Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Apr 1987

Vol. 371 No. 8

Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1987: (Motion).

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr. O'Kennedy)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:—

Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1987

copies of which were laid in draft before the Dáil on 1st April, 1987.

The proposed Regulations are being made under the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Act, 1979, which is designed to secure a financial contribution from the farming sector towards the cost of the bovine TB and brucellosis eradication schemes. The need to adjust the rates arises from the Government's decision to increase the funding for the schemes to £30 million in 1987 and to require farmers to contribute more fully to the cost of the schemes. The new rates from 20 April will be 1.1 pence per gallon of milk processed and £6.50 per bovine animal slaughtered or exported live. The expected yield from the levies this year is £19.4 million that is the same as provided for by the previous Government. The unavoidable delay in introducing the new rates of levy means that somewhat higher rates than originally envisaged will have to apply.

The Government's approach to disease eradication in 1987 is to restore the impetus to the bovine TB eradication scheme which was lost following cutbacks in funding in 1986 and to continue the drive towards final eradication of brucellosis. Arrangements have been made to begin a new testing programme on 21 April which will consist of a monitor of the national herd coupled with special testing programmes in badly affected areas. While we would hope to carry out special programmes in most counties we will be concentrating in particular on County Longford which has the highest levels of TB in the country and west Cork which has been a traditional "black spot".

On the question of how the levies are used, I want to make it clear that the levies go to finance the running costs of the schemes, the two biggest items being the fees paid to veterinary practitioners for testing, and reactor and depopulation grants to farmers. Expenditure on these two items alone is expected to come to about £24 million in 1987, a figure well in excess of the anticipated revenue of £19.4 million from the levies. Taking into account other running costs, such as supplies, equipment, travelling etc., the Exchequer's contribution to the schemes in 1987, apart from administration, comes to £10.6 million. This is a significant amount especially in the current difficult budgetary situation.

In recent times there have been a number of suggestions for making the TB scheme more effective. I can see merit in some of the arguments put forward; other suggestions strike me as having been thought through less fully and, if implemented, could have serious consequences for our farmers and traders. While I am open to ideas that will make for a more effective scheme and will, indeed, explore the more realistic possibilities of doing this over the coming months, I have to say that any new arrangements must satisfy some basic requirements, namely that they be clearly shown to be capable of eradicating TB, pose no threat to our export interests and, in present budgetary circumstances, be as near to self-financing as possible.

The bovine disease eradication programme constitutes a sizeable part of the manpower and other resources of my Department and, as I have indicated, I will be subjecting it to thorough review in the months ahead with a view to achieving greater efficiency and speeding up the process of disease eradication.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I am very disappointed with the Minister's speech, not so much for what is in it as for what is not included. The Minister was Vice-Chairman of the last Dáil Committee on Public Expenditure who produced a major review of the programme for the eradication of bovine TB and a long list of recommendations as to how that might be achieved. If one searches the Minister's speech for any vision or leadership in this regard, one finds them sadly lacking.

We are entering a new era from the point of view of funding for the programme, and this imposes an obligation to chart out a new course through which the central objective of TB eradication will be achieved. More of the same is just not good enough. I ask the Minister in his reply to deal with the central crucial issues which now confront us in this very important area.

We have had many reports in relation to the eradication programme, in particular the report of the Dáil committee of which the Minister in the last Dáil was Vice-Chairman. We have had the O'Connor report through the ESRI. At this stage there is general agreement that there is no mystery about the background to the current problems. Looking back to the fifties we remember that the Department of Agriculture introduced a scheme and I suppose the reaction of the farmers at the time was that it was something they had to put up with. In that situation irregularities were inevitable. Despite that, enormous progress was made in the early years of the scheme, particularly in the first two decades, and this should not be overlooked. I understand that the figures at the time of the introduction of the scheme were of the order of one animal in six subject to TB and after a period of about 20 years of the scheme this was reduced to an incidence of about one in 300.

The problem is that the progress in the last decade has been negligible. This is particularly obvious when we compare our figures with those from other EC member states. From the figures set out in one of the appendices to the report of the PEC we find that Ireland has the greatest number of TB reactors as a percentage of the number of cattle in the country of all the EC member states. Therefore, it is clear that we have not been as successful as our European counterparts in eradicating bovine TB. The most recent figures confirm that the number of TB reactors as a percentage of the cattle population here was almost 0.465 per cent. If we look at the figures in the other EC member states we find only two countries with figures which are somewhat comparable. Italy had 0.439 per cent and Greece 0.382 per cent, but all the other member states have incidence figures which are only a fraction of those. Perhaps of particular concern is the fact that the incidence of bovine TB in this State is almost five times that of Northern Ireland, despite our similar farming patterns, climate and environment.

Clearly, we have a problem despite the enormous expenditure of almost £1,000 million in present-day money terms over the past 30 years. The question is, how do we respond to the challenge presented by that problem? It is in that context that in my opening remarks I was somewhat critical of the Minister's contribution and will be suggesting that he deal with these matters on reply.

Mr. O'Kennedy

May I just make one point for clarification? It is because of the time constraint on the Bill, which allows only two hours and I wanted to ensure that all Deputies who wished to do so had an opportunity to speak. I could have spoken for an hour and a half but that would equally have been criticised. I am not saying my contribution is comprehensive.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I put forward my point as a suggestion. I would ask the Minister who has much expertise in this area, to indicate how he feels we should now go forward in achieving the objective. First, what should that objective be? We must switch from what, at least in terms of reference over the last decades, has been a TB containment scheme to an approach designed to reduce disease prevalence such as that prevailing in Northern Ireland. That must be the objective over the next number of years. My own belief is that with a programme which has full backing and the commitment of all concerned that target is attainable over a period of from three to four years.

What will be very important here is the question of attitude. Perhaps that is the most essential element in this new approach. The motion today involves farmers taking a very major financial responsibility for the scheme. If that is coupled with a greater farmer input in the management of the scheme, it will result in a greater acceptance of the scheme and a greater commitment to success. As I see it now, the time is right for a specific change in management structures to take on board this proposal. I have been considering how best this could be achieved and have been looking at proposals from the IFA. I have a suggestion to make, one that I think could work but, obviously, it needs to be teased out. I put it forward for serious consideration. We can achieve this new approach by way of establishing an executive office along the lines set out in the White Paper, Serving the Country Better. That executive office would be established by transferring into it those members of the Department of Agriculture and Food who are at present involved in the scheme.

While the ultimate responsibility would continue to lie with the Minister, this executive office would have a chief executive with, of course, all the powers and responsibilities that would follow such an appointment, but, in addition, I would suggest for serious consideration that there would be a board of management. The importance of this board of management is that it would provide for farmer input in the management of the scheme. I would envisage such board of management of the executive office would consist of civil servants, members, of the veterinary profession but, above all, members representative of farming interests who are now largely paying the piper.

