Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Nov 1995

Vol. 458 No. 7

Bovine Diseases (Levies) (Amendment) Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "that the Bill be now read a Second Time".

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this measure. It is the first radical approach to the disease eradication programme which has been in operation since the mid-1950s and subject to much criticism in the sense that great emphasis has been placed on its lack of achievement — less emphasis has been placed on its achievements. When the eradication programme was first instituted in 1954 the incidence of bovine tuberculosis was prevalent in about 25 per cent of herds, with a greater percentage in terms of the total number of live cattle at that time. Since then the incidence of disease has been reduced to about 3 per cent of herds and about 1 per cent of all bovine animals, which is a great achievement. The problem is that, notwithstanding the establishment of ERAD in the mid-1980s and the introduction of other measures, we have not succeeded in reducing the incidence of disease in a significant way in the last ten years. Obviously there are many reasons for that. As is true of the human population, there is probably a residual level of tuberculosis in the herd that may never be eradicated.

Many opportunities have been missed in recent years. I wish to respond to remarks by the Opposition spokes-person, Deputy Cowen, yesterday. He implied that rotational testing was not acted upon quickly by the Minister, but that is not true. The programme of rotational testing, introduced with EU assistance, was negotiated by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Joe Walsh. Almost two years ago agreement was reached with the EU by which it would transfer significant funding to Ireland for the bovine disease eradication programme. It was the responsibility of the then Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to implement that programme, but bereft of ideas and courage, he failed to do so. He got bogged down in the row with farming organisations and particularly the veterinary organisation and did not proceed with the programme, thereby costing the country a substantial sum of money.

In 1991 the EU promised funding for a three year programme to eradicate bovine tuberculosis, but those funds were not drawn down. If they had it would have saved the farming community and taxpayers several million pounds — the Minister referred to these figures in his speech and it is important to outline them again. He stated: "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." None of the programmes has been implemented. The loss to the country by inaction is evident from these figures. It is, therefore, unacceptable for the Opposition spokes-person to come into the House and level criticisms at the Minister for lack of action.

As a farmer and Deputy who represents what is by and large an agricultural constituency — agriculture is the greatest economic activity in the constituency — I congratulate the Minister on his actions in this area. One of the major sources of irritation for the farming community is the disease eradication programme. It is irritating in its implementation and, of course, its failure to achieve its objective. However, the Minister has tackled the problem head-on with these measures and I compliment him for that.

Let us look at what the Minister proposes to do. He proposes that the payment for annual herd testing should be devolved from the taxpayer directly to farmers. That is good news for farmers. Taxpayers have been angry about this for many years and there has been a great deal of media publicity, much of it unfair. The publicity focused on what the taxpayer was contributing to the bovine TB eradication programme but there was no focus on the level of contribution by farmers, which was first introduced in 1979. Last year it was about £28 million. This contribution is composed of levies deducted at all points of sale from farmers, whether they sell milk or animals at a mart or to a meat factory for slaughter.

The new procedures will reduce farmers' levies from 1.3p per gallon on milk delivered to creameries to 0.5p per gallon and on cattle disposed of through marts or factories from about £7.30 per head to £2.50 per head on smaller animals. This amounts to a reduction of £18 million per year in farmer contributions. When the cost to farmers of paying their local vet for the annual round is taken into account the net saving will be £4 million. Farmers will now have to pay their local veterinarian for the first round test. Any further tests where disease is shown to be present will be paid for by the Department. This is an important step forward. Farmers can now negotiate the cost of the annual test directly with their local veterinarian. It will introduce a market into that professional area. Farming organisations and individual farmers will be able to negotiate price scales and professional fees for carrying out these tests with individual vets or the Irish Veterinary Union. Heretofore, the Department paid vets certain fees by agreement and it proved to be very costly. The introduction of an open market in this area is bound to have a beneficial effect and I welcome that.

Another major improvement is the abolition of compulsory 60-day pre-movement tests for animals traded or sold within this country. These tests have been a source of great irritation to farmers. The principle behind the tests was good in that it attempted to identify animals which might be diseased being transferred or sold from one herd to another and thus prevent the spread of infection. The number of animals identified as being TB infected by the 60-day pre-movement test has been minimal. Over the years the disease has been identified in only a few thousand cattle even though millions of cattle have been put through the test. I am delighted the Minister has abolished the compulsory element.

Of course, it will be right for prudent and careful farmers to insist in some cases that the animals they buy are tested and to test animals they have taken into their herds to ensure they are free of disease. The Minister has given an incentive in this regard which I welcome. Farmers who have insisted on pre-movement testing or testing after movement has taken place will be paid a greater level of compensation where a reactor shows up because they have gone through that procedure. It is appropriate that such an incentive be given because it is necessary to ensure that the small percentage of reactors identified in blanket 60-day pre-movement testing should, as far as possible, be detected before they might cause further infection in another herd.

Another cause of irritation for farmers is non-specific infection in herds. That happens when, after a test on a farm, an animal is found to be a reactor with no specific reason why that should be so. The tuberculin test is not perfect; it probably has a margin of error — although there is debate about this — of 10 or 15 per cent. In other words, when the animal is given the tuberculin injection it might produce a reaction which manifests itself as a lump on the animal's neck and which might suggest that it is a tuberculin reaction. In many cases, however, it is not. In up to 15 per cent of cases it has nothing to do with bovine TB. Nevertheless, it is a clinical reaction and that is taken by the Department, because of the way its regulations are implemented, to mean that the animal is a TB reactor and must be taken out of the herd and slaughtered.

It is bad enough for a farmer who believes he has a clean herd to lose a valuable animal — the level of compensation always represents a loss — but the greatest scourge is the fact that no animals from that farm can be disposed of except by permit to a meat factory. That is still an option for a minority of small farmers but most small farmers do not raise finished animals but sell them on through marts or transactions with other farmers or dealers. That means that their herds are locked up for at least two 60-day test periods. If farmers do not have finished animals they have to refrain from all sales and that imposes great hardship on them.

The Minister has said that additional scientific methods, including laboratory analysis and epidemiological considerations, will be used by the Department in order to reduce the sales restriction period for some herds which have a single reactor with non-specific infection. Thousands of farmers will welcome the Minister's statement. There are about 5,000 herds with what is called singleton infection, that is, a single reactor showing in an annual test. It is estimated that at least 2,000 of these herds could be released from sales restriction after the first 60-day period. The Minister has not made a specific statement about that and I accept that it would be difficult for him to do so. The IFA has been more specific: "Furthermore all cattle herds with proven non-specific TB infection will be de-restricted after passing one TB clear test. This will alleviate unnecessary hardship". The IFA is right in its comment but it might not be accurate to say that in all cases of singleton infection the restriction can be confined to a 60-day test period. Although the Minister has to negotiate with the European Union about this matter, I urge him to do as much as he can to ensure that the greatest possible proportion of these so-called singleton herds are restricted for only one period of 60 days after a reactor has been detected.

I want to refer to some of the hardships suffered by farmers who have a disease outbreak in their herd, farmers who do not produce finished animals and must dispose of their beef animals in the marts or by some system other than slaughtering. It is not so bad if store cattle producers in the west suffer a disease outbreak in their herd in the spring as they will have approximately 120 days of reasonable grass growth, even though they may plan to sell many of their animals between March and August. Such a disease outbreak may not be so devastating if it occurs at the beginning of the growing season, but picture the awful dilemma of a store cattle farmer when a disease outbreak is detected in his herd at this time of the year or a little earlier on the eve of his intended autumn sale. He must lock up his animals and his forage and feed become exhausted with the approach of the end of the growing season. His level of forage would be the normal level he would have saved for the winter, be it hay or silage. He may have to lock up his animals from, say, September to March, crucial months in terms of feeding his animals from non-growing forage. Proper recognition has not been taken of the enormous hardship and financial cost and ruin which such a disease outbreak has caused to many farmers.

While compensation was provided for animals taken out of a herd, it only amounted to approximately 80 per cent of the economic cost of an animal. Meat factories purchase such animals from farmers at a greatly reduced price. The payment made by meat factories to farmers for reactor animals should be a subject of lengthy debate. We often wonder what happens to them after they are slaughtered in the factory. Are they put into intervention? The findings of the beef tribunal revealed they were. Are such animals used for tanning purposes, as is usually expected, or are they passed to the fresh meat retail industry for vacuum packing and so on? We do not know if that is the case. There should be more transparency in that area.

Following the sale of such animals for approximately 60 per cent of their economic value, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry paid some compensation to farmers, but that accounted for only 20 or 25 per cent of the cost of the animal. It is important that the question of compensation be examined, particularly in cases where farmers suffer hardship. It is not unreasonable to expect that such farmers should be paid the economic cost of their animals. In the light of this important change in the procedures governing disease eradication, on which we congratulate the Minister, it is important that this area be closely examined.

There are hundreds of cases of disputes over disease eradication between farmers and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, some of which have wound up in the courts. There are rights and wrongs on both sides of these disputes. We hear of dozens of such cases in our constituencies which are intractable because district veterinary officers and the Department take up a position and as a matter of principle farmers take up another position. The parties often wind up in court and farmers may be restricted in their sales. I ask the Minister to examine those cases in the light of the changes he is making and to try to do everything possible to achieve a compromise settlement. These procedures mark a new beginning and the Minister's officials should examine all these cases to ascertain what can be achieved by means of negotiations and compromise rather than conflict in court.

This is a small Bill which deals with one or two relatively minor technical points, such as substituting the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry as being the person to collect disease levies on live cattle exports, instead of the Revenue Commissioners, because of the advent of the Single Market. It also deals with increases in the level of some fines. These matters are not of great importance. The Bill provides an opportunity to discuss the broader question of animal and, in particular, bovine diseases.

Last night the Minister said that he had given Opposition spokespersons a copy of the data on the new bovine TB programme he announced yesterday. Unfortunately he did not do that. As I have not got it nor have I been able to get it, I cannot speak on the detail of the matter. I could not get that data this morning as neither the Minister, the Minister of State nor an official of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is present. I have been a Member of the House for 28 years and I have never seen a Bill debated in the absence of the Minister, the Minister of State or an official of the Department concerned. I put this down to an oversight or a mistake and take it that it is not a deliberate snub. If this were to become the norm, it would be impossible to carry on business here. To some extent I feel I am wasting my time, as was Deputy Connor, as I am speaking largely to fresh air in the absence of anybody.

There is some minor significance in the increase in fines, particularly the increase in the fine on summary conviction to a sum of £1,500. This is the first time I can recall any Bill in which a fine in excess of £1,000 was allowed. I recall successive Attorneys General advising that a fine above £1,000 could be regarded as too severe and it would be unconstitutional to have it imposed by the District Court. I could not see the point in that because that court had power to imprison people for 12 months, a sanction which is a good deal more severe than a £1,000 fine. I am glad the limit has been breached and hope it may be increased because it is ridiculous that the jurisdiction of the District Court is confined to such low figures.

