I move:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to modify the Disease Eradication Programme to alleviate severe hardship on farmers.
I want to thank the Leader of the House for allowing this motion to be taken at this particular time. I also welcome the new Minister for Agriculture, Deputy MacSharry, and I wish him all the best. The fact that he is a west of Ireland man will not take away from him. He will bring to agriculture some of the approaches that are necessary for this day and age. I certainly wish him well on his own behalf and on behalf of the farmers of the west.
This evening we have what I would regard as one of the most important motions laid before this House for many a long day. It is very important in the history of agricultural development at the moment, and in regard to our animal disease position vis-a-vis the other EEC states. As an overall view I want to say that I appreciate the necessity to have this nation cleared of TB and brucellosis. I also appreciate that we are living very dangerously. We are living from one derogation to the next. I quite understand that there is an impatience on the part of our European counterparts that we must get down to the problem of cleaning up our animal disease problem. Furthermore, I appreciate the need to safeguard the most important export commodity we have—I understand it is valued at around £600 million at the moment. By doing so, we safeguard the standard of thousands of farming families living on the land and indeed thousands of others who are working in related industries. I am as conscious as anybody else of the magnitude of the task before us. The movement of cattle has always been very difficult to control at the best of times and particularly when there are some unscrupulous characters who would sell their neighbour's livelihood down the drain for a few pounds in their own pockets.
The Department of Agriculture has been far from imaginative with disease control over the years. Some 20 years and millions of pounds later there are still large areas of black spots in the disease eradication scheme. Not enough research has been done in the best methods of identifying disease, in particular brucellosis, amongst our female cattle.
If you take Great Britain and America you will see that the use of their Rose Bengal test for brucellosis has proved very effective. This is a place test, the results of which can be ascertained quickly, cheaply and reliably; it could be handled by the district veterinary officer in each county. Will it take the Department of Agriculture another 20 years to latch on to this, or would it be too much to expect that a pilot area be set up to see if the Rose Bengal test is as suitable to Irish conditions as it has been to English and American?
To further pinpoint the failure of the Department of Agriculture to get the optimum results from the expenditure on the disease eradication programme over the past few decades, let us look at the farcical situation in relation to the tuberculin used to identify tuberculosis in cattle. For years, and until a few months ago, the vets used what is known as the Weybridge tuberculin, seemingly happy in the knowledge that it was the best available. However, 20 years later, when most other countries had reduced the incidence of disease down to an acceptable level, we found that we were using a weak tuberculin that had the effect of not identifying all possible reactors. Now we use a Rotterdam tuberculin with much greater effect. I count this an unforgivable blunder; obviously the blame rests with several successive Ministers for Agriculture and a plethora of Department officials and vets.
It is apparent that in most countries the fight against animal disease is being won—we are delighted to say that—and 1979 has been a good year as far as disease eradication is concerned. However, 1979 also saw the introduction of the 30-day test, or the pre-movement test as it is called. The powers that be in the Department of Agriculture and the former Minister, Mr. Gibbons, saw fit to impose this legislation, on the basis that the EEC authorities had put the gun to our heads, that time was running out on us and that we had been given a very short time to put our house in order. I have no doubt that that was the reasoning behind it. I still think—as do thousands of farmers in Ireland—that the Minister of the day over-reacted. This 30-day pre-movement test has caused untold hardship to farmers. It has certainly seriously upset the cattle trade. Also, because of that, farmers have only, on average, two weeks to sell their cattle. It has been stated that the results come back from Thorndale much quicker than that but, on the ground, by the time the farmer has the cards in his hand for the animals he wants to sell, he certainly has no more than 13 or 14 days to do so. Indeed, it would be true to say that many farmers have only seven days because of this delay in getting the blood samples back from Thorndale. Let us look at the consequences of that on the ground. The Minister knows all about marts, that even in times of good trade, for some unknown reason, you hit a black spot; as we call it, in the mart world on a particular day at a particular sale, that prices could be depressed for a lot of reasons. If a farmer happens to be present on that, he has only two choices. He can take the poor price for his cattle—there is nothing to stop him from doing that—but he will lose a lot of money—or he can take his cattle home. He will have to wait 42 days—thanks to the present Minister; it was 60—before he can test and another 14 days or so before the blood samples are back and he has the cards in his hands and he can sell again. That makes up a total of about 60 days of a delay. Anybody remotely involved with farming would know that that is the type of programme that very few farmers can go through, particularly in winter time. Having extra cattle on the farm for an extra two months makes terrible problems for the farmer concerned and, indeed, I might add, for the trade generally, but we will come to that later.
This 30-day test law, in itself, has frightened a great number of small cattle producers to take whatever they can get at the mart on the day they are out but, worse still, a number of farmers are beginning to by-pass the marts and to sell on the land. Nobody can tell me that that type of thing is conductive to a good animal disease control programme. It is not, and however the laws are tightened up, we must try to guard against it. It is well to remember, too, the 30-day test is very expensive. Take cases of farmers testing three cattle or fewer, which would be a fairly reasonable average particularly in the western area, in the small cattle-producing areas. They will be asked to pay £10 or £12 for that, if not more in some cases. There is no doubt in the world in my mind that the 30-day test has contributed to the depressed cattle trade and is still doing so.
