I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak about bovine TB on the day I published, in consultation with farming organisations and the Irish Veterinary Union, what I believe to be most historic changes in the TB scheme for 1996. I hope today will mark a turning point in the history of the TB scheme so that we can look forward to a future in which we can move towards final TB eradication. I hope the Opposition spokes-persons received a copy of the data which we arranged to send to them early today.
Before dealing with the Bill, I propose to address the broader issues of the disease eradication programme and the proposals I outlined to the farming organisations and the Irish Veterinary Union today.
Deputies will be aware that the economy and employment in the agricultural sector rely heavily on exports of livestock and livestock products. Access to export markets is underpinned by our relatively high animal health status and freedom from major animal diseases. Such freedom will continue to be decisive in maintaining our capacity to export as the animal health status is raised elsewhere and as consumers become more discerning.
It is in this context that we operate a number of measures to prevent the introduction of new diseases and to control, reduce and eradicate diseases in cattle. The most important measures in terms of human and financial resources are the TB and brucellosis programmes. It is important for perspective to realise that significant progress has been made in reducing the levels of these diseases. Currently over 90 per cent of the cattle population of seven million animals in the national herd are clear of TB while 99.9 per cent of cattle herds are brucellosis free. Thus the problem we have is with residual levels of infection which are proving notoriously difficult to reduce. Under current trading rules, it continues to be necessary to operate annual programmes for these diseases which are both costly to farmers and taxpayers and which cause particular difficulties and hardship for some farmers whose herds break down.
Since 1954, when the compulsory TB eradication scheme was introduced, total expenditure on both schemes is in excess of a billion pounds. The current annual cost of the schemes is almost £67 million of which about £20 million is spent under each of the headings, testing, compensation and administration with the balance on operational aspects. Since disease levies were introduced, farmers have contributed about £285 million while some £16 million has been received from the EU Veterinary Fund. Most of the EU funding received relates to the brucellosis scheme rather than the TB scheme for which we have received minimal EU funding to date.
Notwithstanding this major expenditure, it has not, unfortunately, been possible to make progress in reducing the residual level of TB in the past 20 years. While the country was declared officially brucellosis free in 1986, and notwithstanding various intensive programmes in recent years, there are a number of areas where there is still some infection and over 400 herds were restricted in 1994. Accordingly, it continues to be necessary to implement arrangements aimed at the total eradication of brucellosis using blood testing, milk ring analysis and other technology.
As regards TB, Deputies will be aware that under ERAD, an intensive testing programme was undertaken under a four year programme aimed at reducing the incidence by 50 per cent. The main conclusion to be drawn from that experience is that eradication is more difficult than had been envisaged. Indeed, the consensus now is that while some progress can be made, final eradication will be possible only when new diagnostic tests, vaccines for wildlife and movement control arrangements are in place. Pending the development of these to practical field application level, the emphasis must be to contain and reduce the disease and costs of programmes.
The House will be aware that on assuming office. I was faced with a situation under which EU funding had been approved for the 1995 TB programme. That programme provided for the rotation of testing between practices over three years. We sought to secure the agreement of the IVU for this programme in negotiations which continued over 15 months. Despite an offer to increase testing fees by 23 per cent over three years, the IVU rejected rotation following a ballot. It was incumbent on me to seek to draw down EU funding for a variety or reasons. We have received minimal EU funding for the TB programme over the years; because of IVU and farmer difficulties with aspects of the proposed programmes we failed to secure potential EU funding of about £10 million for three years which was agreed in 1991 and also to secure potential funding of £20 million a year over three years from 1993.
Implementation of the various approved programmes would have demonstrated to our EU partners our willingness to implement agreed programmes aimed at combating TB; secure EU funding which would have relieved some of the burden on farmers and taxpayers; and opened the way for continued support for our programmes.
For these reasons, and notwithstanding the IVU position, I sought to implement rotation of testing in phase three of the 1995 round. That effort was resisted and obstructed by the IVU. While this has resulted in the level of rotation achieved being at a lower level than we would wish, the position is that some additional rotation has been achieved. On this basis, we would hope to secure funding for the 1995 programme and we will seek further funding for the revised programme from 1996 onwards.
Nevertheless, the difficulty in securing EU funding for future programmes should not be underestimated. The Commission has made it very clear to us that it will not support the allocation of Community funding for a continuation of the status quo. Therefore, to receive funding, we will have to convince the Commission and the 14 other member states that we are making real changes, that the measures we are proposing will be at least as worthwile as those included in the 1995 scheme and that we can implement revised measures — all of this against the background of our repeated failures to implement a number of earlier approved programmes. It will be of benefit that we sought to introduce changes in 1995 when we seek EU funding in later years.