On the broader issues of bovine disease, particularly tuberculosis, I remind the House that ten or more years ago the then Senator Ken Whitaker, who had previously been Secretary of the Department of Finance for a long time and if I recall correctly was nominated to the Seanad by Jack Lynch, made a speech on bovine TB and the State's efforts to eradicate it. He said that in his experience it was the greatest financial scandal in the history of the State and that a larger sum had gone down the drain to no avail for that purpose than any other he could recall. He said that approximately ten years ago, but unfortunately the position has not changed. What he said then was true and a further ten years have passed during which more money has gone down the drain, substantial amounts of Exchequer money and farmers' money.

The total expenditure is in excess of £1 billion, yet this country is still seriously affected with bovine TB. The Minister set out the position in his speech when he said:

Notwithstanding this major expenditure, it has not, unfortunately, been possible to make progress in reducing the residual level of TB over the past 20 years.

In other words we are, today, exactly where we were 20 years ago, notwithstanding huge expenditure. That is deplorable and regrettable and I think a major change is needed in our approach to this scheme.

The Minister did not send me details of his announcement yesterday. I hope he will see fit to send me those details.

I have not obtained those details. Any change must be one for the better. In that sense I welcome what is proposed as an improvement on what existed but I cannot give a final judgment on it until I see the details and get advice from those who understand how these things work in practice. Often they work in practice somewhat differently from what is set out on paper.

I wish to make some observations about the bovine TB scheme. It seems that over the past 41 years of its existence it is an example of a considerable restrictive practice, inasmuch as all the testing was done by qualified veterinary surgeons. I do not know the need for that. That work could be done by technicians after completing a training course that would take, perhaps, a couple of months. It is curious that in order to test a bovine animal it is necessary to have a highly qualified veterinary surgeon but in order to test a human being for the same condition, somebody with no medical qualifications can carry out the test. I wonder why our cattle are so precious that they need such extraordinarily highly qualified people to go near them and that the average lay person or technician cannot approach them. The amount of money wasted by that in contrast with other countries where this type of work is carried out by people of an appropriate level of skill amazes me. It has been a huge loss to this country that we have had and maintained over 40 years this extraordinary restrictive practice.

The other question we should ask ourselves in regard to bovine TB in the Republic is why the incidence is so much worse than in Northern Ireland where all the factors, the land, climate, geography, breeds of cattle and feed are roughly the same as they are here. There is no significant difference and still the incidence there is very much lower, the reason being that the regulations are much tighter. The big difference I see as a layman, looking at it from the outside and listening to some of the people involved, is that the movement of cattle down here is much freer and more frequent than in Northern Ireland. We have here an extraordinary tradition of moving cattle all over the country, not so much cows or dairy cattle but beef cattle. It is estimated that many cattle move six or seven times in their short lives. That seems unnecessary and it should be discouraged. It happens because it is traditional but is very dangerous because in that movement the disease is spread.

The other factor that strikes me as a big difference between here and the North, and between here and other countries, is that we still have — or certainly had up until recently — a primitive manual form of checking on cattle and of keeping records of cattle, known as blue cards. They may have a different colour now, but it is essentially the same idea. It is beyond me that cattle, their numbers and identification particulars cannot be computerised so that any beast turning up anywhere in the country can be checked instantly. The reason we have to retain this primitive system where farmers, vets, factories and so on have to handle manually large numbers of cards which are open to being interfered with from time to time is beyond me. It contributes greatly to the unnecessarily high incidence of disease here.

We are fortunate, notwithstanding our poor disease record — at least so far as bovine TB is concerned — that the European Union has not imposed much heavier restrictions on the export of cattle and meat from here. The Minister, and others, have complained that we only get minimal funding from the EU in respect of our bovine TB eradication schemes. In his contribution last evening he went into some detail on the reason this is so and how relatively little we got. He said:

We have received minimal EU funding for the TB programme over the years; because of IVU [Irish Veterinary Union] 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.

The Minister said that had those programmes been implemented various benefits would have followed. The loss of this money, which is bemoaned by many people as being a major aspect of the tragedy, is a less important aspect of it; the major aspect of it is that the EU is so fed up with our continued, persistent and deliberate failure over many years in regard to bovine TB that it will not contribute to it because it does not think any genuine effort is being made here. Frankly, I think the EU is right. No genuine effort is being made. It may be, I cannot say, that a new leaf was turned over yesterday on paper. It is something new but whether it will work and be enforced, in spite of opposition from various vested interests, remains to be seen. It is one thing for a Minister to make these announcements but I notice that this implementation of it is contingent on his getting agreement from all the various interests involved. I do not know whether he will get agreement. What is needed is the enforcement of regulations, whether there is agreement or not. We could look to Northern Ireland and other countries to see how and why things have worked so much better there than here.

While it is unthinkable here that trained technicians could and should carry out this work the Minister should look at if he is serious about the clearance of this disease. In spite of the many hundreds of millions of pounds spent in the past 20 years, the Minister admitted last night we are in exactly the same position we were in 20 years ago. That will have to be changed.

Placing responsibility on farmers for the first test is probably a good move. The levies will be reduced as a result and there will be a net saving to the farmer. One of the weaknesses in what is now proposed is that the pre-movement test is being abolished. Instead of cutting down on the excessive level of movement, it will exacerbate it and may encourage unnecessary movement of cattle simply because it has been traditional.

We cannot afford our current level of diseases, particularly TB and it is disappointing that we continue to have some cases of brucellosis. That disease has not been fully rooted out and it is frightening for us, as a beef producing nation, that BSE is continuing unabated in Britain. I read an article recently which implied there was great improvement in the control of the disease in Britain because cases were down to a few hundred per week. That is absolutely shocking. The effect that has had on the consumption of European beef is serious and long-term. Many people have given up consuming meat, particularly beef, due to the prevalence of BSE and if and when it is eliminated in Britain, many will not revert to the consumption of beef. Obviously that is deeply regrettable.

The rather lackadaisical way in which the British Government and Department of Agriculture approaches the problem of BSE has many similarities with the equally lackadaisical way in which Irish Governments and our Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry approaches the problem of bovine tuberculosis.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the proposed changes in the TB eradication scheme. We all welcome certain aspects of the Bill but serious difficulties may arise from it as far as the future of disease eradication is concerned. I accept that any savings will be welcomed by the farming community but a number of the proposals highlighted in the Minister's contribution last night need clarification.

Under the new proposals, the annual test will remain. Farmers have adhered to that through the years and enjoyed the benefits of it in terms of their livelihood. However, the annual test will now be the responsibility of the farmer. That will lead to "yellow pack" veterinary practices in that veterinary surgeons will do TB testing only and will not be available to farmers for routine veterinary work. As a result of this proposal, we may see the Monday to Friday veterinary surgeon emerging, a vet who will not be available after 5 p.m. or before 9 a.m. for routine veterinary work. It would not be acceptable if veterinary surgeons specifically concentrated on testing to the detriment of ordinary animal welfare.

We must also examine the costs involved in this proposal. While costs may be saved in levies to farmers, small farmers will get the worst end of the stick. They will be required to pay the standard call-out charge to a veterinary surgeon for doing the annual test, in addition to whatever the rate per head may be. Farmers who have a couple of hundred cattle will pay the same call-out fee. That is not appropriate. The annual test should remain in the control of the Department because it would result in better co-ordination and control.

Deputy Connor mentioned that the number of cases found on pre-movement tests was small. When the Minister answers the question I have put down for written reply next week he will find that the number of reactors identified is quite alarming.

The free movement of cattle which have been tested in the previous 12 months will mean that two years could pass before an animal has a tuberculin test. For example, if I test my herd in January and sell the following December to somebody whose cattle had been tested the previous month, those animals would not be due their annual test until the end of the following year. It could be two years before they are tested without any rule being broken. In addition, the system could leave open the possibility of spreading disease, and that is serious.

The Minister may have abolished the pre-movement test but farmers will not buy untested animals unless they are buying cull cows to graze which would be of no consequence. Farmers will not take the risk of accepting untested cattle into their herd and then retesting them because of the danger of quarantine.

Compassion has been mentioned in that regard but the onus is now being taken away with respect to proper control.

A comprehensive research programme aimed at curtailing TB being spread by wildlife is to be welcomed. I am glad the Minister has persuaded his colleague with responsibility for the Office of Public Works to agree with the views of farmers on the removal of badger setts because of the TB problems badgers cause. That move will be welcomed by everybody.

Funding must be made available for further research on ways to eliminate the scourge of TB. In the past 40 years, approximately £1.5 billion has been spent on trying to eradicate TB and while some progress was made, we are now bogged down. I do not believe that these proposals will result in the elimination of TB from the national herd. Perhaps the total removal of the disease is but a pipe-dream though the implementation of proper controls for a specified period would alleviate much of the hardship caused.

There is a sting in this proposal also — the Minister having referred to the right to choose practitioners — whereas a farmer always has had the right to change his vet if and when he wished and exercised that right on many occasions.

With regard to the development of blood tests and vaccines, I am opposed to any anti-TB vaccine being imported because other vaccines, such as antifoot-and-mouth, will destroy our herd status on selling to other markets. I am opposed to the implementation of any vaccine programme for the reason that one would end up in the same position with regard to animals imported to our dairy herd, many of which cannot be reexported when put through the meat chain. We need to be very careful about even contemplating the importation of such vaccines.

The Department will always have the help of 99.99 per cent of farmers in the eradication of disease, the very small minority who do not have respect for themselves or others are pushed to one side by those totally committed to the disease eradication programme implemented over many years. Farmers have a responsibility to protect their herds and any that do not are fools. As a farmer, I will not allow any animal on my farm that has not been tested and, if female, blood-tested for the obvious reason that I could not afford the loss of income consequent on any subsequent outbreak and/or my subsequent inability to trade normally.

I should like the Minister to explain where farmers will stand if it is found that untested cattle come on their farm and disease is detected only after an "on farm" purchase. Will the Minister immediately clarify the specified period within which a farmer must test such animals without having a penalty imposed with regard to any compensation entitlement?

Any farmer attempting to sell cattle without a test will totally limit his customer base as the number of people prepared to purchase untested cattle is minimal, especially in the west where approximately 30 per cent of the cattle are exported to Northern Ireland or, at this time of year, weanlings are sent to Europe. Those farmers who do not have animals tested will be penalised much more in cash terms than on actual sale price.

The Minister said:

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.