The store cattle areas of the west are particularly badly hit. It is significant that, by and large, the western counties are a free or clearance area. It is peculiar that the people who did their best over the years in the free and cleareance areas, and did what they were told, are now being penalised more than anybody else. This is something that I could not stand for. Those people have done what has been asked of them over the years and they are now being over-penalised.
I put it to the Minister that, no matter what Brussels says about our disease status, you cannot over-penalise any particular section of our farming community. The duty is on the Minister to help such people, in so far as he can. I want to place on record that I understand the position in which we find ourselves, where the people who are paying the piper are certainly beginning to call the tune. At the same time, I cannot understand why a law would be enacted that would over-penalise people. Considering, as well, that we have relied on a certain system for over 20 years to clear brucellosis and TB is it not amazing that we decide to screw farmers in such a very difficult way all of a sudden? It is going from one extreme to another. Why did the Minister not bring in a 60-day test? A 60-day test would break the disease cycle much better than the annual test would. It would catch most of the movement of cattle and this is important because one of our special problems here is that the interchange of cattle per farm is much greater than it is anywhere else on the Continent. We have a special problem there because cattle shift, on average, four to six times in their lifetime. The 60-day test would be a reasonable one in that it is not as expensive as a 30-day test. It would also cut out irregulat dealing because it would give farmers at least four or five weeks to get rid of their cattle inside the law. At this stage the Minister must give serious consideration to this matter. A lot of talk and rumours have been emanating from Brussels in the past few weeks that the boot is down and there is nothing that we can do about it. But 60-day test comes as near as one would want to a 100 per cent effective control without at the same time over-penalising the farmer, particularly the smaller farmer.
While I have this opportunity, there is another bone of contention. I cannot understand why suck calves or baby calves from the main dairying areas of the south, some of them coming from TB and brucellosis herds, are allowed to enter the free and clearance areas. The likelihood of their bringing disease with them might not be very great but I understand that about 3 per cent of the identified disease problems can be attributed to this type of thing. From now on until April or May the dealers' lorries in their thousands will be coming from the southern counties into the store-producing areas that are supposed to be clear. I cannot see how that could be a good control programme.
At a time when all the blood testing is done at Thorndale in Dublin, I cannot understand why the Minister does not immediately embark on a programme of getting the regional laboratories organised to test the blood at regional level. If we have to have the 30-day test—and I hope we have not got to have this—there is no way in the future that we can trust the post for such a very important function. Considering that we have regional laboratories geographically very well placed around the country, I cannot see any reason why these would not be immediately equipped and put into operation to do the testing at regional level. It was very bad forward planning by the Department not to have thought of doing something about regional testing facilities before drafting the legislation to carry out the 30-day test.
I cannot agree that there is no money to do this 30-day test. If I have my facts and figures right, over £5.5 million earmarked for brucellosis eradication last year was never actually used for that and in fact was put back into the Exchequer. It is a criminal thing that that happened and I would like to hear the Minister's explanation. I cannot understand why it was not used to get equipment for regional blood testing.
While we are talking about disease generally, I cannot understand why the regional laboratories do not concern themselves about this whole question of identifying lead poisoning in calves. This might seem a very minute problem but in fact it is a very big one. The laboratory in Athlone, for example, is not in a position to identify certain problems concerning the intake of lead. A part of the animal in question has to be sent to Dublin and in one case it took at least six days before it was sent back. I understand from the veterinary profession that if the type of lead that the calf actually died from could be identified it would be possible to treat the other calves with a reasonable chance of keeping them alive. I also understand that 7 per cent of all calves appearing at the laboratory in Athlone in 1979 had lead poisoning in one degree or another. I would ask the Minister to ensure that those facilities are down in the country because it is of very little use to us to have facilities in Dublin if we cannot get the necessary information back quickly enough.
On a more general note, there are cases around the country where the relationship existing between the district veterinary offices and some of the veterinary practitioners is not all that we would like it to be. I find this very disquieting because one would assume that in this business of disease eradication it would be very important to have a united effort. I must say that some counties are very good but, to my knowledge some are not so good. It is very important when there is an outbreak of disease in any county or in a specified area that we would be able to call on all the veterinary advice and all the Departmental assistance that can be given to the farmer concerned and to the adjoining farmers.
If one has been critical of the Department over the years it is because of the very lackadaisical way that the whole process and method of taking reactors off the farms is carried out and veterinary advice given. The first man to see a farmer after he has been told he has disease in his herd should be a member of the veterinary profession. This is a very important factor because there has to be some reason for the disease being there and the sooner everybody knows it the better. This whole question of identifying the source and trying to do something about it is of vital importance. To this day I am not convinced that the Department of Agriculture are on the ball as far as that is concerned.
Another factor that I cannot understand is why the annual test is not carried out in time. Only two nights ago I met farmers who did not have a test for 16, 17 and 18 months. I cannot understand this because, if we are to be reasonable, while the 30-day test would catch cattle on the move, nevertheless the vast percentage of the cattle of Ireland, particularly the breeding stock, would only be subject to the annual herd test. I cannot understand why it is not possible, with all the veterinary surgeons that are available, to organise the annual herd test inside the 12 months. If the Department are serious about stamping out disease at that level no farmer should ever be able to say anything but that he had his herd tested inside 12 months.