I have been examining the situation in other Civil Service areas and we have already some precedents. From the point of view of the establishment of an executive office, we have the Social Services Office, now running quite successfully. From the point of view of the establishment of an office with a board of management having on it outside membership we have, I think, a precedent in the establishment of the National Statistics Board. My understanding of that board is that they operate an executive office in the statistics area and have on the board expertise from outside. From the point of view of structures, I do not suggest this is the only answer, but it seems to be one possible answer to the establishment of a new approach with that most essential item, ensuring that there is a farmer input in the management of the scheme. There are other possibilities and I would not exclude any of them. The IFA have suggested an executive board of directors. There are other suggestions involving the establishment of a semi-State office, or an independent tribunal. I would be open on these but the one that appears to be certainly worthy of very serious consideration is the establishment of an executive office with a board of management having farmer representation.

If we get the structures right, we must also look very carefully at the operation of the scheme. If we adopt the proposal I am putting forward, there will be a more positive attitude consequent on that change and through that structure a much more innovative and flexible approach in dealing with the scheme. There is need for concentration on new systems, including computerisation of the national herd, on which some work has been done but it stands to be completed. A new approach to an animal identification system is needed.

We also must be prepared to accommodate regional variations. Of necessity, a national approach applied rigidly in Kildare may not necessarily bring the same results in west Cork. The farming patterns are different in both areas and because of that it may be necessary to have a different approach in dealing with problems. There is the possibility, under this new arrangement which I propose, to have that greater degree of flexibility. One could have an extension of the blitz programmes, taking into account the advice of the people on the ground as to how best to cope with particular problems in the different areas.

There is another very major aspect that is and must be of concern to anybody interested in bovine TB eradication. That is the question of research. This aspect was looked at in the various reports. As I understand it, there seems a general view that the area of research has to be broadened and that, specifically, there is urgent need for further research into the methods used in coping with the disease, examination of the spread of the disease and how to cope with that, and the problem of the development of a supplementary test in the diagnosis of TB. I do not in any way suggest I am an expert in this field, but it is quite clear there must be a greater concentration on this whole area.

There is another aspect that must be looked at if we are examining this scheme and charting its future, that is, the question of administration costs. I am not one who glibly will look at administration costs and say they are a soft target for savings, but I have to take on board the fact that administration costs in Northern Ireland appear to be far less than those obtaining here. A figure of 50 per cent has been quoted. I am not sure if there is an exact analogy in respect of the systems operating in both parts of this island, but it is generally accepted that the administration costs there are very much lower. At present, I understand, we have approximately 1,300 civil servants involved in the scheme. We have administration costs of approximately £15 million. It is right to question whether a greater degree of efficiency can be achieved so that the moneys that are made available for eradication go towards the purpose for which they were designed and above all so that the farmers who are now expected to make a contribution towards eradication will be satisfied that their moneys are going to that purpose and not paying for public service jobs.

If the computerisation programme progresses quickly this should enable some savings to be found. A serious examination and reappraisal of the whole system could produce far greater savings. If we proceed with the establishment of an executive office and a management board their first major task would be to work on the containment and reduction of the administration costs. There are many other issues relating to this problem which I do not propose to go into in detail but perhaps I should mention a few.

I often wonder, as somebody who has taken over this brief, how we can be serious about TB eradication whereby reactors are identified and are not immediately certified as such and ordered for removal virtually on the spot. As I understand it the system involves the veterinary surgeon reporting the incident to the district veterinary office. Subsequently, in the fullness of time the necessary documentation is completed for the removal of the reactor. I find that a very strange system. If the veterinary officer is entrusted with the task of testing the animal, surely he should be trusted with the job of producing the necessary documenation for removal of that animal. Taking it a step further I have noticed that a collection system in my area, based in Bandon, is working very successfully. If that is so I believe the Minister should give me an indication that this system will be established in other parts of the country.

We have many reports and recommendations from various bodies: the Committee on Public Expenditure, the ESRI and the IFA. What we need now is action. Funding is only one aspect of TB eradication. Of course funding is essential but money alone is not the answer. We need a new approach with the total involvement of and commitment by all those involved. Only in this way will the programme for eradication of bovine tuberculosis be successful.

Mr. McCoy

The failure to eradicate bovine TB over the past 30 years which has cost over £1,000 million in public funds in today's terms, and the slaughter of two million animals, is a national scandal.

If the Minister and his Minister of State responsible for the food industry are serious in their stated aim, in making Ireland the food centre of Europe, then central to this aspiration must be the eradication of bovine diseases. This will then ensure a supply of healthy and wholesome raw materials.

The eradication programme to date has been a costly failure, both to farmers and the Exchequer. The Committee on Public Expenditure meeting in October of last year were forced to the conclusion that drastic action to remove technical and administrative constraints was essential to a cost effective TB eradication programme.

Further, the Dáil Committee on Public Expenditure identified no less than 25 matters of serious concern in the operation of the eradication programme, and it is in these areas that the Progressive Democrats would like to see the Minister addressing himself rather than using the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Act as a means of raising and gathering extra taxes.

The disease eradication programme has now assumed the proportions of a major industry, employing over 1,300 civil servants in various categories, and notwithstanding that the bulk of the field work is done by 800 private vets.

Last year farmers paid £14.5 million in disease levies and less than 50 per cent of herds were tested. All reliable evidence points to the fact that central to the success of an eradication programme are intensive annual rounds of testing. I am informed that there are herds in existence that have not had a round of testing since 1983. If such a situation exists, how can anybody say with any certainty what the actual national disease status now is.

The Irish Veterinary Union have stated that they could complete a full round of testing for £8.5 million. If this is correct are we to assume that out of the £14.5 million raised in levies last year approximately £4 million to £4.5 million was actually paid out for testing? I would like to ask the Minister what was the amount that was actually paid out to the private veterinary surgeons who undertook the actual testing in 1986. Since the late sixties there has never been three consecutive years of a full round of testing.

There is a growing consensus among individual farmers and also at farmer organisation level that the time is nigh for a change in direction, with a new structure, to totally eliminate, and not just contain bovine TB and brucellosis. In that pursuance and taking up what the Minister had to say I believe that his basic requirements, namely that any new proposals would have to be capable of eradicating TB I say in that context that the old system has patently failed to eradicate the disease and has failed to be self-financing. Central to this objective is: yearly rounds of testing with the farmers dealing directly with his or her vet. The Progressive Democrats propose that the landowner be given the responsibility for the health status of his or her herd. The role of the Department of Agriculture and Food would then become a managerial one with a phased reduction of civil servants employed on the disease eradication scheme with a subsequent saving in levies.

Will the motion before the House proposing to increase levies to £20 million annually give any guarantee that every herd owner will have a full round of testing in 1987? Is the Minister prepared to give the House an undertaking that such a guarantee will be forthcoming if the proposed levies are implemented?