That carries no guarantee of any net saving to the farmer, the veterinary surgeon has to be paid anyway, which means the farmer must pay him directly rather than the Department paying the farmer when he submits the results of his testing; that is the bottom line. This means the only saving will be effected at the last point of movement when the disease levies are cut.

Which is a big one.

Yes, but it also means that farmers who, heretofore, were not responsible for dealing with vets with regard to testing will now have to deal with them. As I predicted earlier, this will lead to the "yellow pack" vet——

——or paying for private tests.

Yes, and farmers have been quite willing to pay for them, but they will have to continue to pay because they will be unable to make full use of the marketplace without having had their animals fully tested.

Here we come to the big sting, as the Minister said: "Thereafter, compensaton and the operational costs would be shared by the Exchequer and farmers on a 2:1 ratio." Does that refer to compensation or to the cost of testing of herds that are locked up? If it means that compensation will have to be shared on a ratio of 2:1, farmers will have to insure against any loss resulting from an outbreak of TB which will diminish any initial gain. That needs to be clarified for farmers and everybody else in the run-up to Christmas.

It is approximately 16 years this month since the pre-movement test was introduced, which has done a certain amount of good, but its continuation would have been more appropriate — although some people might say my constituents would not agree — you often have to be cruel to be kind. No farmer wants disease on his farm unknown to him and nobody wants to buy diseased animals. These proposals will prove to be a recipe for farmers buying disease into their herds.

Farmers will and have always contributed directly or indirectly to the disease eradication programme but want circumstances to evolve in which they will be able to trade with the minimum of problems and participate in a scheme in which they have full confidence. I cannot agree with Deputy O'Malley when he said this work should be taken from veterinary surgeons because if that happened ultimately there would be a veterinary surgeon in every county and the income they could earn from ordinary farm work would be minimal. At present, the Minister appears to be endeavouring to apply the carrot and stick approach, sending in professionals — as he classes them — to inspect meat plants, thus putting pressure on vets with the inherent implication that that work could be undertaken by others. This proposal warrants serious consideration, bearing in mind our worldwide animal health status reputation it is up to us to protect it and the responsibility of farmers and Governments, of whatever hue, to protect.

The proposed programme will need fine-tuning and examination before implementation, to detect its pitfalls, to see whether it will involve an overall saving for farmers, as from now on they will be responsible for paying for testing whereas they had already been paying directly through the disease levy. The only possible benefit may be for those who wish to dispose of certain types of stock who will be able to sell them without having been tested, mainly cull cows or cattle ready for slaughter.

From what the Minister said, the potential loopholes outweigh the benefits. We all have a duty to try to eliminate the incidence of TB from our national herd but the rescinding of pre-movement testing, or on movement of animals into farms, could be extremely dangerous. There is no guarantee that a reactor could not be moved almost continuously over a two year period without being detected by the system whereas, under the old pre-movement system, when moved after 60 days they had to be tested when almost certainly any element of disease would have been detected.

Like Deputy Cowen, I would prefer to reserve judgement until we have had an opportunity to peruse the full text of what is proposed. It appears good, the public relations exercise was good; the Minister's public relations machine probably is the best ministerial one we have witnessed for a very long time— for which he deserves admiration — but the need for a full assessment of the pros and cons, a total analysis of what will be most beneficial to our national herd and farmers in general will not be undertaken within the timescale outlined by the Minister last evening or within the additional documentation made available. This is much more serious than people realise. There will be free movement of cattle, uncontrolled up to a point, that could run to two years. That could be very dangerous. I have no case to make regarding testing; that has to be negotiated. However, I could suggest a number of ways of rationalising internal operations in the Department. When 33.3 per cent of the funding for any scheme is spent on administration it is time for a reassessment.

I will reserve judgment on the Minister's proposals, but he would be well advised to take a long hard look before implementing them to see how control can be exercised when there is open trading. Although the Minister might say that pre-movement tests will not be required when sales take place, 75 per cent of cattle exposed for sale will still need to be tested either at the time of sale or on entering herds. There is a need for clarification on how herds that break down as a result of purchases are to be dealt with. Clarification is also necessary regarding the 2:1 ratio, what this will apply to and how farmers can safeguard their income when there is disease. The present system allowed for the payment of compensation to farmers whose farms had to be closed. I would be very worried if this were to be discontinued. Savings on disease levies would be lost to the insurance companies and to farmers in compensation and other means of bridging the gap.

There are elements of this scheme that should be closely examined before it is put into practice. I hope common sense will prevail and that matters will be dealt with comprehensively and in such a way that the £1.5 billion that has already been spent will not have been wasted.

A very imaginative package for disease eradication was put before the farmers of Ireland yesterday by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. The first time I ever saw a vet test cattle was in 1955 on our farm in Mountbellew. Since then as a Minister of State, mart manager and farmer, I have seen many Ministers for Agriculture grappling with the national problem of TB. I have no way of knowing whether this package will be as successful as we would like, but there are some factors that induce me to believe we are on the right road.

We are all agreed that the existing system has not worked. However, other countries with climates not much different from Ireland's and similar cattle populations managed to get rid of TB while we did not. I do not intend to apportion blame for that because there are many factors involved. Under the ERAD system which we had in operation for a number of years, everybody in the industry had a say. The problem was that everybody had too much say with the result that the job was not done. Then there was an impasse with the vets regarding rotational testing. However, generally speaking, I support the Minister in what he is trying to do.

As is his right as a public representative, Deputy Ellis tried to anticipate some of the problems that might arise. That is something we will have to do. In the time at my disposal I will mention what the objectives of a scheme should be and how farmers are affected. The question of TB levies will have to be looked at. As a practising farmer I have to say that TB levies on farmers selling cattle at marts are outrageously high. A farmer has to part with £7.30 for every animal whether or not he makes money on it. I understand that statistics show that almost 60 per cent of infection starts with one reactor in a herd. Apart from sickness in the family, no greater disaster could befall a farmer than to have a single reactor, particularly when winter is approaching. It means having to do two consecutive tests on all the cattle, and feed cattle that the farmer would not otherwise have carried through the winter. In addition there are gale days on which various lending institutions have to be repaid loans. Most galling of all, even when it is found after veterinary inspection at the factories that the animal does not have lesions — which means to farmers that the animal does not have TB — this cumbersome performance has to be gone through, entailing great hardship. It would be silly to suggest that we can all go around spreading TB. It is bad enough to have to restrict a herd when there is TB in it, but it is going a bit far to have unnecessary restrictions when it can be proved that there is no TB.

The Minister said yesterday that under certain circumstances where a reactor is found in an otherwise clean herd, and under certain veterinary clinical conditions and analyses, that farmer will only be required to have one extra test. This will make a major difference to farmers. It will be one of the most important selling points of the scheme and welcomed by farmers.

Research on TB in animals shows that the pre-movement test has been a safety net in certain circumstances. Every year this test identifies approximately 300-400 TB positive herds. If an annual test is carried out under proper conditions all farmers will co-operate. The proposal to tie in this test with the payment of headage and other premia will be in the best interests of everyone and ensure that all animals which should be presented for testing are tested. There will still have to be a 30 day test for cattle to be exported and farmers will accept the necessity for this.

Since the introduction of the scheme in 1955 there have been major changes in the way it is administered. Previously vets tested the cattle, submitted the results and were paid by the taxpayer via the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. From 1 February next year the farmers will pay the vet on the day the test is carried out. The people who do not like this change will say that all the Minister is doing is rebalancing the cost. However, there is nothing wrong with this proposal. People have to pay doctors and accountants for their services and farmers have to pay vets for each visit they make to their farms to look after their sick animals. This change will also lead to a huge reduction in the levies on cattle sent to factories. I have not yet seen the fine print but assume the local district veterinary office will be given a caretaker role and send out the lists to farmers, thereby ensuring an orderly system of testing. The test will be tied to the payment of premium in much the same way as the ewe premium was tied to the sheep dipping certificate. Deputy Ellis said that some cattle might not be tested for two years and this is an issue which will need to be monitored. The market will dictate that cattle are tested annually as no farmer will be interested in buying cattle which have not been tested for two years.

There have been numerous debates in the House on the disease levy. I can remember a time when the cost was £9 million. Over the years the cost increased to £28 million and there was no reason to believe it would not increase further. It is for that reason and the cost of the bureaucracy that changes had to be introduced. The Department also needs to slim down. As Deputy O'Malley said, given the advances in technology veterinary offices should know the location of all four legged animals at any given time.

It is proposed to invest more money on research into the causes of TB. I welcome the extension of the project in east Offaly to other areas. I have nothing against badgers but if they bring TB into farms then they should be dealt with. I accept that there must be a balance in wildlife but there is adequate evidence available to show that badgers are a contributing factor to TB and must be treated as such.

The sooner we do away with the tuberculin test the better. I have pointed out to vets that it would be much more progressive if the same system was used for the testing of blood and brucellosis. People at many veterinary levels are working on the feasibility of such a system which would ensure a more accurate test. I understand the stage has now been reached where blood can be held for ten or 11 hours. However, in order to get it to a laboratory it will have to be possible to hold it for several days. I hope this can be achieved as quickly as possible in the interests of all concerned.

Nothing the Minister said should lead anyone to believe the reactor payments or hardship grants will be tampered with. I would not like anyone to run with a contrary statement. There is no proposal to decrease that fund, which is sacrosanct. A farmer who cannot sell his herd through no fault of his own and has no income has to receive some payment from the State.

In spite of all the arguing I hope this package will receive a favourable response from everyone. I know it will give rise to much discussion but this is as it should be. Obviously everyone will consider its implications for them. The farm organisations seem to be happy with it but this does not mean that every farmer or Deputy is happy with it. People should consider a number of questions. First, is it reasonable to continue with what we have been doing for the past 40 years when the level of TB remains the same? Second, can the farmers who are selling cattle to the factories continue to sustain the huge increases in the levy each year? Third, is it possible to reduce the incidence of TB at less cost to the taxpayer and farmer while at the same time maintaining the farmer-veterinary surgeon link which seems to be sacrosanct to so many vets?

The veterinary surgeons have their own union which will speak on their behalf. This is an opportunity to strengthen the farmer-veterinary surgeon link. We had problems with the veterinary profession on a number of occasions — it is nothing new — but on this occasion it was made clear to me in the debate on rotational testing that it was important to them that they should have the opportunity of testing, advising, prescribing and generally discussing farm matters as they related to livestock with their client farmers. That is protected in the Bill. Every farmer will be given the opportunity to decide what vet he or she wants to employ and everybody accepts that is very important. As a farmer, I certainly want that latitude. There is no reason that I should not continue to go to my local veterinary surgeon who is very good but I want the right to change and most farmers also want that right.