From an early stage, I made it clear to all concerned that in the event that it proved impossible to implement the approved programme for TB, the continuation of the status quo— involving on-going and escalating costs for farmers and taxpayers — was not an option. Realistically, in view of the IVU stance we could not continue to seek to implement rotation in 1996 as this would result in large-scale and unacceptable disruption of the testing programme and the cattle industry generally. Consequently, earlier this year I set about reviewing the measures that should be operated from 1996 and which would improve the effectiveness of the measures while at the same time moderating their overall costs. This review was undertaken in consultation with the farming organisations which, together with the Government, provide the funding for the schemes. At this stage. I pay tribute to the farming organisations for the constructive approach they adopted and the assistance they have given in developing the measures I have outlined today.
The main elements of the new regime I announced include the following: the continuation of orderly annual testing of the national herds and other testing designed to meet our obligations under EU rules so as to maintain our trading status; follow-up and focused strategic testing; a quality control programme; a comprehensive programme aimed at expediting derestriction of some herds in certain circumstances; a comprehensive research programme aimed at curtailing TB spread by wildlife; improved epidemiology and feedback to farmers who have serious disease outbreaks in their herds; and continuation of research on developing blood tests, vaccines and other technological tools required to improve the effectiveness of the programmes.
The revised arrangements involve a partnership approach to implementing and overseeing the operation of the new arrangements at national and local levels. Farmers will have greater direct involvement and responsibility under revised and more effective measures. In particular, farmers will choose practitioners to carry out the first tests on herds each year and negotiate and pay practitioners for such work; assist the Department in research work into disease spread by wildlife; and have responsibility for protecting their own herds and in particular for deciding whether to buy in cattle which have been tested before movement and whether to test them after purchase.
Coupled with the revised operational arrangements, I have proposed an intensification of control measures, a more focused approach to tackling infection, continuation of research and a rearrangement of the financing of the operational aspects of the schemes. As already mentioned. I am proposing that farmers would engage and pay practitioners directly for the first tests on their herds each year; as these costs were borne heretofore from central funds to which farmers contributed, the disease levies would be reduced to about £10 million a year for the first year. Thereafter, compensation and the operational costs would be shared by the Exchequer and farmers on a 2:1 ratio. Under the present funding arrangements, farmers pay some £28 million a year under disease levies. In overall terms, total costs to be borne by farmers would be reduced substantially for the compulsory aspects while some savings will also accrue from the discontinuation of the 60 day compulsory pre-movement testing requirement for internal movement. Apart from a reduction in overall costs, there will also be a more equitable burden-sharing of costs between farmers. Under the levy arrangements, costs are borne by farmers who supply milk, who finish cattle and whose cattle are exported live. Under the new regime, all farmers will contribute towards the costs of the measures.
I outlined these proposals to the farming organisations and the Irish Veterinary Union today. I have asked the organisations to let me have their reactions, if possible within the next two weeks so that hopefully we can proceed within a short time with the adoption of the necessary legal changes to underpin and support the new regime. The proposals I outlined represent the best course of action to be pursued over the next few years pending the development of more effective technologies to tackle eradication of TB. The proposed measures are the most effective we can implement at present and, moreover, they will contribute significantly to moderating the overall costs of the programme for the Exchequer and farmers.
The measures involve a more coherent and strategic approach where efforts will be better concentrated on real infection, laboratory and epidemiological considerations will be more widely used to assist with the more rapid derestriction of some herds and all sources of transmission will be tackled. In addition, I believe that farmers will welcome the additional involvement and responsibilities which I am proposing and that they will act responsibly under the new regime.
I also hope that the Veterinary Union will co-operate fully with the new regime. The union had very strongly and vehemently opposed the principle of structured rotation on the grounds that this would involve testing of non-client herds and, in particular, it could tend to undermine the practice structure. As the new measures envisage that farmers will choose practitioners, this source of difficulty has been addressed. There will, of course, be enhanced and structured measures to oversee the quality of the regime.
The main objective of the Bill is to provide a legal basis for the payment of disease levies on cattle exported direct to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Forestry rather than as heretofore to the Revenue Commissioners who acted as agents for him. The Bill also proposes to increase fines from the levels fixed some time ago and includes a number of other technical adjustments to improve the effectiveness of the collection service.