There are many more aspects of the disease eradication programme requiring urgent redress and attention, such as, first, an effective epidemiological unit which can investigate unexplained outbreaks in hitherto clear areas and herds. Second, the need for strict uniformity in testing throughout the country. Third, the full implementation of the relevant rules and regulations by all concerned and, fourth, a substantial increase in the penalties for tampering with ear tags and identity cards. Individuals, heedless of the consequences of their carelessness, can no longer be allowed to stand in the way of eliminating tuberculosis and brucellosis. Bovine tuberculosis has been eliminated in many European counties in less time than our programme has been in operation. For example, it has taken 22 years to get the incidence down to 0.04 per cent in Northern Ireland. We must take the necessary steps to put our house in order no matter how unpalatable or radical those steps may be.

The Progressive Democrats oppose any increase in the levies and, indeed, are opposed to them in principle.

Mr. M. Higgins

I want to make a few brief remarks arising from the Minister's introductory comments. May I wish him well in his new ministry. It is an understatement to say that there is very great concern among taxpayers at the failure to make the progress that most people would have liked to have seen in the eradication of disease as it has been funded through public taxation over the past several years.

It seems to me that a number of the points made already are entirely valid in relation to what efficacy we may envisage from the levies which this year will be of the order of £19.4 million, as was mentioned in the course of the Minister's remarks. May I say immediately that this whole question of levies, when commented on by the Labour Party, has a fundamental principle at stake. The principle is entirely that one should out of general taxation make provision for such moneys as are necessary to bring agriculture as a resource and the quality of the national herd to a state of adequacy and that such a scheme is preferable to the imposition of a levy system. Within the constraints of a levy system I might say this, that I fear it will have the defect of being unable to discriminate between the impact of the levy on farms and herds of different size, a great defect in itself. The overall proposals in relation to agriculture — with which we can deal when we come to discuss the main budget — are not encouraging in that regard; for example, the cutbacks envisaged in relation to the advice available to farmers, as they will affect small farmers in particular, will be such as to render it very difficult to see discipline obtaining among very smallholders and which is necessary for an effective eradication programme.

Having stated the sense of outrage felt by a highly taxed population at our apparent failure to make progress by comparison with other countries, I do not subscribe to the view that this is a matter of money only. I want to express my concern that when attempts have been made to ask questions as to the structure of our eradication scheme and to compare the structure of our scheme with that of others, one is usually met with a blank response from some of the practitioners involved — that if additional moneys are voted then we can get on with the business of eradication. It is clear to any person on the street that it is not a matter of money only. Other spokespersons here have asked the entirely reasonable question: is there some inherent defect in the structure of the scheme preventing us making the progress we might have envisaged? That is an extremely reasonable question. I note the Minister's handling of time so as to allow maximum participation in the debate but I would urge him when he comes to speak again to explain what he meant when he said in the course of his introductory remarks:

In recent times there have been a number of suggestions for making the TB scheme more effective. I can see merit in some of the suggestions put forward; other propositions strike me as perhaps thought through less fully and, if implemented, could have serious consequences for our farmers and traders.

This suggests that there has been a wide range of proposals put to the Minister and his Department, some good and some bad, which have about them the status of a comment about the weather. I should like the Minister to tell us what proposals he finds have merit and probable efficacy. Some of us watching different current affairs programmes dealing with this subject, following the debate in the agricultural journals and so on, are very well aware that people have proposals to make. I should like to know which are considered to be meritorious in themselves and likely to yield results. Equally, I should like to know which have been dismissed because, in that regard, there are suggestions that could be forthcoming.

The third principal point I want to make is in relation to the notion of the self-financing arrangements for the eradication of disease. This is an inherent point when one moves to the imposition of levies rather than to general taxation. It seems to me it has an inherent defect in that the people who have worked hard and responsibly in agriculture not only at eradicating disease but maintaining the status of disease-free herds are discouraged by the lack of effort by others in their areas. We would appreciate had there been made available to us information on social and economic characteristics of the farming community who are and who are not helping in relation to disease eradication. Surely it must be heart-breaking for many people who have made an effort to see neighbours flouting the different measures taken, without adequate penalties being imposed on them.

Looking at the long history of public money being spent on disease eradication programmes, surely there must be some concern of a greater kind than I have seen expressed from within the farming organisations themselves as to the lack of discipline involved which has prevented us from achieving these levels. Continually I hear prominent members of some of the bigger farming organisations hectoring the trade union movement about industrial peace, industrial man hours lost and so on. I have not seen the same voices turned on some of their members who are major consumers of public taxation. It is useful to draw a distinction between those who are assisting and those who are not.

I would regard it as a fundamental of good citizenship within the agricultural community that there be a commitment to disease eradication. It is particularly interesting in so far as the Minister's new Department is entitled Agriculture and Food. Surely the eradication of disease is one of the most important preliminaries to our moving into the food industry, into capturing the value-added content and the related employment which would come from that, so that we would have dramatic results as quickly as possible? I agree with previous speakers who would agree with spending money on a disease eradication programme to enable it to be completed, but I am worried about the idea of simply funding a programme which is in all its structural features similar to one which has obviously not been effective.

On the general issue of surveying the state of Irish agriculture, the impact of the farm tax proposals will lead to an immediate lack of availability of a number of people who are doing more than just assessing acreage for adjustment purposes. It will lead to a much smaller official presence on the farms involved. As the State withdraws more and more, as State personnel withdraw more and more and as we rely more and more on levies, we will have less rather than more discipline in relation to disease eradication. I make these points not because I begrudge a penny of the public moneys spent on improving the quality of Irish agriculture or the quality of the national herd. In order not to be divisive I would say that workers are as dissatisfied with our industrial policy as they are about the money wasted on disease eradication. We would welcome some kind of a statement on the structural features of the systems that have worked best in other countries and on the disabilities of their application in the Irish case, on what changes are envisaged in relation to our own scheme, on which schemes are to be discussed with the vets, with ACOT and on what special studies have been done in this area and have been provided to the Minister's Department. We would also like at some stage an elaboration of these mysterious positive and negative suggestions to which we know the Minister has listened with courtesy, but it is not clear what they are.

Mr. Cooney

Nobody can dispute that a disease eradication scheme that commenced over 30 years ago and which has involved the expenditure of perhaps hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money and which has not eradicated the disease has failed. In County Longford there are outbreaks of bovine TB and the incidence of the disease there is higher than when the scheme commenced. There is nearly an equally bad situation in County Westmeath and a high level of bovine TB exists in practically every other county in Ireland. The inescapable, unacceptable and embarrassing conclusion is that the attempt to eradicate bovine TB has been almost a total failure. A stranger being presented with these facts would first ask "who has been in charge of this scheme for the past 30 years?" The answer is that the Department of Agriculture have had the entire control of this scheme since then. The Department have, in effect, determined the level of funding, the controls and the scientific aspects of the scheme. The Department must stand indicted for having made a total mess of bovine TB eradication. I do not say that with any pleasure. It is forced on me, when we look at the level of bovine TB in the Irish herd today. The Department have made a total hash of the scheme and it is high time there were changes in the administration of that scheme.