There is an onus on everybody to trawl through the Bill and raise any shortcomings in it with a view to finding solutions. For the first time since I saw a veterinary surgeon testing cattle on my farm 40 years ago we have an opportunity to make great progress on TB eradication. I sincerely hope it will work for all our sakes.

Any change in the TB eradication scheme will be an improvement. Farmers in my area suffered more than most from the incidence of TB. In the early stages of testing, my area was relatively disease free but now the incidence of TB there is probably the highest in the country. In recent years provision has been made to recruit additional staff and provide extra resources to tackle this problem but it remains serious.

In his speech the Minister outlined the significant progress that has been made in reducing the incidence of TB to 1 per cent of the national herd but there are pockets where the incidence is much higher. Testing will be carried out at specified times but the farmer has to pay for the annual test. Farmers who are in store production — primarily in the western counties — will feel the pinch more than others. They would not have paid bovine disease levies to date because the levies were deducted at the point of slaughter. These farmers now face the additional expenditure of paying to have their animals tested annually.

The abolition of the pre-movement test will be welcomed by people in the cattle trade because it will give them greater flexibility in moving cattle to sales. I am glad that the herd owners who carry out voluntary pre-movement tests will qualify for higher payments for reactors in the event of a breakout of the disease. That is very important. If I were buying cattle at a mart I would be very slow to purchase animals that were last tested more than one year previously. I would imagine that a pre-movement test will be a bonus for those selling in the future.

Through the years I have questioned our system of identification cards. I suggest that we adopt the stock register system which operates very effectively in Northern Ireland. Every animal purchased has to be entered in the stock register immediately and that register is the bible of the cattle industry. I cannot understand why we will not introduce a similar system here. In the past, computerisation was the excuse but I cannot understand why we will not adopt a tried and tested system which puts the onus on stock owners to have a clear record entry of all purchases and sales.

The Irish Veterinary Union claims that this legislation will result in higher veterinary fees. I hope that will not be the case because veterinary surgeons did very nicely in the past and they should not be jumping their fences and putting down markers at this stage.

Recently I spoke to the owner of a medium sized farm who had to dispose of 22 reactors. We discussed possible ways the disease was transmitted, for example badgers, but he told me that as his land was very close to a demesne where there is a large herd of deer he was concerned that the deer might have been the carriers. I asked the Minister if those deers had been tested for TB and was disappointed to hear they had not but that a system of testing would be put in place shortly. They should have been tested for TB many years ago. Farmers in the area continually complain about the deers damaging plastic on outdoor silage pits and electric fences and jumping on cars on the roadway.

Members referred to the badger problem and the pilot research project in County Offaly. Similar projects should have been put in place in the Border region where there are TB blackspots both north and south of the Border. The Minister stated that he intends to clear out the badgers under supervision of the Wildlife authorities. We should reach a definite conclusion on whether badgers carry disease to cattle or vice versa. The serious problem of TB in County Monaghan has been raised at many county council meetings. The high incidence to the detriment of the livestock trade in that area as outside buyers travel from mart to mart. At my suggestion some years ago a sub committee was set up to liaise with veterinary surgeons. While this was successful we still have a high instance of TB in the area.

The Minister stated that the cost of the disease eradication scheme would be reduced from £28 million to £10 million per annum and that the levy would be reduced from £7.30 to £2.50 per animal. The overall deduction from the farmer per animal slaughtered is approximately £17.50. That is a high cost especially when margins in beef production are tight. A survey carried out in the Meath area revealed that in 1993 there were approximately 10,000 cattle in 11 large fattening units but that figure reduced by two thirds in 1994. I know of a case where a young animal failed a TB test and realised £37.50 when brought for slaughter. That farmer had to pay a 50 per cent levy to the Department. The levy on each gallon of milk delivered has been reduced to 1.3 pence per gallon. The levy of £7.30 more than doubles when account is taken of veterinary inspections, insurance and so on.

The Minister stated there would be a saving of £4 million. Any Minister who suggests that is naïve. We have often been told that new measures will result in cost savings but that is rarely so. I will be delighted if this scheme realises a saving of £4 million but I will not be surprised if it does not.

A total of £1 billion has been spent on testing to date. The scheme costs approximately £67 million per annum to operate. The spending of £20 million on administration costs is astronomical and should be examined. Since disease levies were introduced farmers have contributed £285 million. ERAD was established with the intention of reducing the incidence of TB by 50 per cent, but recent surveys reveal that it is practically impossible to eradicate the disease completely.

Questions must be asked about hygiene and other aspects of test quality. The poultry industry, approximately 70 per cent of which is located in the Monaghan area, has been vulnerable to disease in recent years and, apart from egg packing and white meat processing, it does not receive State assistance. There are only two poultry instructors, one covering the Monaghan to Dublin area and another in Cork, yet the standard of hygiene in the industry is excellent. Similar hygiene standards should apply in the TB eradication scheme.

The Minister stated that he intends to increase the maximum fines in respect of certain offences under sections 48 and 49 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966 which were last increased in August 1979. I am not opposed to increases in fines if they are imposed. Too much leniency has been given to those caught committing those offences and it is time for a stricter examination.

The Deputy should keep talking; he is making a lot of sense.

I welcome any measure which would help to eradicate TB. However, I have doubts about these schemes. I hope the Minister's statements are borne out and that when we look back at this issue in a few year's time, my county will be one of the 99 per cent TB free.

Nothing causes more frustration to herd owners and those involved in the milk industry than TB. A farmer I met last night told me that nine of his cows failed their TB test yesterday. This is a huge blow for farmers and entire herds have been wiped out in my area. Many farmers are unable to get back into farming because of high cattle prices and they often have to lease their quota. TB is a death blow to farmers. The Minister or the Minister of State should ensure the measures of this Bill are implemented to the fullest. We must come to grips with the problem, reduce the incidence of TB and decrease the trauma for farmers who lose their herds.

I want to share my time with Deputy McGahon.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister's decision to introduce the Bovine Diseases (Levies) (Amendment) Bill, 1995. This legislation is long overdue and definitely a step in the right direction. Successive Ministers were only pussyfooting in tackling the eradication of TB and this new legislation will have an outstanding effect in finally getting rid of it.

Farmers have been in a bad predicament through the years. While they bore the brunt of the exorbitant costs of this scheme through milk and cattle levies, they did not seem to get good value for money. Red tape regulations constantly eroded the levy purse.

If there is one person who can manage their business, it is the Irish farmer. Farming is a traditional occupation in Ireland and has been handed down to those born and bred on farms, the majority of whom are third, fourth or fifth generation farmers. Farmers never co-operate to the fullest extent when they are coerced or if they cannot see a light at the end of the tunnel. However, thanks to the wisdom of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, that light is now shining brightly.

I remind the House of the importance of the agriculture industry to our economy. When the last litre of gas has been extracted from the Celtic Sea and the last litre of oil from the Porcupine Basin, agriculture will still be playing its rightful role in our economy.

Agriculture has paid its share to our economy secula seculorum. Farmers must be given the right to determine their own direction in abolishing TB. It has been a dreadful scourge on the agricultural community through the years. I welcome the Minister's approach. The farmer can now organise his TB tests through the veterinary surgeon of his choice rather than the Department impose one on him. This provision lets the farmer direct his own destiny as far as the health of his herd is concerned.

Compulsory TB testing was introduced in 1954. The cost of the schemes designed to eradicate brucellosis and TB has exceeded £1 billion and the current annual cost of the scheme is almost £67 million. Since the disease levies were introduced in 1979, farmers have contributed £285 million to them.

I spoke to farmers at the Bandon and Skibbereen marts. They were critical of the £7.30 levy on each animal slaughtered or exported live and the levy of 1.3p on every gallon of milk delivered to the creamery. We are told these exorbitant levies will be reduced from £28 million per year to £10 million. There will be a net saving of £18 million for Irish farmers.

Tests will be carried out by local veterinary surgeons and that is welcome. Why should taxpayers contribute to the eradication of bovine TB when it is an agricultural matter? The procedure adopted by the Minister yesterday shows he is on the right track. Responsibility for the matter now lies with the farming community and the Department which should co-operate with each other.

There are seven million cattle in the country and we are told that over 99 per cent of them are now free from TB and 99.9 per cent from brucellosis. It has been stated that the disease may be carried by wildlife but that is debatable. The budger has been singled out but perhaps the badger is infected by other animals. We do not know. I hope the pilot scheme in east Offaly will provide the Department with information on this aspect of the matter. Farmers in my constituency are dubious about the claim that badgers are carriers and time will tell if this is so.

The pre-movement or 60-day test will be abolished and rightly so. If an animal which had a clear annual test reacts to a test carried out shortly after it has been purchased the farmer will receive a higher rate of compensation. That is a step in the right direction. If a farmer has a reactor in his herd he will be more wary of buying animals which do not have a clear test within a certain period. Farmers who violate the regulation will not benefit from the higher rate of subsidy for a reactor grant. The net saving from the abolition of compulsory pre-movement testing will be £3.5 million combined with a saving of £4 million on annual round testing. The net benefit to farmers from the new scheme will be of the order of £7.5 million.

Earlier this year the Minister encountered difficulties with the veterinary union when he tried to introduce special animal testing regulations. Members of the union rejected the Minister's request. I was critical of the union at first but representing a rural constituency in Cork south-west which is predominantly agricultural, I realised that the majority of veterinary surgeons in my constituency are single operators. How can we expect those operating their own business to travel perhaps from Schull to Kanturk to test a herd and risk losing business at home? A client might have a sick animal and telephone for the veterinary surgeon only to be told that he or she is testing animals on behalf of the Department 60 or 80 miles away. That will not work in rural areas. The relationship between a farmer and a veterinary surgeon is such that no other veterinary surgeon might suit the farmer. I understand how veterinary surgeons who do not operate a group system could not accede to the Minister's request.

I congratulate the Minister on his foresight and wisdom in introducing this Bill. I have no doubt that it will be successful and accepted by farmers and their organisations. This is the first time since the commencement of the scheme 41 years ago that that level of co-operation has been achieved. I have no doubt, therefore, that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, will go down in history as the man who dealt the final blow to bovine TB.

It is an honour for me to follow such a leading authority on agricultural matters as Deputy Sheehan. I am an urban cowboy and normally would not speak in a debate on agricultural matters, but I am intrigued by the question of bovine TB eradication. During the time I was a member of the Committee of Public Accounts it dealt at length with this issue, which is of vital importance to the agriculture industry. It has already cost the State over £1 billion while the annual cost is between £68 million and £70 million. That is an incredible sum for a small nation to have to foot on an annual basis.

While I welcome the measures proposed in this Bill I am very cynical about the possibility of finally eradicating this awful scourge. Some years ago I visited Copenhagen in Denmark and Amsterdam in Holland, two countries which, incredibly, have disease free status. Denmark has been free of TB since 1929 and Holland since the 1930s, the reason being that a different system of farming is used.