The bovine disease levies which were introduced in 1979 under the Bovine Disease (Levies) Act required the farming community to make a financial contribution to the cost of the disease eradication programmes. Under this Act, inter alia, a levy was imposed on all cattle slaughtered in the State, on all live exports and on each gallon of milk delivered for processing. The current rates of levy are £7.30 on each animal slaughtered or exported live and 1.3p on each gallon of milk delivered. The cost of the programmes is some £67 million and farmers contribute £28 million annually by way of levies towards the costs other than those relating to administration. The Exchequer carries the balance and the cost of administration, the cost of the latter being in excess of £20 million.
Under the Bovine Disease (Levies) Act, 1979, responsibility for the collection of levies was given to the Revenue Commissioners in respect of live exports. On the completion of the Single European Market, most Revenue personnel were withdrawn from the export points and alternative administrative arrangements were put in place to collect levies on live exports. The proposed amendments do not involve any extension of the levy arrangements or any change in the rates of levy. Instead they are essentially of a technical nature and provide for a proper legal basis for the payment of levies on live exports by exporters to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry rather than to the Revenue Commissioners who under the 1979 Act were appointed as his agents. Nevertheless, I expect that I will be seeking the approval of the House for reductions in the rates of levy when the revised arrangements to which I have adverted have been agreed. However, such reductions can be made by way of regulations under the 1979 Act which have to be approved by both Houses.
A number of technical adjustments are also proposed to improve the supervision and inspection of the levy system. In particular, it is proposed to extend the definition of an accountable person to include a person by whom or on whose behalf an animal is being exported from the State, to remove the exemption in regard to the keeping of records by a person by whom or on whose behalf an animal is being exported and to provide for the inspection and removal of such records by an authorised officer of the Minister.
Provision is also made for increased maximum fines on summary conviction for offences under the disease levies legislation from £500 to £1,500.
I am also taking this opportunity to increase the maximum fines in respect of certain offences under sections 48 and 49 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966. These fines were last increased from August 1979 under section 23 of the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Act, 1979. The proposed increases are from £500 to £1,500 in respect of a summary conviction, from £2,000 to £10,000 in respect of a conviction on indictment for specified offences and from £1,000 to £5,000 for other indictable offences.
I was very pleased with the cordial, constructive and positive nature of my discussions with the IFA, the ICMSA, ICOS, Macra na Feirme and the IVU today. Without pre-empting their decisions, it was generally recognised that my proposals represent the most radical restructuring and overhaul of the TB scheme in the past 40 years. The proposal to reduce the levies on beef animals from £7.30 to £2.50 and to reduce the levies on a gallon of milk from 1.3p to a half penny will mean an immediate net saving to farmers of £4 million. In addition it is proposed to abolish pre-movement compulsory testing which presently costs farmers approximately £4 million. These measures are indicative of a new thrust in the scheme where farmers will have to take responsibility for TB in their herds in the same way as they would in case of other clinical diseases such as mastitis or BSE.
Instead of dealing with a monolithic scheme, State bureaucracy, red tape, inspectorates and testing restrictions, farmers will have to make sure they do not bring the disease into their herds. That is the shift I am seeking to bring about. At the same time I am seeking to decentralise the public sector pay and negotiation aspect of the scheme into the private sector so that farmers will have the same relationship with their vets as they have with their accountants, solicitors and merchants. We now have a great opportunity to modernise veterinary practices and I believe farmers and others will agree that this is the only logical way to proceed.
On the effectiveness side, I have taken stern action on wildlife. In future there will be farmer participation where licences are obtained and multiple licences will be granted. I wish to pay tribute to the Office of Public Works for its assistance in the bilateral talks and for ensuring that the projects in east Offaly will be extended to other areas.
On the question of non-specific infections, these are single reactors in individual herds. I am aware that some farmers were not able to trade for a year because of a false positive test. In future such farmers will be able to trade following one clear test where the disease pattern and history facilitate such a change.
These changes have not been easy to achieve. I wish to say a profuse thank you to my officials who worked intensively over the past four months and put forward what I regard as acceptable proposals. It is almost impossible to get two people at a meeting on TB to agree but the measures proposed provide a basis on which to deal with this problem over the next three years, starting on 1 February next year. It is also proposed to establish a mobile quality control unit which will move into black spot areas and carry out targeted quality testing in a focused way. I appeal to all interested parties to engage in earnest dialogue with my officials over the next two weeks. I am determined to proceed with the scheme and a decision is required by Christmas. I hope Opposition Deputies to whom I furnished data earlier today will have time to reflect on these proposals. I will be happy to provide them with briefing material on any of the complex issues.
This debate gives us a timely opportunity to address the fundamental reorganisation of the entire scheme. I commend the Bill to the House.