There must be an involvement of new parties and new thinking must be admitted into this whole area. I understand that the farmers' association have recently suggested that control should be on a tripartite basis. The Department must have a say, farmers must have a say and the veterinary profession must have a say. It is common sense that the three interested parties should get together and hammer out a scheme with the correct administration, the scientific input and the financial input, designed to achieve a reduction in the incidence of disease in our herd to an internationally acceptable level, something we have failed to achieve after 30 years of trying. It is surely as obvious as the noses on our faces that radical changes in the administration of this scheme are necessary. The only area of wasted money I can compare with this waste — indeed it does not compare; it is in the halfpenny place — is the money wasted on the Connaught Regional Airport.

The Minister's speech was brief and his reason for that was to give us time to get in. I will not delay the House for long but I have to draw the attention of the House to a matter to which I have already adverted, that is, the high level of bovine TB in County Longford and the level which is nearly as high in County Westmeath, in west Cork and in other areas throughout the country. Nobody knows why these areas suffer from this high incidence of the disease. Yet, for the past 30 odd years there has been a similar flare of disease in odd locations in the country. As far as I am aware no scientific or epidemiological research has been done to identify the cause of this high incidence in certain parts of the country. There has been only very slight scientific study and very vague knowledge as to how bovine TB spreads. The inthing was lateral spread — it jumped across the ditch. I do not know whether that is so. It may be that Irish farming practices are so bad that the defeat of this disease is just impossible to achieve. It may be that farming structures with the frequent movement of cattle is such as to defy a solution, but we do not know after 30 years and countless millions having been spent. We do not know these basic facts.

Consequently, all these points emphasise the imperative of restructuring the administration of the eradication scheme. It is essential that it be taken out of the hands that have failed for the past 30 years, and other parties brought into it. This has to be done as a matter of urgency because at this stage I am sure our European partners must be looking askance at us and must be looking at us with a certain amount of kindly contempt because of our failures in this area. We must obviously be putting at risk their continued tolerance for our failure in this area.

I should be grateful if the Minister would be a little more specific on the figures as to how the projected £30 million will be spent. I gather the three main items of spending are the fees paid to veterinary surgeons, the reactor depopulation grants to farmers and administration. The Minister indicated that in 1987 it is expected the veterinary fees and the reactor grants to farmers will take up £24 million of the scheme. I would like to see the breakdown of that between veterinary fees and farmers' grants.

The Exchequer's contribution in 1987 is £10.6 million on top of the £19.4 million to be raised from the levies out of a total expenditure of £30 million. The Minister indicated £24 million will be spent on veterinary fees and reactor depopulation grants, leaving £6 million for administration. I would like the Minister to tell us if that is the entire cost of the administration of the scheme and what it covers. He said "taking into account other running costs, namely, for supplies, equipment, travelling, etc., the Exchequer's contribution to the schemes in 1987, apart from administration, comes to £10.6 million". What does the term "administration" cover? Does it cover the army of functionaries who go around the country and who issue cards and leave documents with farmers at great expense?

I recall a recent dispute which the Department settled with the veterinary profession. It was a condition of the settlement that when a reactor was identified the veterinary surgeon would serve an appropriate document on the farmer there and then, but the agricultural officers objected because it was one of their perks that when a vet reported a reactor they would drive out to serve that document on the farmer, claiming travelling and subsistence expenses. The Department gave way in that instance and agreed that that wasteful, unnecessary and expensive practice be continued. Therefore, I would like the Minister to tell us how much of the scheme money is spent on travelling and subsistence expenses for the officials concerned and how much is covered by this word "administration" which the Minister separated in his speech from the other costs of running the scheme.

I invite Deputies to acquaint themselves with the volume of regulations made under the parent Act because it would take a lorry to bring them all into this House. The amount of bureaucracy which this scheme has fostered over the past 30 years is incredible. Every new round of testing produces some new form of bureaucratic control, all designed with the objective of reducing and eventually eliminating the disease, all as futile as their predecessors.

We need a totally new approach but the Minister will not get it until sole control is removed from his Department who have singularly and obviously failed to discharge the functions given to them by the late James Dillon 30 odd years ago. A new radical approach is necessary and can only be put in place by putting new people in charge of disease eradication. That new group should be a tripartite group composed of the Department, the veterinary profession and the farmers. If they were given the budget which is available I have no doubt they would have the incidence down to an acceptable level in jig time.

Mr. Boylan

I am delighted to contribute to this motion for increased levies for bovine tuberculosis. I have a practical knowledge of all the hardships and problems involved being a practising farmer. I look on this review as one of the hardy annuals of the agricultural industry and the bane of the farming community. For 30 years we have been involved in disease eradication. When I was a schoolboy my only good memory of this scheme was being kept home from school to bring in the cattle. This scheme came into being in the late fifties and farmers co-operated: it was not a compulsory scheme. To this day the farmers have played their part. I want to make it clear that the failure of this scheme cannot be laid at the door of the farmers. Now we are being given an opportunity to review this scheme and we should not continue along the road which led to this failure.

Of course it was not a complete failure. Deputy O'Keeffe gave us some figures. Up to the sixties we made very good progress and I believe I know the reason. We reduced the incidence from one in six to one in 300. In the early sixties farmers were compelled to participate in the scheme and veterinary surgeons from Northern Ireland and England were employed by local practitioners. They encamped in an area which was completely tested. At that time an area was designated and tested systematically but we got away from that. Over the past ten years we adopted a haphazard approach. When a area was designated, the private practitioner was notified but six or 12 months could elapse before neighbouring herds were tested. That, I believe, was the cause of the breakdown. Last year we got back to the system we operated in the sixties. We started a systematic testing of herds in a certain area and neighbouring herds were tested within seven to nine days. That made sense because if there was a TB reactor in a herd that animal could be identified and isolated.

We have to change our policy and have a more systematic operation of the scheme. The levies begin introduced today mean a considerable increase in the levies farmers are paying. If the farmers are making this contribution of £19.5 million, surely it is a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune. The farmers should have a say in how this scheme is operating. That is only fair. They have a great deal of knowledge to impart but they have not been consulted in the past. Civil servants, who are far removed from reality, dictated how the scheme should operate.