In Denmark cattle are kept indoors and never see the light of day from the day they are born until the day they are slaughtered. One could argue whether that is a good or humane system, but the reality is that in Denmark this awful scourge has been eradicated. The bottom line is that farmers in those two countries, the only two in the world which have disease free status, were prepared to accept responsibility. Unlike here, there are no fairs in Denmark. As a consequence, cattle do not change hands. They are born and die on a farm. In Ireland a beast is sold on average seven times. In this way disease is transmitted.

I support Deputy Sheehan in his defence of the badger. It is all too easy to blame the badger for transmitting this disease. We were told by the Danish veterinary association not to accept this theory as it is untrue. The findings of recent studies carried out in the North proved inconclusive as to whether the badger is a carrier of bovine TB.

I wish the Minister luck but, as Deputy Leonard said, we will still be talking about the lack of progress in this matter in four or five years time as the necessary degree of discipline and collective responsibility is missing in Irish farming circles to ensure that this awful disease is eradicated.

This scheme has been a gravy train for the veterinary profession. It has made millions of pounds from it. It is the most lucrative profession in the country bar none. I question its commitment to finding or recommending solutions to the Minister and the Department because it does not want the gravy train to stop.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this subject. Like Deputy McGahon, I believe Deputy Sheehan was slightly optimistic. I hope I am wrong, but I think we will see the drainage of the Shannon for which we have been waiting a long time before the eradication of bovine TB.

It has to be accepted that, while throwing money at the problem has been good for some, it is not the answer. One of the key statements in the Minister's speech is that further research, better vaccines and different diagnostic techniques may prove more important in solving the problem. I have long held the view that a more rigid approach should be adopted.

As the problem of TB in the human population was solved by science I would like to see more money allocated for research into the causes of the problem in the animal population to find a better way of dealing with it. Constant testing and the imposition of restrictions have not produced results, despite the difficulties caused for farmers. In this regard I am happy that the pre-movement test is to be done away with.

On the question of savings, Deputy Sheehan was four times more optimistic than the Minister. He mentioned a figure of £16 million, but omitted to subtract from this sum the direct cost of testing to farmers. The Minister mentioned a figure of £4 million. As my colleague, Deputy Leonard, said we will believe it when we see it. I say that with no disrespect to the Minister or his advisers, but time and again we have been promised great savings which have not materialised.

I recognise that a burden has been lifted particularly from milk producers and those who sell animals to factories, but it has to be acknowledged that an extra burden is to be imposed on store cattle producers in the west. The 5,000 herd owners that I represent in Connemara do not produce milk or finished cattle in the main. Therefore, the amount collected by way of the two levies was relatively small. In the sense that the levy to be paid on the finished animal was taken into account in the price paid by the farmer buying in order to fatten cattle they paid their share, but in relative terms they were not over burdened. In terms of the number of cattle involved, they do not account for a large proportion of total agricultural output, but if politics is about people we are talking about a large number. I am concerned that the cost of testing will prove a major burden on those with herds of between three and eight cattle. Until now there was an equalisation of costs and, if I am honest about it, the burden was disproportionately carried by large farmers and the milk and cattle producer. However, we will now swing this the other way unless an arrangement is made.

To date, I have not heard any firm commitment that the cost of testing will be the same nationwide. To do that, we will need to agree a compensation package for vets operating in areas like Connemara. In Connemara, Údarás na Gaeltachta had to provide special funding to maintain vets because the unit costs were so high. If the vet charged economic costs for work already done, he would have to charge astronomical fees which would make it impossible.

I am disappointed Deputy Sheehan, who has an offshore island in his constituency, did not raise this matter. What will we do about the economic cost of testing on offshore islands? Will people have to pay the economic cost of testing or will a mechanism be designed to ensure that the cost burden of testing is made equal?

I understand that if a farmer does not carry out the annual test within the required time, he may lose his headage and premium payments. That seems a reasonable proposal but, in practice, what seems to be an innocent and reasonable proposal does not work that way. In my constituency there is a preponderance of old people looking after farms. They have a right to their land, but their ability to deal with the considerable amount of paperwork they receive, from CSO forms wanting to know the number of cattle, sheep, pigs, hens, duck, drakes, etc., and headage and area aid forms, has become a burden.

The Minister will be aware of difficulties this year in relation to the non-return of area aid forms in time for that scheme. I understand there is a particular problem in my area. Although most farmers complete and return the form, there will always be those who forget, not for a malicious reason but because they get distracted. This problem arises with older people in particular. The Minister will be aware of people in his constituency who forget to renew their medical card despite reminders. He will make representations each week for people who for one reason or another run into difficulties with these matters.

A further problem which arises in such cases is the upset caused when a member of a household dies, particularly the herd owner, and there are problems relating to transfer, etc. In some cases, those left behind deal expeditiously with the paperwork, while in others they cannot cope and it is five, six months or one year later when they do the necessary work. It is important that in the regulations there is an out clause or discretion for the Minister to waive penalties in exceptional cases.

In the event of a death if it could prove that there was no desire to evade testing and if subsequent tests found the herd to be TB free, those exceptional circumstances should be taken into account. We must allow for exceptional circumstances in every scheme. As politicians we do a considerable amount of constituency work and see the difficulties and unforeseen circumstances in which people find themselves and, therefore, we should always allow for reasonable discretion to be exercised in hard cases. If genuine cases are provided for, I would have no difficulty with that proposal.

Yesterday the Minister had his first meeting with the Irish Veterinary Union, which is extraordinary. I do not hold a brief for any section in this but meeting people is fundamental if we are to deal with this problem. No group, including vets, farmers, etc., should be able to dictate to Ministers. I agree with the right of the Minister to make the final decision no matter what the social partners say because that is the nature of Government. It is a reasonable rule of thumb to listen to all sides where possible and to try to get people to work together. Whatever scheme is introduced, patience rather than a confrontational approach will be needed to arrive at a system which is based on a partnership of people working together to sort out this problem.

I hope the Minister will be swift and strong in dealing with abuses of future schemes and that he will be willing to take up the cudgels against any group milking the scheme. Explaining one's view and debating a matter at length does not mean giving in to any group. It is important that there is ongoing dialogue in relation to this matter. It will be important to have the goodwill of farmers for this scheme to work. It is also important to examine the situation in relation to the veterinarians, particularly those operating in sparsely populated rural areas with small farms.

We can look at farming in two ways. I agree with Deputy Sheehan as regards its importance to the economy. On a global scale, we must look at areas and counties which produce the greatest amount for export. However, an economy is about people and, therefore, when we look at farming interests with a view to making decisions, we must look at the farmer with cows to whom farming is a way of life and who has a right to be treated equitably even if their production in national terms is tiny. While the farm bodies and representatives may represent 95 per cent of agricultural production, they probably do not represent 95 per cent of herd owners because a disproportionate number of small herd owners are not members of the farm organisations. They have their rights as citizens and taxpayers and their difficulties should not be forgotten in negotiations on this matter.

Similarly, it is important to remember there is a small number of veterinarians, most of whom are highly dedicated, have a huge level of commitment and are willing to work in the most argiculturally deprived areas such as the islands off the coasts of Mayo, Donegal, Galway, Cork and Kerry. They are willing to work in conditions in which they would not be expected to work in the bigger farming counties. They are small in number but they should not be forgotten in negotiations.

I wish to deal with an issue that has caused many problems for farmers, that is the so-called blue cards, which are actually green. Those cards cause great confusion and difficulties for farmers in filling application forms. On the forms farmers are requested to state the date a cow was born, the date it had its last calf or the date it is expected to calf and the number of the animal. These cards are hand-written and the numbers are very often difficult to read because of the green colour of the card. Even though the Department requests the date of birth of the animal, that is not written on the card. It is reasonable to demand that cards specify all the relevant information to apply for a suckler cow premium or headage payment. I am sure the civil servants dealing with these applications would welcome such a decision.

In some cases the Department may write to a person stating that they gave a different date of birth for an animal from that given previously. In that case, it already had the date and there is no reason for requesting it again. In cases where a person is not sure of the date of birth of an animal the only recourse is to ask a friendly official in the hope that he will have the date from the previous year. If that information was provided on the cards it would overcome these problems. I hope the Minister will consider changing the system to provide the farmer with a user friendly card that outlines in a printed form all the relevant information requested annually by the Department. Mar a dúirt mé ag an tús tá go leor rudaí le moladh sa scéim atá molta ach tá go leor ceisteanna le freagairt sul go mbeidh fhios againn an bhfuil an scéim seo comh maith agus atá an tAire a rá.

I welcome this Bill which changes some of the regulations to bring them into line with requirements and increases fines to a more realistic level. In the past it was very difficult to bring cases to court and the level of fines was irrelevant. Because of blue cards, tags and so on, it is very difficult to take action against people who spread disease, causing serious difficulties not only for the Department but for their fellow farmers.

I welcome the Minister's announcement last night about the proposed changes in the future operation of the scheme. I appreciate that in the past Ministers tried to devise measures to eradicate the residual level of TB. Successful action was taken in the early years but recently it has become much more difficult to eradicate the disease. Any step taken by the Minister is therefore welcome.

Apart from a family bereavement, no issue causes as much frustration, anxiety and worry to farm families and their neighbours as a serious outbreak of disease in the family herd. As Deputy Leonard said, County Monaghan is one of the worst affected areas in this regard. In recent years the position has changed from reasonably good to very bad. That is partly due to increased farm stocking rates. With intensive poultry and mushroom industries, land is very fertile and as a result stocking levels are greater than in many other areas. In the last 18 months or two years at least one-quarter of herd owners in Monaghan have experienced a serious breakdown in herds or had their herds closed. That gives an indication of the seriousness of the problem.

I appreciate that the previous Minister, Deputy Joe Walsh, made extra staff available in a very cramped office in Ballybay. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, who on coming to office took immediate steps to remedy that structural problem. I hope those measures will enable staff to work in better circumstances and thereby provide a better service.

When a herd owner loses an entire herd, as sometimes happens, it takes years to rebuild it. We must ensure people in those circumstances receive the best possible assistance. Deputies Leonard, O'Hanlon and I have been involved in bringing groups together, but there is still insufficient co-operation in our county. Farmers need a sympathetic shoulder at times of loss of herd. They should be given all the necessary advice to overcome the problem. Above all, they want to get whatever payment is due to them at the earliest possible date. In this regard I welcome one of the recent changes. Previously, payments were sent from a local office only on a monthly basis. Now they are sent fortnightly which means that if there is a problem about tax certificates and so forth, farmers can be sure of a quicker payment as soon as these are rectified.

