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.