Like Deputy Cooney, I should like a breakdown of the costs. I want to mention the hardship suffered by farmers whose herds have been destroyed. The compensation being paid for small store cattle is far from adequate. The compensation for a good dairy herd which has been infected and destroyed does not leave the farmer with sufficient income to replace that herd when his farm is cleared. An even more serious point is that when a farm is completely depopulated there is no provision for an income for the farmer. If he worked in industry or was employed by the State and lost his job he could look for social welfare assistance or unemployment benefit but the farmer gets no money. How is he expected to provide for himself and his family? Has the Minister any proposals to make to help such a farmer? If farmers in areas where there are severe problems know they will be out of pocket and will not get reasonable compensation for the cattle that are being taken from them, how can they be expected to give full co-operation when they have families to raise? What will be done to give such people an income until they are able to get into farming again?

The Minister mentioned Longford as an area on which the Department will concentrate. May I suggest that the Longford-Cavan border be considered because the outbreak of the disease in County Longford has meant it has spread into part of County Cavan. Therefore when looking at County Longford, I ask the Minister to take into account the parts of County Cavan which border County Longford where there is a very serious outbreak. I know farmers who do a good job, who do not buy in stock, who rear their own replacement stock, who keep their fences in good order and who have not had an outbreak in the last five years but who found on the last test round that a number of their animals showed positive signs of TB. What is the reason for that? Are we carrying out any investigations as to how a farm such as that can be hit when the farmer is running his farm by the book and doing everything possible to prevent TB? There must be some reason other than mismanagement. Is there any investigation being carried out with regard to wildlife, badgers, for instance, carrying the disease? There is a theory that where badgers are prevalent there seem to be outbreaks of TB. Those are some of the problems farmers are faced with. They would like to know why there are sudden outbreaks of TB in herds where there were no outbreaks in the last ten years. Their local veterinary officers are not giving them satisfactory answers. Are we working in conjunction with the Ministry in Northern Ireland, in England and Europe even in this matter? We should all pool our resources in order to find the reason for these outbreaks of TB.

Mr. Durkan

After 30 years of a bovine TB eradication programme it can rightly be said that we have attained a rather dubious distinction, that of having the worst incidence record in Europe, in this regard, followed only by Italy and Greece. That is the position at a time when it is imperative that the Irish food industry takes full account of ensuring a continued niche in the European and world markets. That is something we should all ponder on very seriously. The taxpayers are extremely annoyed at the continued expenditure while there is such apparent lack of success. Consumers are equally and rightly concerned at the continued expenditure and the obvious ineffectiveness of the schemes to date. Having regard to all of that, one can only conclude that after 30 years we do not seem to have achieved a great deal other than continuing year after year to carry out a test system which does not seem to operate very effectively.

Farmers have come to me telling of having bought in animals that had had clear tests and in respect of which export certificates had been issued. These were bought into farms where there had been no previous experience of bovine tuberculosis but after six months or less these farmers found that half their herds were reactors. Obviously something is happening along the line to such an extent as to do great damage to the whole system of testing and of attempting to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. I appeal to the Minister — I know he is thinking along those lines having regard to his speech this evening — to look again at the various means and methods that have been adopted and incorporated in the scheme to date. He should find out if, for instance, the vaccines we have been using for a number of years, which we have changed from time to time, have brought about the desired results. He should find out also whether there is a reluctance in some parts of the country to carry out tests in a fashion that would be desirable and compatible with the overall requirement to operate the scheme on a national basis to such an extent as to bring about the eradication of bovine tuberculosis.

We are discussing the introduction of a levy. Nobody likes to hear about a levy and I am sure the farmers were not too happy when they heard about it but it has the element that there will be an added impetus on the part of the farming community to ensure that the bovine TB eradication scheme is successful, that nobody can evade testing or continue in any way to do anything that would be prejudicial to the entire scheme. From discussions I have had with the farming organisations I know that the farming community are very anxious to ensure the maximum co-operation with the Department in bringing an end to this scandal, and I use the, word, "scandal" advisably. In the European context we have a very serious problem.

I should like the Minister to assure the House that in the next year, when the new testing round starts, it will be possible to ensure that all farmers, particularly those on whose farms there has been a history of bovine tuberculosis, carry out tests and that spot checks are done at regular intervals so that animals removed from those areas are not likely to infect other parts of the country which might be free of tuberculosis. I suggest that, as opposed to using the district electoral divisions as boundaries for testing on a regional basis, natural boundaries or divisions such as rivers, lakes, mountain ranges and so on be taken into account. These would provide a much safer guideline than the old system of District Electoral Divisions. They would obviously be much easier controlled and would make it much easier to ensure that there would not be cross infection between the various areas.

My colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, and other speakers, too, suggested the setting up of a management team. That would be a very desirable way to approach this matter. If a management team were set up it could incorporate the Minister's office, the farming organisations and the veterinary profession. With the full co-operation of all concerned it should be possible to bring about a position whereby greater progress could be achieved during the next two or three years than has been achieved in the past 30 years. One of the things we are all most concerned with is that we do not face another 20 or 30 years of the same. The farming organisations, the farming community, the consumers and the taxpayers are equally concerned that that would not happen.

The previous speaker mentioned that the eradication scheme is an industry and it looks as if it is. That is unfortunate. It was initiated in order to have a job done, that of eradicating disease, nothing more and nothing less and it should be seen as such. The objective must be to eradicate the disease, otherwise there is no sense in putting money into the scheme year after year.

After identification of a reactor in a herd, the process of removing that reactor is not satisfactory. Obviously, once a reactor is identified it should be removed immediately from the herd. I know certain checks have to be made to see whether there is cross infection and that animals that had tests that were inconclusive previously may transpire to have active lesions. On the other hand, once a veterinary surgeon decides that a animal is a reactor, the obvious thing to do in the interest of overall expenditure and efficiency should be to remove that animal from the herd and ensure that no further infection is caused by it. If that was done it would reassure all other herd owners in the area that their interests were being looked after.

Deputy Boylan mentioned the fact that birds and certain animals are carriers of the disease. The question has been asked again and again how a herd which has previously been free from tuberculosis has been reinfected when store cattle are brought in. One can investigate and evaluate but there is a question to be answered in that regard. When that question is answered we will know why eradication has failed for the past 30 years.

The one good thing about the food industry is our ability to produce a quality product and to sell it on international markets. We have already achieved a great deal in that area but, as we have the worst incidence of TB in Europe, people elsewhere may well take a second look at us. We must be very careful in that regard and the Minister must take the necessary measures to ensure that the scheme is brought satisfactorily to a conclusion; by that I mean the eradication which the name implies.

Mr. Stagg

I join other speakers in congratulating the Minister and wishing him well. I also wish to congratulate you on your appointment.

I wish to express outrage, on behalf of the people I represent, at the scandalous failure of this scheme. An unbelievable amount of taxpayers' and farmers' money has been spent but we are now worse off than when it started. If it had been possible to have an effective scheme 20 or 30 years ago, the money that would have been released for research and development in farming, the creation of added value in farming and the wealth which would have been created for the country in general, would have left us in a very different situation from an agricultural point of view.