The Minister referred to the need for co-operation between farm organisations, vets and the Department. That cannot be over-emphasised. We are moving into a new era in which the farmer will employ his vet to do the test. This will remove much of the aggravation that occurred in the last few years.

Some Members of the Opposition have suggested that rotational testing was devised by the Minister, Deputy Yates. This was an ongoing effort by Ministers in recent years to try to reach agreement with Brussels to draw down millions of pounds for the eradication of disease. The Department and other Ministers discussed it and co-operated with the Brussels authorities to devise a package to improve disease eradication. Unfortunately, successive Ministers were not successful and the Minister, Deputy Yates, inherited a problem. We hope to get some money from Brussels but the £10 million per year for three years promised five years ago is now just over £4 million per year for three years. We have lost money as a result of wrangling and lack of co-operation. I hope we will now move forward.

Deputy Ó Cuív said the small store producer will suffer as a result of these new regulations because farm levies on beef bullocks or export animals will be reduced from £7.30 to £2.50 per beast. Milk levies will also be reduced, from 1.3p per gallon to 0.5p. However, under this package there will be no need for the pre-movement test. The £3.5 million being saved in that area was mainly being paid by the small store producer so he will make a saving. He also has greater freedom to sell his stock as the pre-movement test will no longer be compulsory. The picture, therefore, is not all black.

Deputy Ó Cuív also referred to blue cards. Nothing has caused me more frustration during my years in farming, politics and this House. Bank managers, council officers and others can have all their business on computer yet we, after so many years, are still using blue cards. I led delegations to Northern Ireland years ago and had long discussions with the Department about this issue. It is now more important than ever to introduce an appropriate permit system at the earliest possible date. Blue cards are only bus permits. Animals can move anywhere at any time within test restrictions and nobody might know exactly where they are.

It is time we regulated business and knew exactly where every animal is so that if there is a breakdown in a herd, within 24 hours every herd owner who might have got cattle from that herd knows where the animals are or where they can be traced. That has been the situation, to a large degree, north of the Border. It has not solved the problems because there has been fiddling with regard to cards, tags and so forth in the Border areas and the people on the northern side of the Border have not been totally innocent. However, if records of all the animals in Ireland were on a computer system and there was co-operation between the two ministries it would be a major step forward.

Another major problem relates to wildlife. The Minister commented on that. There has been major involvement by the Department in Offaly and, to a lesser extent, in Monaghan. However, if we are to come to grips with the serious TB outbreak in Monaghan we must deal with the wildlife including the deer about which Deputy Leonard spoke earlier. At least we have received a commitment, as a result of my correspondence with the Minister, that the deer will be curtailed in the not too distant future. This step must be welcomed and encouraged. However, the Minister must look seriously at the wildlife problem in the Monaghan region in light of the fact that it is the county worst affected by TB. Farmers have generally taken a responsible role but when they see that badgers and deer are not being tested and are being treated as the innocent parties they become very frustrated. Nothing frustrates them as much as finding an enclosed herd, where cattle have not been bought in for years, and where neighbours have not bought in cattle, suddenly fall prey to an outbreak of TB that cannot be explained. More money must be spent on investigating this issue. We are not saying that only the badger and deer are to blame but farmers deserve at least to be assured that the Department has some idea of where the disease is originating.

In Dartry Wood, for example, near Rockcorry in County Monaghan trees were cut down and the deer population increased dramatically. In the area from there to Scotshouse herds of livestock were wiped out. That is totally unacceptable and the problem must be tackled. All politics are local so one should discuss the area one knows best. There are 371 herds still closed in County Monaghan out of a total of 5,133. About 1,200 herds in the past 18 months suffered closure. The number of animals that came out last year was 2,631. This year the number is 2,343 for the same period so there is only a slight reduction. The number of reactor herds listed for the same period last year was 715 as against 583 this year. However, there is not the same restriction period this year as there was last year and that had a role in lowering the figure. Another factor that influences the herd statistics for Monaghan is that if an animal has two inconclusive tests it is deemed a reactor. There is a much tighter examination regime and that is a serious problem.

The Minister's proposal is a major step forward. Its main provision is that the payment for an annual herd test will be devolved from the taxpayer directly to the farmer. There is a reduction of 65 per cent in farmers' levies from £28 million to £10 million. The abolition of the compulsory pre-movement test is a step in the right direction. While it may play a major part in increasing the effectiveness of the scheme, improving quality control and enhancing research programmes, I will have to see it operating in practice before I believe it. As we have heard this line many times in the past, we need to see the benefits secured from the operation of this measure.

Regarding the abolition of the pre-movement test, the Minister must be commended for allocating additional grants to herd owners involved in a post-movement and pre-movement test. I ask him to adopt a common sense approach to herd testing at departmental and farm level. One test should be acceptable in the case of farmers who buy dairy stock direct from other farmers as happens frequently, irrespective of which farm it takes place on. It does not make sense that I should demand of a neighbour or an acquaintance that he should test his herd on the Monday or Tuesday before I would be due to take delivery of them and that I must carry out a test on those animals in my herd a week later to prove that they have been tested at the time of the change-over. The same level of compensation must be provided in respect of herds that are not traded. If farmers are committed to eradicating disease, they must be assured that they will not lose out as a result of the provisions of this Bill.

Deputy Ó Cuív referred to the requirement of completing forms for area aid and other grants. The Minister and the Minister of State have played an active role in improving the position. Those forms must be further simplified. It would be easy for the Department to keep computer records of the animals' birth dates if permits were used instead of cards. Guesswork is used in recording the birth date of many animals. I have stood at the cattle chute while many tests have been carried out. Veterinary surgeons usually advise their staff to record what they consider to be the animal's age. The system of recording is not appropriate. Veterinary surgeons also record the animal's breed, an increasingly important aspect. If a new card were issued for an animal recorded as a Shorthorn or a Limousin in a previous test and a different vetinerary surgeon notices a white spot on the animal and records it as a Friesian, the farmer's credibility is immediately called into question and he may be accused of defrauding the State. If it is noted in his returns on a new application for a beef or suckler cow premium that the record of the breed of the animal has been changed from a Limousin or a Shorthorn to a Friesian, not only will that farmer be curtailed in respect of that animal but he may also be asked to withdraw from the scheme for a period of two years. This is unacceptable, particularly in the case of a farmer who would have no intention of defrauding the State or the European Union.

I welcome the scheme. The changes in it are long overdue. The scheme will not work without the co-operation of the Minister, his Department, the veterinary surgeons operating the disease eradication scheme and farmers. It has not operated with 100 per cent co-operation in the past and anyone who says otherwise is living in cloud cuckoo land. The increases in the level of fines are important, but the changes in the operation of the scheme are also important. If we are to retain the largest number of farmers possible in rural Ireland, we must tackle the eradication of bovine TB.

As a medical doctor, Deputy O'Hanlon will agree that in the past tuberculosis was a major disease that affected humans. We want to ensure that the days my mother lived and nursed through when that disease was prevalent in humans never return. We want to eradicate the disease from the animal herd. It is in that context, and not only an economic one, that we must ensure the scheme operates properly with the full co-operation of the parties involved.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Kirk.

The Minister referred to a number of measures to control, reduce and eradicate animal disease. He referred to the successes in that area during the past 40 years since these schemes were introduced. He said that 99 per cent of animals are tuberculosis free. That figure sounds good, but 1 per cent, 70,000 animals, still carry the disease, a problem about which we must be concerned. The incidence of the disease is not restricted to 1 per cent per county. Unfortunately, some counties have a high incidence while others do not. All Members must be concerned about the continued existence of the disease and the variation in the incidence of it from one county to another. Deputies Leonard and Crawford referred to the position in County Monaghan. We must recognise that £1 billion was spent during the past 40 years, nearly 30 per cent of which was paid directly by farmers. At present £67 million is being spent, approximately 40 per cent of that by farmers.

I support the points made by my colleagues on this side of the House. Many issues were addressed during the debate —identity cards, the role of veterinary surgeons, the provision of the service and the influence of wildlife on the spread of bovine tuberculosis. I do not intend to go into detail on those issues.

The Minister highlighted the main elements of the new regime. He referred to the partnership between farmers and his Department, which I support. It is time we adopted a serious approach to eradicating bovine tuberculosis. I appeal to the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, to consider the possibility of establishing a pilot scheme in a county with a higher than average incidence of the disease, such as Monaghan. A small group should be established including representatives of the Department, ERAD and district veterinary officers and representatives of the Irish Farmers' Association. They should be given teeth and responsibility for the operation of the scheme in Monaghan.

It is part of the new proposal that we should have quality bovine testing.

The question of co-operation is broad based. I am talking about establishing a small group in one county. The east Offaly research scheme is working well but the time has come when we should address that issue. The three State agencies, which to an extent work in parallel, should come together and we should have an intensive, integrated and co-ordinated approach in one area where the outbreak of the disease is high.

It is hoped to do that.

If it is done in an area where the incidence of the disease is above average we could derive much benefit.

It is envisaged that there will be a forum at local as well as national level.

I appreciate what the Minister is hoping to do but the approach must be intensive, integrated and co-ordinated. I am in favour of the idea of a pilot scheme because much can be learned from it which will be of benefit to other counties. I wish to make a point about diseases in general. The World Health Organisation succeeded in eradicating smallpox including in countries such as Tibet. I cannot understand why in Ireland we cannot do a better job on the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. If we succeeded it would be in the interests of farmers, the people and the economy.

I thank my colleague for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this important debate which concerns an element of our most important industry, the national cattle herd. At regular intervals commentators refer to the TB eradication scheme and the huge cost to the taxpayer over the past 30 to 40 years. I do not argue with the assertion that the scheme has been very costly. It has been regarded as a TB eradication scheme but we could be tempted to ask whether it is a TB containment scheme. On occasions we appeared to be making progress but, for some unexplained reason, a serious outbreak of TB will occur, as was the case in County Monaghan for a number of years where there have been serious problems. There have been breakdowns in what have been classified as the self-contained herds. That is the great dilemma so far as farmers are concerned. Why should a farm where there is virtually no inward movement of stock have a serious outbreak of TB in their herd? The question must be asked whether wildlife in the area is acting as a carrier, whether there is poor or inadequate fencing and whether there are problems with the testing techniques. It may be a combination of all those factors.

If we are to achieve the objective of eradicating TB from the national herd clearly there is a need for a co-ordinated, cohesive approach to the operation of the scheme. I come from a farming background and believe we have to start by ensuring that the goodwill of farmers is kept uppermost in the minds of those who administer the scheme. Those in administration and the veterinary profession are doing their best to eradicate the disease. Unexplained problems will arise here and there from time to time due to a lack of co-ordination and co-operation. If we can get the different elements involved —the farmers, the veterinary surgeons, the Department and ERAD—working together we will, in time, come to terms with this serious blight on the national herd.