Many farmers are beginning to brace themselves to possibly paying for their herd testing in 1980. It has taken a longer time than was expected to have it done and it has cost much more because they might have to pay for their herd testing in 1980, and I would like to hear the Minister reassure the House that this will not be the case because they certainly paid enough through the 30-day test and the disease eradication scheme itself without being burdened with this levy as well.
At this stage I would like to bring the Minister's attention to the whole question of the cost of the disease eradication scheme itself as far as farmers are concerned. I know there are many people outside farming who will argue that disease control is within the capacity of the farmer himself and that if he happens to have the misfortune to run into a disease he should also have the obligation to get himself out of it.
It is not nearly as simple as that because what happens is this. Individual farmers might not in many cases have any control particularly over the incidence of brucellosis in his herd, and if you consider at the moment that most farmers now, with all the aids that are there and payments which we will come to in a minute, are losing between £200 and £300 an animal on their market value, not to speak of the replacement value. When the time will come when they will be allowed to buy in, it might be much greater than that and there is no doubt that there are many hundreds of farming families in a very bad state because of the incidence of disease, and because the Government subsidy is not high enough, and because the hardship grants payable in certain cases are also insufficent.
I will be asking the Minister—it is a hard time to be asking it from a Minister for Agriculture—for an increased subvention from the budget. But I can assure him of one thing: you cannot over-penalise anybody, and I do not have to tell the Minister that any farmer who happens to be hit with bovine disease will never want to see disease again.
It is fair comment to suggest that there are a number of people abroad who would suggest that farmers have actually made money out of disease. I have never seen a farmer actually emerge well financially from having disease in his herd, and to my knowledge 99.99 per cent of farmers would not want to see disease of any description in or near their farms.
I ask the Minister to think seriously about the hardship grant. I think the initiation of that was a good idea. It meant that a farmer who was hit severely could have recourse to that scheme. I ask him, therefore, to hike up the payments and make a greater variety of animals eligible.
Another fault we find with the hardship grant is that is it quite difficult to get the money: there seems to be a long interval between the time when the disease arrives on the farm and when the hardship grant is paid. The hardship grant was initially introduced to get people over lean periods. Some farmers have been through very lean periods while they are waiting for this hardship grant to come.
Good progress is being made on disease eradication. It is belated, but it is important that progress has come. I believe that the percentage of brucellosis in the free clearance areas is now down to 2.53 per cent of herds and 0.31 per cent of all animals. To give an idea of how bad it is at the other end of the scale, in the pre-intensive areas, which are basically in the south of the country, the percentage is now as high as 22.3 per cent of herds. That would lead us to believe that there is a tremendous amount of work to be done in the whole eradication scheme. However, the present progress can be maintained with a revised pre-movement test and a general tightening up of the regulations.
I should like to refer to an important inhibiting factor: wash facilities at marts and factories. There is no doubt that—and I speak as somebody who has been very closely involved in the marts business—that, unless the Department of Agriculture are actually seen to be enforcing the regulations fairly and strictly, the scheme will not be a success. For some unknown reason many of the regulations are circulated, but they never seem to be enforced. I ask the Minister to insist that Department officials will make sure that a vehicle arriving at a factory, or a mart for that matter, will be guaranteed to be disinfected on its way out of the yard. If there is a sure way to spread disease it is through those old trucks. I am told that there are factories to this day that do a very bad job in cleaning and disinfecting lorries. There should be very big penalties for that, because, if somebody brings a lorry load of reactors to a factory and 24 hours later that lorry will be carrying a load of cows or incalf heifers, that is criminal. People guilty of such negligence will have to be stopped.
The regulations and the law governing people who tamper with identity cards, who change ear-tags and so forth have been tightened up. I notice that there have been a number of convictions and fairly heavy penalties, but one would hope that it would become easier to bring people who are always flouting the law before the courts. I have always found that the Department officials through lack of evidence, even though everybody knew that a certain section of the community were messing around, have experienced great difficulty in getting them before the courts. For that reason there has been a lot of underhand type of activity hard to prove. I understand that at the moment when a herd owner is about to have his cattle inspected for the ordinary test by a local vet he or she is asked to sign a declaration form. This has a legal implication; and if it means that all cattle on the farm are tested, well and good, it is a job well done.
I suppose it is most important for most farmers that that TV advertisement the Department of Agriculture see fit to screen should go into every house in Ireland. There is no doubt it brings to attention the danger of getting disease into your farm. However, there are more culprits than the poor farmer with his open mouth, a depressed figure. I think that the cameras should be swung around to catch a number of other people—and there are a fair number of them. I would have a look inside the Department of Agriculture and I would have an odd look at the vets and dealers before I would be finished with it. I would put the whole lot of them on trial because I think more people than the farmer have been involved in the deeds or misdeeds or sins of omission during the years. I think it is unfair to nail the farmer with the image that he has been the cause of all his own troubles.