asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the proposals he has in relation to animal disease eradication and in particular the 1987 round of tuberculosis testing.
Ceisteanna—Question. Oral Answers. - Animal Disease Eradication.
24.
My approach to disease eradication is to restore the impetus to the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme which was lost following the reduction in funding for the scheme in 1986. With this objective in view the next round of testing, comprising a monitor of the national herd coupled with special programmes for badly affected areas, will begin on 21 April.
In the case of brucellosis my intention is to preserve and build on the substantial progress made towards eradication in recent years, so that we may achieve our ultimate goal of final eradication in the foreseeable future.
Is the Minister satisfied with the manner in which the scheme is presently operated or does he see a case for significant changes in the management and operation of the scheme, particularly the TB eradication scheme?
Nobody could be satisfied with the manner in which the scheme operated considering the expenditure so far committed and the fact that while the incidence of bovine TB has been drastically reduced we are still faced with the fact that we have not reached the desirable target. Everybody involved acknowledges that the most important thing is to have a comprehensive multi-annual programme. It appeared that the programme was being launched in 1985 as part of a three year comprehensive attack on this disease, but unfortunately the estimates for last year were not nearly adequate to maintain the very considerable progress made. For that reason it is my intention as far as possible that there will no longer be a stop-go approach to bovine TB. This is why I will shortly introduce a motion here to enable me to increase the levies to include the scheme, which simply make up the funds that would have been provided by the previous Government.
Does the Minister accept, in the light of his last comment about increasing the levies, that there will be far more resistance which may not be overcome or may best be overcome by having a greater farmer involvement in the planning and operation of the scheme?
It is very important that there would be farmers involved, whether directly or through organisations, in the planning and operation of the scheme. It is a matter for co-operation between the farmers, the veterinary profession and the Department. In the reorganisation of the management of the scheme those elements will be taken into account. In case there is any doubt about my reference to levies, the purpose of the motion I will bring before the House is to raise the same amount of money by way of levy as the outgoing administration were planning to raise, but because it will come into operation later than was originally envisaged in view of the election and the consequent delay there will have to be some slight increase in the amount of that levy.
Farm tax, in other words.
We will talk about the money when the motion comes before the House but at the moment I am more interested in better value for money. Bearing in mind what the Minister said, would he see any case for some form of independent authority to run the scheme, taking into account the present huge costs of the administration of the scheme? I understand that there are about 1,400 civil servants involved in the administration and that the administration costs here are approximately twice the level of administration costs in Northern Ireland.
As the Deputy says, the levy element has increased substantially. The running costs of the scheme this year will be approximately £30 million and the farmers' contribution by way of levy will be £19.4 million, almost two-thirds of the total cost. For that reason there are a number of priorities that will have to be considered in the review of the scheme that will take place. We will examine its effectiveness, its management and we will minimise where possible the commitment from the taxpayer's money which has been a very consistent element. We will have a full analysis of the success of the scheme in various areas. To do that it will be necessary to have a complete round this year and that is why the extra funding is required. I hope in the course of the year by checks and analyses that will be conducted to get the information which will enable us to draw up a more comprehensive programme somewhere in the second half of this year. In the meantime I will have discussions with the farm organisations, the professionals and all concerned to ensure the development of that kind of programme.
I will allow one brief question and then I must pass on to No. 26.
The Minister has indicated the form of review which he has in mind but would he not accept that there is a need for a more searching, in-depth review which would involve looking at the entire scheme as to how it is presently run and the reasons why it has not achieved the results that would put us in a comparable position to our partners in Europe? Would the Minister's mind be open to a totally fresh radical approach to running this scheme and if so could he give a time limit in which that kind of review might be completed and such a new approach formulated?
I consider it a matter of obligation to keep an open mind when examining this matter. The Committee on Public Expenditure of the outgoing Dáil conducted an examination into this which will be helpful and which will be used along with any other information to inform us as to how best we can improve the scheme. There is great scope for improvement.
When will we have decisions?
Question No. 26, please.
The Deputy will appreciate that it would be foolhardy to make a date as to when we will have a decision.
One month, six months?