Where there is poor fencing between farms, stock can intermix. This is part and parcel of the culture of rural Ireland and a contributory factor in the spread of the disease. I am not sure how it can be eliminated. Clearly, if farmers can ensure that their boundary fences are properly kept it would help enormously.

A unique feature of the national cattle herd, which is not as obvious in the national herds of other countries, is the number of times stock move during their lifetimes. It has been estimated that the average number of moves is seven. Clearly if stock leave the original farm for cattle marts in the west or east and are then transferred to other farms that is a contributory factor in the spread and outbreak of the disease. I do not pretend to have any ready-made answers to the problem having regard to our farm structures. If it was possible to reduce the number of movements within the national herd this would help to control the spread of the disease to reasonable proportions.

The poor working relationship between the Minister and veterinary surgeons recently is regretted. The Minister may say he is putting a plan together and unless it is accepted he will not be in a position to draw down funds from the European Union. The reality is that there has been a unique working relationship between the veterinary surgeons and individual farmers. The question of breaking the vet-farmer link is fine in theory but in practice it is not easy. It is all about goodwill, confidence, communication and ensuring that farmers are encouraged to co-operate with the scheme.

Let us examine the impact there will be on a farm whether in County Louth, County Monaghan or County West-meath if there is a serious outbreak of disease in, say, a dairy herd. A process of depopulation takes place within that herd and there is a serious economic loss to that farm. I accept compensation is available to help the farmer to restock the farm in the meantime. Let us consider the case of the farmer who took out a huge mortgage from his local friendly bank manager for the purpose of developing the dairy farmyard and to buy expensive stock. After two months the stock is dying and he also has the hidden problem of tuberculosis in that herd. Subsequent tests indicate that 10 per cent or 20 per cent of that herd has to be depopulated and this results in a huge economic loss. Given the defence mechanisms of all human beings, the natural inclination is to ensure they are in a position to keep bread and butter on the table and to meet their commitments to the local bank manager. That is a core problem with disease eradication in Ireland. If farmers have their backs to the wall and it is a question of saving a pound here or there, the degree of co-operation is determined accordingly. I am not suggesting that the Minister has enormous resources available to him to meet every individual circumstance but it is an aspect of the scheme which must be examined.

Deputy O'Hanlon referred to the need for an integrated approach. While there is a degree of integration in the current approach, we must intensify our efforts in that regard. We must examine all the geographic areas and the factors affecting them and ensure that individual farmers living in those areas are aware of any problems on adjoining farms. They must be in a position to take the necessary steps to ensure their fences are in proper order. If a farmer's herd is infected with tuberculosis he must ensure that his cattle do not wander on adjoining farms which would result in an automatic spread of the disease to other herds. We may have to consider allocating a small amount of funding in those circumstances.

It would be easy for me to say that the eradication of TB is a simple matter, if it was, the scheme would not be running for as long as it has and would not have cost the State as much as it has to date. However, there is a process of change. Ireland has some of the best dairy farmers compared with any other country in Europe. Those farmers are anxious to protect their individual farm assets and they want to co-operate with the Department and ERAD to ensure this disease is eradicated. There will always be individual cases, however, where the degree of co-operation is not adequate.

I would have liked to make more comments on the scheme but I will conclude by saying I am happy to contribute to this debate. I ask the Minister to adopt flexibility in his approach thereby ensuring that all the sectors involved operate at full momentum at all times. If he does that, progress on the scheme will be accelerated.

I wish to share my time with Deputy McCormack.

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

This is one of the most important debates we have had. When I first entered this House the debates on agriculture were lengthy and bitter. With Ireland's accession to the European Community it is obvious that most of the decisions affecting the farming community are no longer made in Agriculture House but in Brussels. However, an issue that has remained constant over the years is the need to eradicate TB and brucellosis. The fight against these diseases in ongoing with consequent enormous expenditure being allocated towards eliminating them from our herds. From listening to the Minister's contribution one would think the battle had been won with 99.9 per cent of our herds being cleared of brucellosis and 99 per cent being cleared of TB. The remaining 0.1 per cent and 1 per cent are proving to be extremely difficult to eliminate and in that respect the Minister is hoping the proposals in this Bill will be successful.

I listened to the farming programme on my way home last night and it appears that the IFA and the ICMSA welcome the Bill but not the IVU, the veterinary union, is far from happy with the proposals contained in it. One of the main features of the Bill, the payment for annual herd testing, is welcome. There will be a reduction of 65 per cent in farmers' levies from £28 million to £10 million in addition to the abolition of the compulsory 60 day pre-movement test. There will also be a major offensive on the effectiveness of the scheme through improved quality control and an enhanced research programme and that is welcome.

I agree with the Minister on what he is trying to achieve but the old argument about how it can be achieved raises its head. The farmers' organisations seem to be happy with what the Minister is doing but the IVU is unhappy and that is the stumbling block in regard to the Bill. As a former Minister for Labour, I hold the view that an independent body or a rights commissioner could intervene in a dispute such as this. Perhaps that can be done because I am aware such efforts have been made in that regard in the past, apparently without success.

As my colleague, Deputy Sheehan, said, agriculture is our most important industry. When other areas which are currently proving beneficial to us such as natural gas, etc., have been exhausted, we will continue to have a vibrant agriculture industry. The vibrancy of that industry was demonstrated to me and to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, at the Tinahely show last August when huge numbers of farmers and the members of the trades dependent on farming showed their support.

As I said earlier, most of the major decisions affecting farmers are made in Brussels. The other member states of the EU have an interest as consumers in their own countries. While we receive a great deal of funding from the EU, its member states are interested in what Ireland is going in this area and what is proposed in the Bill. When one considers the amount of funds invested in this disease eradication programme and the billions of pounds already expended, the fact that we could not draw down £10 million must mean that those within the European Union are not happy with our achievements to date. We must maintain a watchful eye on European consumers to whom we sell our produce since many more of them are examining our treatment of animals, particularly those in Britain, where various organisations are being established to prevent the export of live animals.

I received a letter from a Dr. Weber in Switzerland, which is not part of the European Union, who has established an organisation whose aim is the elimination of live cattle exports. Apparently he is making representations to all public representatives within the European Union to protest at the export of live cattle from this country. In that letter he posed some rather silly questions, such as whether I was for or against the export of live cattle. I replied that I was also against the opening of numbered bank accounts in Switzerland where people can invest unknown amounts and asked whether he knew anything about what had happened to intervention beef in the past few years. I maintained that, if we do not export animals, our economy will not be very sound. Perhaps he should come here and talk to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and realise just how important the agricultural industry is to our economy. Nonetheless, it would be foolish of us not to pay attention to what is happening in Europe, such as the formation of organisations whose members may influence the thinking of those who sit around the table at meetings of Councils of Ministers.

An article captioned "Killer Antibiotics Breed Killer Food Bugs" appeared in the Sunday Times on Sunday last which gave the impression that the administration of antibiotics to animals which end up in the food chain has had a detrimental effect on young children and others. The Department should be aware of that impression and needs to inform editors of newspapers that print such material of our veterinary inspections and controls on the use of such antibiotics, which are certainly not in any way detrimental to the food chain.

We have now reached the stage at which the numbers of diseased cattle are minimal. The stumbling block is one sector who fear their livelihood from the industry being threatened. It is incumbent on the Minister to involve himself in the dispute or delegate an intermediary to bring all sides together, thus ensuring the provisions of this Bill are implemented.

The purpose of this Bill is the collection of levies on live exports. Some Members have availed of the opportunity to broaden the debate into a more general discussion on the bovine TB eradication scheme. This may not be a bad thing, affording us an opportunity to put our views on the record.

Under this Bill the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry will be paid levies directly. At present they are paid to Revenue and thereafter refunded to the Department.

The amount of levies imposed on the export of cattle within the ambit of this Bill amounted to approximately £3 million in 1994. This was deducted from farmers' payments and represents only a small proportion of the total amount paid directly by them to the cost of the overall bovine eradication scheme, which I understand to be approximately £67 million. Of that amount, £28 million was comprised of direct deductions from farmers—£7.30 deducted per head of all cattle killed in factories or abattoirs and 1.3 pence per gallon deducted from all milk sales. That £28 million collected from farmers annually goes some way to meeting the costs of reactor grants, veterinary fees, equipment and research, being comprised in equal proportions of milk and cattle levies.

In addition, there is an animal inspection levy of £3.78 deducted at meat factories and a Bord Bia levy of £1.50 per animal for slaughter or live export. Is it not a great little animal capable of bearing those costs directly from the farmer's income? Since the farmer pays the piper, he is entitled to call the tune in this respect. There have been many cases of hardship among farmers in my county whose herds have been locked up, particularly last year in the flooded area of south Galway where some herds were locked up and perhaps some three quarters of a 30 or 40 acre farm was under water. Those farmers had to keep their livestock on the five or six acres of higher ground not flooded, causing them considerable hardship.

There is also the matter of inadequate compensation for store cattle and weanlings in locked up herds. If we can comply with European Union regulations, we have the potential to draw down approximately £20 million annually in European Union funding for our bovine TB eradication programme, which would result in a huge reduction in levies farmers pay at present to perhaps a quarter of their present rates. I compliment the Minister and his Minister of State on their efforts to secure these funds.

The Minister said that the devolution of payment for annual round testing to farmers means that, for the first time, the responsibility for its cost will be removed from the taxpayer. I note also that the new procedures will reduce farmers' levies from 1.3 pence per gallon to 0.5 pence for dairy farmers and from £7.50 to £2.50 per head in the case of beef cattle, representing a considerable reduction to the benefit of farmers who will receive their cheques with fewer deductions. The Minister also said that in the first year the disease levies would be reduced to approximately £10 million from £28 million, thereafter compensation and operational costs being shared by the Exchequer and farmers on a 2:1 ratio.

The discontinuance of the 60-day compulsory pre-movement test will be much welcomed and of great benefit to farmers and the industry generally. Nonetheless I am concerned about the proposal that herd owners should pay for their first herd testing each year. Although a good principle. I predict it will militate against small western farmers who do not produce finished cattle and will be unable to avail of the reduction in the killing levies. The Minister should re-examine this from the perspective of the western store cattle producer who will be disadvantaged by having to pay for the first annual test.

Having made my living in the livestock industry prior to entering politics, I can confirm that as many as five or six transactions involving an animal may take place during its lifetime. A calf may be sold first in the south to a dealer who sells it to a western farmer who rears it to weanling or store cattle stage, after which it is again sold at a mart and brought to the midlands or the east for further fattening before eventually being sold to a factory. It is, therefore, difficult to control the spread of bovine TB.