The Minister should examine how the scheme has been working to date and if there has been a breach in regulations. Have there been incidences of fraud? Have there been unscrupulous actions by farmers in breaking regulations which they know will put themselves and their neighbours at risk, in the hope of making quick, easy money? The Minister should restructure the scheme to eliminate all these possibilities. That will not be easy but we should look at the more effective schemes operated in other countries. We should try to ensure that our disease level will be reduced to that of other European countries.

I see the tax element in the motion before us as a regressive movement in the whole tax structure. It is moving from an equitable central taxation system based on ability to pay or the wealth possibilities of property. Paying tax at the point of delivery of a service is not fair on those who have already paid their taxes and done their share in the elimination of this disease. They, as well as the PAYE worker, will be asked to carry a continuing burden for this scheme.

Once more I ask the Minister to examine the scheme to see how it can be changed so that the failures of 30 years can be eliminated.

Mr. Farrelly

Nobody welcomes an increase in taxation for any scheme but we had also proposed the doubling of these levies. There is always a sting in the tail and these levies have been increased by .1 per cent in relation to milk and by 50p per beast. Was this discussed by the Minister at his recent meetings with the IFA leaders? Did they agree to these proposals before the budget? I accept, in general terms, that we have created another first by our inability to eradicate this disease. It is a £30 million business and none of us is happy about the way it has developed. It is only a few short years since the farming organisations offered to play a major part in doing something positive in relation to eliminating this disease. Of course they had not contributed substantial amounts of money but that is not now the case because, as the Minister said, they are paying a total of £19.4 million at present. I have no doubt that the farming organisations should play a major part in running this scheme. I asked the previous Minister for Agriculture on a number of occasions to discuss it with his officials, and I ask the new Minister for Agriculture and Food to set up, without delay, a board of management, as he has the power to do giving the farming organisations a major part in the running of this scheme. This is the only way to ensure that the continuation of the scheme will be a success in the elimination of bovine TB.

If the levies continue to increase at the same rate as they are now, it is only around the corner until such time as the farming organisations will be paying for the full implementation of this scheme. That is as plain as the noses on our faces and it does not matter which Government are in office. Farmers should be given the opportunity to be involved much more in ensuring that the scheme is run properly and that they will comply with rules and regulations which has not been the case in the past. We all know that a small percentage of people have lived off the scheme because of the way it has been run and the way they organise reactors and bring them into farms. Deputy Cooney asked how often animals are moved in Ireland. Most animals are moved about six times during their life in comparison with other European countries where they are only moved once. The collecting of reactors is a major problem. There is no real input into ensuring that reactors are immediately taken from farms which should be the case. In the Committee on Public Expenditure, of which the Minister was a member, we spent many hours discussing this problem. There are over 1,300 people employed in this scheme and the committee asked that special lorries be provided to collect reactors. Until such time as little things like this are organised in a proper way, we are not going to eliminate this scheme. By sitting around the table with the farming organisation and discussing our proposals with them, we can with the £30 million which is available this year, and the same amount of money over the next three years, make a positive effort to eliminate this scheme. We are all at one in this but I am sorry to say that our friends in the PD's do not want these levies increased. Do they want the taxpayers to pay the extra money?

Mr. McCoy

We want the farmers to pay in full.

Mr. Farrelly

I wonder what was the overall position in their election campaign?

Mr. McCoy

This was in our election manifesto.

Mr. Farrelly

They want it fair, free gratis and for nothing and a 25 per cent rate of tax. Nothing can be done to eliminate any of these schemes unless we all pay an acceptable share. While we are paying that acceptable share, the people involved who are paying the piper at this stage should be calling the tune. I want to ask the Minister if it is true that the officials do not want any interference from outside in regard to the running of this scheme and is he prepared to make a decision to form a board, which would include a number of members from the farming organisations, to eliminate this scheme. I am fully committed to accepting these proposals as long as a package is put together to sell it to the farmers and the only way the Minister can do this is to give them an input into the running of the scheme. The farming organisations have branches in almost every parish in Ireland and they can run this scheme much better than the officials from the Department of Agriculture and Food who work five days a week. I would not like to think that this debate would alarm our colleagues in other European countries.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Hear, hear.

Mr. Farrelly

I would not like to think that following this discussion we would see the beef we produce full of TB. We all know that this is not the case but it has to be kept in its proper perspective. This is what we have to do to ensure the elimination of the disease and to safeguard the multi-million pound beef and export trade in Ireland.

Giving compensation to farmers whose herds have been wiped out, be they dairy herds or beef herds, is not sufficient in any way to help those farmers to get back into production. I ask that this be taken into consideration within the next few months.

From the discussions which we had with the veterinary unions at the Committee on Public Expenditure over the past year and a half, I believe that unless the Minister immediately sets up a board, including members of the farming organisations who are paying two-thirds of the cost at present, we will be back here in one, two or three years time with no improvement made. I wish that proposal every success and I am sure every member of this side of the House agrees that that is the way forward.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is impressed by the consideration shown by Deputies to each other. In calling Deputy Ned O'Keeffe I would like to remind him that I have already indicated to Deputy Avril Doyle that I will be calling on her.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

As this is my first occasion to speak in the House I would like to congratulate the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Michael O'Kennedy, and wish him every success in his new position. Knowing his ability in other areas during the years I have no doubt that he will be an outstanding success. He will bring great success to Irish agriculture both at home and in Europe. What is needed at present is confidence in our agriculture industry and I assure him of my full support and assistance.

It is strange that we are discussing animal disease eradication because during the last 30 years we have spent almost £1,000 million in today's money terms and slaughtered over one million cattle and we are still the lame duck nation in Europe in disease eradication. As a farmer and a politician I cannot be critical of this because it is mainly brought about by inefficiency at all levels. The farmers have been used as the scapegoats in this case and are the people who have suffered most and lost millions of pounds which is unaccountable for in their efforts to eradicate disease. By and large, farmers are people who co-operate and are always forthcoming in their efforts to give assistance in every way possible. The scheme failed basically because of the way it was operated and the kind of bureaucracy that obtained. Farmers in Ireland have a problem because of the types of farming in which they are involved and the nature of our industry. There are large movements of calves and cattle from one place to another without proper controls and proper monitoring.

The question of commonages needs to be looked at and I hope the Minister will direct his attention to this. In rural areas, commonages are a kind of no-man's land. There must be licensing to overcome the problem where cattle can roam around without being tested for short or long periods and then after a while brought back into the herd.

With regard to the moving of cattle there should be some type of flying squad which would stop trucks on the roadside and carry out spot checks to see that cattle were identifiable, had proper identity cards and to ascertain the source from which they were purchased. It is the small minority of people who are breaking the regulations and who are not operating the scheme properly who are the major cause of the problem. It is frightening to think that one herd in every 30 is still affected. The EC target is one herd in 500. I do not see the day when that target will be achieved. We must protect our exports of dairy products and beef valued at £1 billion in the interests of all the people of this country. We could put our export trade in jeopardy if we do not carry out this testing programme effectively and correctly.

