Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for permitting me to raise this matter on the Adjournment. I am glad to see you back and in good form again. I thank the Minister, too, for coming to the House to listen to my contribution. The eradication of bovine TB and brucellosis in this country has cost the Government and the taxpayer very large sums of money over a long number of years. Tonight I want to draw the Minister's attention to the serious financial losses and the trauma that many farming families continue to suffer as a result of anomalies in the compensation scheme.
First, I would ask the Minister to reconsider the situation of individual farmers on low-income dry stock and suckler cow production who find themselves, for the first time in their lives, with over 100 animals on their farm on the day of a TB test. For example, a farmer with 35 suckler cows, 50 young calves and 20 other cattle will not get income supplement if he loses over 10 per cent of his herd, yet he has no other income until he gets three clear tests and can sell cattle some six months later if he or she is fortunate enough to have no other reactors. Compare this with the situation of an intensive dairy farmer who could have up to 99 top class cows with no followers who, if he lost over 10 per cent of his herd, would get income supplement even though he would continue to have income from the yield of up to 88 cows on a monthly basis.
We should be able to use some imagination and use a system of livestock units rather than just animal numbers to rectify this anomaly. Livestock units are used in relation to headage claims and other claims. Why it cannot be used in this case I do not know. This situation must be rectified now. There is a danger that herd owners would be tempted to hold back a few cattle so as to remain under the magic 100 figure.
The above example must not be taken as a suggestion that dairy farmers do not suffer major financial losses in many cases also. As one dairy farmer who has to provide for a young family said to me the other day, when talking about his five year trauma with bovine TB, it is an economic nightmare. He had lost over 30 animals in one year alone. Another young dairy farmer with a milk quota of just over 25,000 gallons found himself losing 22 of his 29 dairy cows. In an independent study of the financial implications of TB on that farm, it is clearly proven that the farmer lost £13,000 after Government compensation was paid. In that study it is stated that six of his cows would have been sold as cull cows to allow for his own replacements and he allowed for £1,700 credit and only bought in 16 replacements. I have the full study here which was published in the "Irish Farmers' Journal" a couple of weeks ago.
The Minister must realise that only a small number of farmers lose over 10 per cent of their herds and they must be looked after. It cannot continue that farmers would only receive £800 in total for good cows which would cost at least £1,300 to replace, and that does not take into account the loss of yield. Compensation for TB and brucellosis should be compared with that for other diseases. For example, a farmer gets the market value of an animal suffering from what is called mad cow disease. People whose animals have contacted TB and brucellosis find it difficult to understand why they cannot get similar compensation.
It is regrettable that negotiations which have been taking place for many years have failed to draw down the £10 million EC aid that was available. That aid has been given to other areas but we must continue to fight for it. If that aid was available it would save the taxpayers and farmers of this country a great deal of money over five years.
