions are sprayed and must pass through disinfectant ponds etc, before being let out on the public road. I understand that this week one of the major meat plants in the country is not taking reactor cattle and has not done so for the past week. What happens to people in the west whose herds go down, who have nowhere to send their cattle, who cannot send them the further distances involved? Something needs to be done there.

Finally, I would like to raise the question of disposal of reactor animals which has been referred to. There is need for further examination by the Department of Agriculture in relation to the quality of the meat being consumed; secondly, by the Department of Health regarding the meat going on display; thirdly, by the Department of the Environment in relation to hygienic quality and facilities available in abattoirs and plants.

I congratulate the Minister on setting out to tackle this problem. The farmers realise the importance of the livestock industry to the economy. I think the scale of fees proposed will be acceptable in the light that an effective result will come from determined action by the Minister and his various task forces. As I have said, it is past time that the act was got together and I hope that in the lifetime of this Government effective strides will be taken to eliminate once and for all what has been a scourge of Irish farmers and the cancer of the livestock industry over the last 20 years.

Mr. Kitt

I welcome the opportunity of contributing to this debate. I am disappointed that the Minister has not given us more information on a regional basis or on a county basis about the incidence of disease, particularly TB. We are all quite appalled at the amount of money — the Minister stated £750 million in present day values — that has been spent on disease eradication. During the year when I asked the Minister a question concerning the cost of vaccine and tuberculin he replied that the cost of that alone was £3.5 million. Consideration of the amount of money that has been spent gives us an opportunity to discuss the value we have got for the money and the success or otherwise of the programme.

Deputies representing rural areas are constantly hearing from farmers that they are being asked to pay levies again. They put the case to us that these levies are not in any way related to their income or ability to pay. We had disease levies between 1979 and 1981 whereby farmers paid a total of £13.47 million. Now we have these further levies which, no doubt, will be redrafted or ordered again so that farmers will be continually paying levies. Naturally, the farming community are concerned about levies which do not relate to their income. This is not the only area where they are asked to do this. We have proposals now for a land tax. I hope that the Minister when replying will give us some more information than he has given concerning the incidence of disease in various regions of the country.

Perhaps too he can give us more information on the research programme. Every Deputy who has spoken this evening has mentioned that, with all the money that has been spent on the disease eradication programme, we still have no definite information on the causes of disease. Last year I received a reply from the Minister that 75 people were employed at the central veterinary research laboratory in Abbotstown, but he went on to say that for about a quarter of their time they were engaged on research and the remainder was devoted to diagnostic and investigative work. So, even though a large number of people work in direct research there, they are engaged in that work for only a quarter of the year and for the other three-quarters of the year they are engaged in other types of work.

I am glad that the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks that the question of the early removal of reactor animals will be investigated by the Department. Deputies here have given examples this evening of delays in having animals removed. I cannot understand why the Department, in co-ordination with the district veterinary offices, cannot arrange for identification and removal much earlier. We are all aware of the problems of lorries bringing reactors to factories and within a very short period the same lorries bringing animals to marts. I remember that in 1976 the Department dealt with this whole question themselves. When you have direct Department supervision for the disposal of reactor cattle you will have a 100 per cent foolproof system. Again I ask the Minister to consider this system, which was very satisfactory, under which the Department were directly involved. I would like the Minister now to tell us what action he is taking to monitor this situation.

Farmers have contributed under bovine disease levies acts in the past and will continue to contribute if these proposals are implemented. What is the situation now for farmers whose herds are hit with the disease and completely wiped out by it? The Department have a hardship fund. Will such farmers get something realistic out of the fund for restocking and replacing?

Deputy Kenny mentioned the meat trade and in the past he has highlighted some of the problems there. Obviously, the first people we must think of here are the farmers who lose through disease, and when they get little or nothing for their cattle the Minister's priority must be to help them out through the grants system.