What has bedevilled the scheme during the past few years has been the stop-go policy. We have what is known as the round test. In some areas there has only been 90 per cent participation and that is not a round test. A round test means 100 per cent participation in all areas and if it is to be successful it needs 100 per cent participation. We cannot but criticise the stop-go policy of Governments in the disease testing area. For testing to be effective there needs to be continuity and we all know the importance of that not just in disease testing but also in other areas.

Farmers are going to pay a substantial increase in levies this year. The cost of administration is alarming and frightening. There are 1,000 civil servants operating the scheme and some 800 vets are involved. Some of those involved have a vested interest in the continuation of the scheme as it is a dollar earner for many. The cost of the scheme to the Department is in the region of 40 per cent which is a scandal. Last year, the civil servants had to be paid before a single animal was tested. That was as a result of the cutbacks in Exchequer spending. If the scheme is to be successful it has to be taken out of the hands of the Department of Agriculture. Perhaps some form of privatisation may be the answer to the problem. I have much sympathy with the farming organisations in the suggestions they have made. Many proposals have been looked at but all have failed. Without the co-operation of the farming organisations and without taking their views into account, the scheme will not be successful.

This year the disease levy is going to be doubled without there being any guarantee that the disease will be eradicted. Something positive must be done to ensure the farming community will be satisfied that their money is not going to waste. The Committee on Public Expenditure published a report on TB eradication and that report merits a debate in this House. The committee suggested measures which were worthwhile and I would welcome an opportunity of debating that report in this House.

Today there was another disruption in the scheme. I hope the veterinary profession will realise the importance of completing the round testing proposed by the Minister which is due to commence on 20 April. What the veterinary profession are doing is holding the owners of cattle herds to ransom by not co-operating with the Minister. This is only going to make a bad situation even worse. However, I want to point out that the country is not rampant with the disease. I come from an area that has an excellent record in disease eradication. The successful brucellosis scheme of a few years ago was administered by the co-operative movement. The disease of brucellosis was frightening in its infancy and many people were very worried. After a short period substantial progress was made and we are now brucellosis free. The success of that scheme was due to the involvement of the private sector and the co-operative movement in seeing to it that the scheme was properly administered. Something along those lines is needed in the TB eradication scheme.

There is no point in penalising farmers as they have suffered enough. I appeal to the Minister not to attack the farming community. They should not be the target of attack. Many other people have failed. The farming community have not been the beneficiaries of the TB eradication scheme. There is a lot of work involved in eradicating the disease and, as I have said, the co-operatives have always been willing to undertake that work. The delays in moving reactors and in land leasing should be looked at. I will conclude by welcoming the Minister's document and suggestions and I wish him well.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. V. Brady)

On a point of order, in view of the limited time to debate this motion, I propose the Minister be called at 6.50 p.m. to reply to the points made during the debate.

Mr. O'Kennedy

If it is possible, I would appreciate it.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Wyse)

Is there any objection to the Minister coming in at 6.50 p.m.? Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mrs. Doyle

As health certification is vital to successful marketing, it is selfevident that the eradication of bovine TB is of vital importance to our dairy, meat and cattle trades. Here in Ireland, an insular nation with a temperate climate and with excellent grassland, we have a great natural advantage in the production of cattle. One of the tenets of the Treaty of Rome which particularly appealed to me is that concerning the concentration of production in the areas of greatest natural advantage. I doubt if there is another area within the EC which has a greater natural advantage in the production of cattle than here in Ireland.

The European Community has now a consumer market of 360 million people, all virtually demanding environmentally pure products on their market shelves. It is in all our interests, and especially in the farmers' interests, to achieve bovine TB eradication. We must ensure a full round of testing and if possible a round and a half because a round per year will not be sufficient if we are to get to the acceptable levels of eradication now in other countries. If the only way forward in our disease eradication programme is to proceed on the lines of the motion, we must accept that must be done. I wish we did not have to ask the farmers to dip into their pockets once again, particularly those who have always paid their way and their fair share but I am sure that if the choice was between them not having a round of testing this year or no further progress along the road to eradication or proceeding as we now suggest they would accept the latter option.

The final clearance of bovine TB from the national herd remains one of the most urgent problems facing agriculture. A price cannot be put on the importance of a TB-free status for our herd and, as an agricultural net exporting country, we must strive to achieve this. The tragedy is that we have been messing around for more than 30 years spending millions of pounds and we have not made much progress, if any.

I should like to raise two matters that have not been referred to in the debate. The first concerns the method of reporting incidence or prevalence of TB. In October 1984 when I contributed to a debate on a similar motion I was critical of the Department for reporting incidence figures. The figures given for disease incidence only include the results of the round test and do not take into account any animals that might go down on the pre-movement test, the check test or tests at meat plants. I said it was questionable whether the figure for inconclusive retests was included in the figures for incidence given by the information office of the Department. A false impression of the seriousness of the position could have been given by that method of reporting. I made the point then that all those extra facts and more incidences of TB would be included if the Department of Agriculture issued figures relating to the prevalence of the disease. 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. In other words, all positive reactors should be included in the figure for the prevalence of the disease.

Prevalence is the number of restricted herds as a percentage of the total number of herds in the country while incidence is the number of restricted herds as a percentage of the number of herds tested. I was delighted when the Department changed a year or so ago to reporting our TB problem on prevalence figures, thinking that that was the information we need. However, I can be forgiven for being somewhat cynical when I discovered that prevalence figures were all of a sudden better than incidence figures. Previously the incidence figures had looked better than the prevalence figures. I ask the Minister to forgive me if I questioned whether the figure was up or whether it was another effort to fool most of us and the farming community. It may be a coincidence and it may be that I am being unfair but we switched from incidence to prevalence reporting at a time when we all thought that would be more honest because of the type of testing. All of a sudden the prevalence figure is lower than the incidence figure although the reverse was the position heretofore. I ask the Minister to comment on that and give the House the reason for the change. I hope he has a bona fide reason.

I should like to refer to the serum we use. In October 1984 I pointed out that the veterinery community were using a British avian serum and a Dutch bovine serum or, as it was called, a British top and a Dutch bottom. The whole test is a comparative analysis of the reaction to those injections. The comparative analyses of the reaction was originally worked out using a British top and bottom. In October 1984 I said I was unaware of any research work on the efficacy of the system at the time, a British top and a Dutch bottom. We have changed again and we are now using a Dutch top and a Dutch bottom. For the second time we have changed the type of serum we are using without any comparative analysis being carried out in relation to the efficacy of the serum used. I hope the Minister can assure me that scientific research has been carried out on the type of serum we are using and the comparative analyses therefrom. I do not think it has been carried out.