I wish the Minister well in his negotiations with the farmers' organisations. According to reports so far, they welcome the Minister's initiative. I wish him well also in his negotiations with the Irish Veterinary Union and hope that a satisfactory conclusion will be arrived at because it is essential, nationally and for farmers, to draw down the substantial EU funding available for this scheme. We have the potential to draw down £20 million a year from the EU disease eradication funds. This would benefit farmers and everybody else involved in the livestock trade because it would mean a direct reduction in the amount of levies now being paid by farmers. I estimate that, apart from testing and mart fees, a farmer pays anything up to £15 or £16 in levies on the sale of an animal. It would be to everybody's advantage if that could be reduced to £2 or £3 and eventually eliminated. Bovine disease levies were introduced here in 1979 under the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Act, 1979 at first they seemed nominal, but they have become a major drain on farmers' incomes.

I wish the Minister every success with this scheme. I hope the proposals discussed by the Minister with the veterinary union and the farmers' organisations will now be seriously looked at. We have the basis for a good compromise settlement in the proposals put forward early this year which were not acceptable to the veterinary union with the result that we lost out on money we could have drawn down from the EU because we could not convince it that we were serious about this programme. The fact that the Minister is again in negotiations with the farmers' organisations and the veterinary union will show our EU partners that we are serious about disease eradication and give us a better chance of qualifying for a potential £20 million refund. It is in the interests of our economy that the Minister should succeed and that we finally eradicate TB and brucellosis from our herds.

(Wexford): Although technical in nature, this Bill gives us an opportunity to discuss the bovine TB programme. Having spent some time in the Department of Agriculture in the position that Deputy Deenihan now holds, I understand his problem. In 1992 I had a number of meetings with the IFA, ICMSA, ICOS, Irish Veterinary Union and the Irish Veterinary Association at which it was decided to review progress under ERAD and to achieve a consensus on the bovine TB programme for the next four years. More than three years down the road that consensus has not been achieved. The ongoing battle between the Minister and the vets has ensured that the consensus we talked about in the Department at that time is further away than ever.

The Minister spoke about changes he made and his very friendly meeting with the veterinary union. I wish him well in any friendly meetings he may have with such a group. However, what is most important is our image among EU consumers. One of the selling points of Irish food products, particularly meat, is our clean green image, and an ongoing war between the Minister and the various organisations involved in its production certainly does not send the right signals to the consumers to whom we want to sell our products.

The farmers' organisations seem only too willing to accept any statement by the Minister about the benefits that will accrue to them. The national leaders of the IFA seem to be very much in the Minister's pocket. The Minister has done a good job in managing to wrap up the leaders of the leading farmers' organisations and I hope they stay with him for the remainder of his term in office. When I was in the Department of Agriculture they were not of the same frame of mind although they were doing as well if not better under the Fianna Fáil Minister, Deputy Joe Walsh. Many of the leaders of the IFA at national level are political supporters of the Minister. We accept that, but there are times when they must represent farmers' views in a more independent way than they do at present.

Since the establishment of ERAD in 1988 its work has been reviewed a number of times. The experience gained in the operation of ERAD's first full year's programme, 1989, was published in the report of the 1990 Henry Kennedy Memorial Lecture, "Ireland's TB Problem — What Can And Must Be Achieved". It outlined a number of areas of critical importance which needed to be addressed if progress was to be made in the ERAD programme. It stated there should be proper testing, an effective means of removing infected badgers, control of cattle movement through a computerised movement permit system, adequate manpower resources and a fuller farmer commitment. It also stated that in order to have any hope of achieving the target set for ERAD, upwards of 50,000 reactors would have to be removed each year for a number of years. It went on to state:

Despite the introduction of a wide range of measures aimed at securing an improvement in testing, just over 40,000 reactors were removed in 1990. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that continuation of the traditional testing arrangements would per se secure removal of the number of reactors necessary for progress (upwards of 50,000 per annum).

Based on the additional information gained in the implementation of ERAD's second full year's programme (1990), a complete review of the scheme was undertaken during the early part of 1991. The outcome of the review was published in 1991 in the report entitled: "Bovine TB Programme — What Are The Expectations?". The two main conclusions of the report are:

largely because of a significant wildlife reservoir of bovine TB, which cannot be addressed effectively without a vaccine for TB in badgers and/or cattle, together with the absence of a laboratory based diagnostic test for bovine TB, and also a computerised movement permit system, bovine TB cannot be eradicated in Ireland in the short to medium term; largely because of a range of socio-economic limitations associated with the traditional testing arrangements, cattle movement, commitment and manpower resources, as well as control of badgers and under which the programmes have to be operated, Ireland's persistently high bovine TB levels cannot be significantly reduced in a reasonable time period.

These reports clearly outlined the deficiencies in the programmes, the problems experienced in the elimination of TB and the need for a long-term strategy. In this context, research and development is very important for the future. The many reports published on ERAD's four year operational programme clearly outlined the problems and those which will arise. Has the Department studied these reports? To what extent has the Minister taken them on board and what changes does he propose?

Everyone must be concerned about the continuing high level of expenditure on TB eradication. The Minister said the cost of the scheme since its establishment in 1954 is approximately £1 billion. While farmers have made a valuable contribution, the major contribution has been made by the taxpayers. It is important to ask whether the taxpayers have received value for money in the past 40 years. The majority of them feel they have not received value for money and that certain vested interest groups have creamed off vast amounts of money from the scheme. The Minister said that the annual cost of the scheme is approximately £67 million, of which approximately £20 million is spent under each of the headings — testing, compensation and administration — with the balance spent on operational aspects.

Despite the expenditure of £67 million per annum on the scheme and carrying out 44 million tests on approximately 7 million cattle there has been no conclusive evidence of any reduction in TB. On the contrary, the author of the report on which I referred concluded there may have been a slight increase in TB. I am not criticising the ERAD programme which was a major innovation when it was introduced and it should be continued. I hope the war between the Minister and the vets will end soon so that the farming community will be adequately looked after. It is important to ensure that taxpayers get value for the money spent on this scheme.

I smiled when the Minister said that EU funding could be drawn down. When I was in the Department it was repeatedly stated that we had EU funding at our disposal. Under Commission decision 91/171/EEC, Ireland secured, in principle, funding for bovine TB eradication amounting to £10 million per annum for 1991, 1992 and 1993. However, it was not possible to draw down any of his money. The battles in regard to the scheme over the years has meant that Ireland has lost EU funding.

I am not treating lightly the difficulties faced by the Minister in the negotiations. I sat in on some of the negotiations in 1992 and I appreciate the problems he has had with the veterinary union and other interest groups in regard to the review of the ERAD scheme and the formulation of proposals for the future. It was always going to be difficult to come up with a satisfactory solution as the vets had certain proposals, the IFA had other proposals and the ICMSA had totally different proposals. However, it was unfair of the Minister to go off on a solo run and say the vets were the real problem. There was a number of problems and all of these should have been taken into account rather than attacking the vets. As Deputy Cowen said, there are far more farmers than vets and the easiest target was the vets. The Minister went down the wrong road on his solo run and has had to backtrack. It is important to put in place a scheme which will benefit farmers and ensure that herds will eventually be TB free so that consumers thoughout the EU will know they are receiving a top class product. That is the aim of farmers who have been specialists in producing a top class quality product over the years. Consumers throughout the EU are looking for environmentally friendly products produced in a clean, green environment.

Research points to the role of wildlife in the spread of bovine TB. I am not sure we have faced up to this problem. The general public would not like to see badgers being eliminated and I would not be in favour of it either, but if infected badgers are spreading bovine TB, we must act in the national interest and eliminate them. It is estimated there are 250,000 badgers of which a significant number is infected with bovine TB. If the disease is spread by wildlife obviously this will have major cost implications for the Department and the taxpayer.

I would like to see arrangements in place to allow action to be taken in cases of individual outbreaks of bovine TB where badgers are shown to be infected. The policy of selective culling of badgers by snaring under licence from the Office of Public Works should be continued. Farmers sometimes tell me that it is very difficult to get agreement for this from the Office of Public Works. This has to be sorted out. The Minister has to ensure that the issuing of licences by the Office of Public Works to snare badgers runs smoothly. Deputy Cowen referred to the pilot project in Offaly which proved conclusively that wildlife was the problem in his area. It is important to have a proper system in place that would eliminate badgers or other wildlife causing the spread of bovine TB. I do not believe the Minister will be attacked unduly for taking this action.

We do not want to see badgers or any other wildlife wiped out — and I do not believe that will happen if we are selective and deal with the problem effectively in conjunction with the Office of Public Works. The incidence of bovine TB is a problem and we must put in place a system that will ensure the national herd is clear. As a country selling abroad, we are competing with countries that have a TB disease-free status.

A great deal of money has been spent on the bovine TB eradication scheme in the past 40 years, but we seem to be no nearer a solution to rid the country of the disease and achieve 100 per cent disease free status from our present 97 per cent rate of bovine TB. From the amount of money spent we should have a system that would ensure that, but having listened to the war of words between the Minister and the veterinary surgeons in the past number of weeks I do not know if we are any nearer to it than we were in 1954.

It is difficult to speak on this Bill without reflecting on the introduction of the compulsory TB eradication scheme in 1954. If we read the Official Report of that time, no doubt we would see that the scheme was welcomed by farmers and everybody in the country. I am sure it was felt that whatever money would be invested in the scheme would be well spent as we all realise the importance of monitoring animal health. I guarantee that in 1954 no one would have predicted that 41 years later we would be debating a programme for TB eradication and that we would still have 400 restricted herds. In the meantime, farmers have contributed £285 million to the eradication scheme and we are still debating the same issues the causes of the spread of TB and how best to eradicate it. Every Minister for Agriculture since 1954 has tried to come to terms with the problem. Irrespective of what we say about the attempts to eradicate bovine TB we can say with conviction that we did not get value for money. It is scandalous that 41 years later, having spent £285 million of farmers' income. TB has not been eradicated. That is a searching question but I do not share the previous speaker's lack of optimism. I believe we may at last have a solution.

In any programme to eradicate TB there will be contending forces. If all the interested bodies could agree, perhaps we would have made progress. Farmers have shown immense patience with the scheme throughout the 41 years. They have spent a fortune on it and, in many cases, have been the victims. Nobody, unless one has experienced it, can appreciate the hardship that this scheme has imposed on many farm families. In many cases, farmers have seen their entire herd being taken away from the family farm. Not only did they lose their livelihood, they spent a great deal of money in financing the scheme that did not bring the desired results. I am delighted we have not given up hope. Research is being carried out, surveys are being completed and to this day there is a great belief we can eradicate TB from our herds.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share