I would like to ask the Minister to give us more information on why he is going to have direct examination by veterinary surgeons for TB and brucellosis testing. Will the veterinary surgeon who lives nearest the farmer in question be nominated, or is the Minister talking about allowing young veterinary surgeons who may have difficulty in getting employment to be brought in and nominated directly and given assistance in getting work? I do not see the need for that in a free enterprise system. I do not see why the Department should in future nominate the veterinary surgeon to carry out these tests. I was disappointed that the Minister did not widen the scope of the debate and I hope that in the course of his reply he will outline to the House the extent of the disease throughout the country. When we are discussing agricultural matters in the House in future I hope we will not be considering imposing more levies. Irrespective of the size of the levy they do not relate to the farmer's income or his ability to pay and the Minister should be concerned about that at a time when farmers are going through a difficult period.

Mr. Farrelly

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I welcome the change in attitude by the Minister in an effort to ensure that by the end of 1985 we will have a full round of testing. That decision will ensure that disease is eliminated in all counties. In my constituency in the last 12 months 140 herds have been restricted and in the Kells-Oldcastle area alone 80 herds are restricted. Another area that is badly affected is adjacent to Enfield. Most of the farmers in those areas are involved in the cattle business and, consequently, attend marts frequently and that may be one reason why disease is widespread in those areas. I have suggested on many occasions that when diseased animals are being conveyed to factories a special truck be used for that purpose only. Reactor animals are being transported to factories on trucks that frequent marts and sales yards. We should be doing something positive to ensure that reactors are conveyed to the factories on a specially designed vehicle.

It is difficult to understand how in herds that have been disease free for many years four or five reactors crop up in a herd of 24 or 25 animals. That puzzles many farmers and vets. I hope that the medicine used in the testing next year will be the same throughout the country. I do not think there would be any objection to such a system. Some farmers are annoyed with their own vets as far as testing is concerned. It is pleasing to note that we have been successful in securing sale for our cattle abroad. It is because of the importance of the export market to our economy that we must make every effort to rid our herds of disease. A lot of money has been spent on the disease eradication programme in recent years but we still have many diseased herds. I am aware that one area of Longford is pretty bad at present. We must get to grips with this problem.

Most counties are brucellosis free and I do not see how the disease is being transmitted to disease free herds. There has been a lot of co-operation in regard to notifying neighbouring farmers of TB outbreaks but that has not happened in some instances. The veterinary office should get in touch with neighbouring farmers when an outbreak is confirmed to ensure that the disease does not spread. It is important that all reactors are removed immediately. It is wrong that reactors are left with herds for 30 days because in that period the disease may spread.

The hardship fund should be increased greatly to help farmers obliged to destroy their herds. Farmers with dry stock or a dairy herd in a short space of time have had their income wiped out if the disease spreads to their herds. They should be given relief until they are permitted to restock. I should like to know why reactors are left on farms although farmers may have requested that they be removed immediately without waiting for a further test in 60 days. Diseased animals must be got rid of immediately to prevent it spreading to the rest of the herd.

There are many loopholes that must be closed as these increases are being sought from farmers to ensure that this round of testing takes place. I am sure there are not many farmers who would disagree with the proposals because the mere incidence of the disease in anybody's herd is devastating. There was one case in my constituency in which a neighbouring farmer had replacements of 260 reactor cattle over a period of 18 months. We want to ensure that reactors are taken away in good time, that their owners receive adequate compensation, thereby ensuring eradication of the dreaded disease which may have ruined a farmer's livelihood over a number of years. Any farmer who loses that number of cattle will be unable to get back into large numbers of stock again within a short period. It is interesting to note the figures since 1980, which have run in the region of 26,000 to approximately 29,000 reactors. I am sure the figure for this year will be somewhat similar with the outbreaks of which we are so far aware.

If there is a large outbreak of disease in any given area it is important that work be concentrated there in order to ensure its elimination. In recent years there has not been an intensive follow-up where there has been an incidence of the disease in a number of herds. In normal times there may have been one yard or shed only in which perhaps five, six or seven farmers' cattle were admitted for testing purposes, thus constituting a problem. I know the Department have been asking farmers to erect their own yards or sheds ensuring that testing can be carried out on their own premises. I am sure this policy would be advocated by departmental officials, that all farmers have such sheds erected to ensure that their animals can be tested on their premises. When this round of testing has been completed I would ask the Minister for an assurance that, if there remain problem areas, these will be eliminated and thoroughly investigated on the basis of the intended intensive testing to be carried out in 1985.