Various documents have been issued containing a comparison between the position in Northern Ireland and the Republic in relation to TB incidence. Those documents do not state the type of serum the British are using compared with the type of serum the Irish are using. One cannot use comparative figures for comparative analyses unless one is comparing like with like. Unless we get the full details and confirmation that adequate backup research has been carried out on the different types of serum we must question the system we are using now.

The eradication of bovine 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 which is basically what it is. The tuberculin test we use is a good screen test for the herd but it is not sufficiently detailed or accurate to select animals within the herd. We must forget that we are talking about herds that go up or down in the test rather than individual animals. The efficacy of it in relation to the individual has not been proved.

Given tuberculin of 80 per cent sensitivity we could perhaps accept that the test sensitivity as to the status of herds could be up to 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 point of view of the overall herd status but it is not specific in picking up the individual reactors. Over the years it has consistently failed to pick up the TB animals in our herds. I hope some of the levy being imposed will go to research. Deputy Austin Deasy, when Minister for Agriculture, established a research team in the Department and I would like to know the progress they have made and the type of research work they have carried out. We need far more in the area of epidemiology. We must find out how the disease is spread and how we can prevent it in future or if we should continue to test and kill the animals that react without deciding on how to prevent infection in the future in our herds. For more than 30 years, and all the millions of pounds spent on TB eradication, we have spent virtually nothing on research and that stands as an indictment to our seriousness in regard to the eradication of bovine TB.

Mr. Connaughton

As my time is limited I will confine my contribution to a number of important points. Under the previous administration I was a junior Minister in the Department of Agriculture and I had an opportunity of investigating the TB problem countrywide. In my view three factors bedevilled the TB eradication scheme. The first, and the obvious one, was finance. I admit that the financial position will not be any worse now than it was under the previous Government. We should not play politics with this issue because of the importance of the national herd to the country. Politics was played in regard to the shortfall in the expenditure programme of the previous Government and those who stood outside chapel gates last year are aware of that.

Mrs. Doyle

It was a cardinal sin.

Mr. Connaughton

We heard a lot about the damage those cutbacks would do. The Minister should not say too much about that because there are many promises hanging around. I was never satisfied that we knew what caused TB and, having spent four years in the Department, I am still of the view that nobody knows. That is a serious matter and for that reason I hope that work at the research centre is stepped up. If staff are needed for that work they should be hired immediately. When there is a breakdown the official from the DVO is sent out but all he can do is walk around the farm, see about the fencing, the water trough, the badgers and so on. There is always some reason given and most of the time that reason is perfectly in order and sensible. However, we have no background research to tell us what is actually wrong. How can we explain a sudden outbreak of TB in an area where there has been no breakdown for many years and the farmer does not buy in any cattle? Until we come to grips with that problem we will never get rid of the disease, no matter how much money we pump in.

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr. O'Kennedy)

I thank the House for the debate which has been conducted on this very important issue. I also thank every Member who wished me well in my responsibility, particularly in tackling this issue on which there is a very definite consensus which is reflected outside the House as well. While the time allowed for my reply is limited, I assure Deputies that every point made in this excellent debate will be taken on board, but I would ask the indulgence of the House if I do not have time now to refer to all of them.

It is very important to be clear about the fact that we have a large reservoir of disease-free cattle which can be and are certified as such and are traded in international markets as live animals or beef. That is the basis of our very important export trade. That said, our purpose is to eradicate this disease and only the highest and most exacting standards will be acceptable. The House has demanded in this debate that nothing less that the best be achieved and I hope we can get the necessary programme under way.

I want to make a full disclosure to the House of the relevant facts. The total cost this year is £30 million which is broken down as follows: reactor and depopulation grants, £10.1 million; veterinary fees, £13.4 million; travel, £3 million; miscellaneous items, including computer programmes, £1 million; tuberculin, £1.4 million; tags generally, £0.7 million; milk tests for brucellosis; £0.3 million. That accounts for roughly £30 million. Departmental administrative costs amount to another £8 million or £9 million. That puts on the record the breakdown of the costs.

I also want to put some other facts on the record so that we will be able to refer back to them in time and see how successful we have been. There was a certain amount of concern about staffing levels. About 600 people are concerned with bovine TB and about 300 others are concerned with brucellosis. I may have misunderstood Deputy McCoy when he said that veterinary fees in 1986 amounted to £4.5 million. The actual figure is £11 million. The total breakdown of staff in the Department dealing with disease is as follows: TB staff, 395, mostly administrative staff at the district veterinary offices; veterinary officers, 91; agricultural officers, 165; and seven laboratory officers, giving a total of 658. A further 301 people deal with brucellosis, giving a grand total of 959. This represents a very considerable investment in funds and in personnel and we want to maximise that investment.

I acknowledge immediately that the farm organisations have an essential interest in this matter and a legitimate right to be represented in any structure we introduce. I hope the House will understand that in the time available to me I cannot go further than saying that I will consider in great detail all that has been proposed. The success of the eradication programme depends on full and enthusiastic co-operation between the farmers, the vets and my Department, all of whom have a vital input in the total effort. In fostering this co-operation I am prepared to the greatest extent possible to take account of the legitimate interests of all parties, particularly the farmers whose well-being depends on the success of the programme. I hope they will find me open and receptive to ideas aimed at improving the eradication programme. Anything that can be proved to be worthwhile in terms of effectiveness and economy will be acceptable to me. Our trading requirements are at the base of this. The success of our farmers and of those engaged in the food sector, as well as our economy generally, is involved here. For that reason I appreciate the sense of urgency and obligation that has been evident in this debate.

Deputies spoke about success in reducing the level of TB incidence to the point where it was down to one in 300 from one in six, but that is the point at which it becomes most difficult. The dramatic drop occurs in the early stages, as Deputy Connaughton appreciates. We need an end to the stop-go policy, but I will not go back to parish pump or church gate politics. The financial element, research and development and other factors are vitally important. I am trying to maintain the level of finance for this year to ensure a full round. That does not mean I am relying totally on the old ways or using the levies to maintain the old ways. I have had preliminary talks with the IFA and hope to have talks with the other farming organisations very shortly. Over the course of the next few months these will become more searching on this and other issues.

Deputy O'Keeffe mentioned the particular problems of commonage. I would have had the same view, but it appears from the surveys that the incidence of TB in cattle on commonage is sometimes less than the incidence among cattle that are not on commonage.

I am sorry I have not time to deal in detail with the very wide-ranging and informed submissions made to me but I hope my very brief reply to those directly concerned — the veterinary profession and the farmers in particular — will indicate that my mind is open to the urgency of the matter. We have to improve. Even though we may not be satisfied with our standards it is important to conclude by saying that our standards and what we have achieved give us a reservoir of cattle and beef for export slaughter which is acceptable at the highest level of international standards.

Question put and agreed to.