Many people have complained about the amount of money spent already on the eradication of this disease, contending that we have not received value for the money expended. Here it should be remembered that tuberculosis was one of the most dreaded diseases among humans. The medical profession were able to eliminate this disease over a period of intensive research and the administration of the right medication. It is ironic to think that £750 million having already been spent on the elimination of this disease in herds we have failed abysmally. This begs the question: why there has not been implemented a more intense policy on the part of all Ministers, all Governments over the past five to ten years to ensure its absolute elimination.

When the problem of brucellosis first arose farmers themselves were the first to want to eliminate that disease as quickly as possible because of its effects on herds and on humans, effects it still has on those unfortunate enough to be affected by it. There was a lot more money expended on countrywide testing in an attempt to eradicate the incidence of tuberculosis in herds, for which there are many people to be blamed, in some cases the farmers themselves. At the beginning of my contribution I mentioned some small farmers who visit marts on many occasions, people who did their own thing, without taking into consideration the rules or regulations obtaining until we find ourselves in a serious situation in many such farmers' areas.

We have a long way to go in this respect. Without the co-operation of everybody involved — the farmers, the veterinary surgeons, the Department and others — we shall find ourselves in the same situation ten years hence particularly when one views what has happened over the past ten years throughout the length and breadth of the country. Some people have a vested interest in ensuring that the disease is not eliminated totally. That being so, it is up to the Minister and his Department to ensure its total abolition within the period of this round of testing and, additionally, that farmers affected be adequately compensated.

I know there is much sympathy felt for farmers whose herds happen to come in contact with those of neighbours who have been affected by the disease. If the expenditure of this additional amount of money ensures the elimination of the disease no farmer will object, at least any to whom I have spoken. Let us be honest with ourselves. It will be of enormous benefit to our exports when we can say to people with whom we are negotiating contracts to supply beef in future years, whether on the hoof or otherwise, that we have a disease-free herd here. Because of the worth of these animals to our economy and exports generally it is in our interests to ensure that we eliminate all such problem areas. I know that the Department are in earnest in their desire to do so on this occasion, which we fully support. I shall be anxiously awaiting the results of the round testing system in 1985.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

Very expensive, though.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Deasy)

I am thankful to the Deputies who contributed to this debate, which was highly constructive and in which many interesting ideas were put forward. I do not think any of us is much apart in our analysis of the situation obtaining. We all realise that the scheme has not worked effectively in 30 years and it is realised that we must do something different. Deputy Noonan spoke about treading on people's corns. I would not tread on their corns, I would tread on their toes if necessary. Treading on their corns can be a very painful experience but if it has to be done it will be done.

The cause of the outbreaks has been raised by nearly every Deputy. Basically it is an Irish problem because of the number of times cattle are moved in Ireland in their lifetime. Statistics indicate that they are moved five or six times in their lifetime whereas on the Continent cattle may be moved once, or perhaps not at all. Initially that presents a serious problem here but it is hard to change it because of our system of farming.

Recent surveys and investigations indicate that lateral spread is the main cause of the high incidence of bovine TB here — cattle coming in contact with one another, within the same herd or neighbouring herds, mainly by touching noses or breathing in close proximity of each other across fences. Therefore, proper fencing is very important. As well, using common sources of water such as streams can help to spread the disease. The spreading of slurry can often cause it because recently there was an investigation which showed that the tubercle can survive for two years in land if contaminated slurry is spread on it. Unclean lorries is another area.

Deputies and others have suggested the spread by wildlife. From our investigations we have concluded that that assumption is overstated. Wildlife are believed not to be a very serious cause for the spread of the disease. Badgers have been blamed and so have deer. Seagulls, starlings and other feathered wildlife have been referred to. It is possible they are a contributory factor but not a major one because we know that lateral spread is the greatest cause. Of course, there is the human element, like fraudulent behaviour by one or a number of people. That is human nature and I am afraid that illegal practices are pretty widespread. Precautions are being taken to stop them.

A problem that has to be faced up to is that the test is not 100 per cent effective. Latest scientific investigations indicate that the test is only 70 per cent to 80 per cent effective. In those circumstances we are faced with a serious problem. Deputy Noonan asked why do we not have a blood test. If we had a blood test as we had in the case of brucellosis our problem would be largely eliminated. We do not have a blood test in spite of the best efforts of scientists throughout the world.

The inadequacy of the present tuberculin test is a major drawback. We have nothing better. It is used by virtually every country in the world. I was asked if those other countries have a bovine TB problem. The common point of view is that they do not, they all got rid of it. That is not strictly true. The outlying areas of Britain, the west coast of Scotland, the Lake District and Wales and Brittany in France have bovine TB problems but not as serious as ours. It flares up there from time to time.

Deputy Noonan asked me about the breaking of the link between the vets and the farmers. That is one of the more drastic proposals outlined in my opening statement. I am doing it for a number of reasons. Obviously the present system is not working. The new system will give us in the Department central control for co-ordination of the scheme. We can direct it. We can carry out operations on a planned basis. There can be block testing. The vet is in charge of a parish or half a parish and he can cover every single farmer in that region. That is an effective way. At the moment you could have six vets testing in one parish and if there were discrepancies in the standards of the testing — there are discrepancies — you will not get rid of the disease.

The block testing will be effective. Deputy Noonan asked many times about that. We want better co-ordination, better control. We want to do it in an organised manner. I want to see every vet in the country, old, middle aged or young, getting a fair crack of the whip. We are providing £10.5 million extra and I want to see that money spread around. I want to see the best people possible in there testing. I do not want to see any discrimination in that regard. That is the right way to tackle it.

I should like to tell Deputy Noonan that I have the full backing of the farming organisations in this battle, the ICMSA, the IFA and the ICOS. They are all fully behind the breaking of the link and I defy anybody to contradict me on it.

I fully accept that the farmer is the person who suffers most at the end of the day from the continuation of this disease and this scheme. He is the person who takes the real knock. Thousands of farmers have been virtually ruined financially. I am bringing in something more than the £31.5 million for testing. I will introduce a scheme which will be worth £2 million annually to help people who have had to de-stock because of a high incidence of disease. That may not come in 1985, though I hope it will, and it will be extremely helpful.

Logistically I am told that it is possible for the vets to do only one round per year. Normally they would do it in nine months but more often it takes 12 months. It is not practical to do two rounds a year. Farming organisations suggested that the Department might pay for one round and they would pay for the other. I do not think that would help because as we all know some might not pay.

The tubercle which causes the disease is very worrying and it has increased in virulence in the last couple of years. It is very worrying to the veterinary profession and the Department. A number of Deputies have based their arguments on the importance of research and epidemiology. I fully agree with that. We are setting up such a unit within the Department and I am also establishing an advisory council drawn from the veterinary people in the universities, An Foras Talúntais and from amongst the practitioners. Research is the basis of our whole drive against TB. We feel it will prove to be the most fruitful way of tackling the problem.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 63.

Tá

• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Myra.
• Barry, Peter.
• Begley, Michael.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bermingham, Joe.
• Birmingham, George Martin.
• Boland, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Carey, Donal.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlon, John F.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick Mark.
• Cosgrave, Liam T.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Crowley, Frank.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Martin Austin.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dowling, Dick.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Glenn, Alice.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Hussey, Gemma.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McLoughlin, Frank.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Molony, David.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, Willie.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Prendergast, Frank.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Ryan, John.
• Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
• Skelly, Liam.
• Spring, Dick.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Blaney, Neil Terence.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Fahey, Francis.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
• O'Dea, William.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Edmond.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.

Question declared carried.