I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:
Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1983.
copies of which were laid in draft before the Seanad on the 12th day of December, 1983.
Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1983. - Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1983: Motion.
I second that.
The proposed regulations are being made under the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Act, 1979, which was introduced by a previous administration mainly to secure a financial contribution from the farming sector towards the cost of the Bovine TB and Brucellosis Eradication Programme. The Act provided, inter alia, for the introduction of levies of £3 per bovine animal slaughtered or exported live and 0.5p per gallon of milk received for processing. The Act also provided that these levies could be varied by regulations and the rates of levy which had operated from 1 September, 1979 were, in fact, fixed at “nil” with effect from 1 February 1981.
Having regard to the seriousness of the current Exchequer situation the Government have decided that once again farmers should be asked to contribute to the cost of the eradication programme. However, mindful of the various charges and input costs which already fall on the farming sector, the Government took the view that reimposition of the original rates of levy would be inappropriate in present circumstances. The rates of levy now proposed — £1.90 on cattle and 0.3p per gallon on milk — are approximately 40 per cent below those imposed in 1979 and very substantially lower when account is taken of reduced money values since then.
The proposed levies, which will operate from 1 January next, are expected to yield £5 million in the year 1984.
To date, taxpayers' money amounting to £750 million at present-day values has been invested in the programme. This figure does not take account of administrative costs. In this context the contribution of £5 million being asked of farmers in 1984 must be seen as relatively modest. It should also be seen as an investment by farmers in the future growth and development of the livestock and livestock products sector. The potential for growth and development is hampered by the ravages of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis which slow down the process of increasing the national herd, cause loss of thrive in cattle and cut into milk yields. It is in the best interests of farmers therefore that we get rid of these two diseases as soon as possible and I will be looking for a redoubling of effort by all concerned, including the veterinary profession, the advisory service, my Department and the farmers themselves, particularly in relation to bovine TB so that the eradication programme can be brought to a successful conclusion at the earliest possible date. Achievement of this objective will bring greater returns to the farming community in terms of increased volume and value of livestock and livestock products.
Progress towards the final eradication of brucellosis has been most satisfactory. With fewer than, 1,400 herds now restricted because of this disease, the economic benefits of this situation are being felt by farmers throughout the country. Regrettably, the same cannot be said about TB in the earlier years of the eradication scheme very substantial progress was made, but there has been little or no reduction in the national incidence of bovine TB in the past couple of years, and the deteriorating disease situation in certain counties has become a matter of very serious concern. These are counties in which ten years ago the battle against TB was thought to be well on the way towards being won.
In line with the experience in other countries which have carried out eradication programmes the elimination of the final residues of TB infection can be a difficult task. Therefore, with a view to speeding up the eradication process, I have arranged for a review of all aspects of the bovine tuberculosis scheme when the current round of testing ends early in the new year.
I oppose the proposed levies for the same reasons that I gave in dealing with item No. 2. In the present state of agriculture increases of this nature are not justified. Every year in this House — and indeed in the other House, too — we have discussions on the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. It is most unfortunate that, after all those years and having spent millions of pounds on the eradication of this disease, we are still almost as far away as ever from getting rid of it. In some counties the incidence is worse that it ever was before. I cannot understand why the veterinary people and the Department's officials cannot come to grips with this problem and find out what is causing it. There must be some reason why areas that had already been declared clear are now suffering again from the ravages of TB. The situation is very serious.
This country depends very much on the export of live cattle and indeed of fresh meat. I am afraid that sometime in the near future our counterparts in Europe will say to us that they have had enough of this kind of thing, that they are no longer prepared to accept our cattle or meat until such time as we rid our herds of TB and brucellosis once and for all. The eradication schemes have been in progress for the past ten or 15 years but there is still no light at the end of the tunnel so far as TB eradication is concerned. That is a sad state of affairs. I do not know who is responsible. Indeed, farmers cannot be blamed for saying that vets and others had a vested interest in keeping this disease going. That is what is being said. We have laws to try to curtail the movement of cattle and so on, but I am afraid they are not being enforced. How often do we see lorries at marts that have not been washed or cleaned or disinfected? How often have we seen cattle being moved at home from one farm to the other without having been tested? The blind eye seems to be turned to such incidents. The situation should not be allowed to continue because it is too serious. It is very serioius in the national interest and also for any unfortunate farmer who has the hard luck of having his herd closed as a result of an outbreak of TB. His livelihood is taken away. He has to wait for a certain period of time before he can have his cattle tested and retested. He cannot sell during that time and in many cases great hardship has been imposed on the individual farmer. A few years ago we had the hardship fund, which gave some help to people who found themselves in situations like this. Unfortunately, that scheme is gone also. I ask the Minister, now that he is seeking this increase in fees, although the increase will bring in only something like £5 million in 1984, to think of those unfortunate farmers who have had the problem of having a breakdown in disease eradication, who have their herds closed, who cannot sell and who are looking forward to this fund to try to give them some relief.
We could go on talking but I think there is not any need. We all realise the importance of the scheme we are talking about. If I thought for one minute that the increase in those fees would lead to our coming to grips with the problems in relation to disease eradication, I would be only too happy to support the Minister in his plea, but I am afraid that is not the situation. We are only scratching at the surface and, as I said, I cannot understand why all our experts have not come to grips with the problem before now, why they have not been able to find out whether it is the wrong vaccine we are using or whether we have the wrong system of testing our cattle. We are long enough at it now to have found all the answers to those questions. We have spent enough money on it and I would appeal to the Minister to press forward, for the sake of the industry, with the eradication of this terrible disease.
I support fully the introduction of the proposed levy for disease eradication. It is very essential that we tackle this problem as never before. We have been engaged in the process of disease eradication for almost 30 years, since 1954, and, as has been stated by the Minister, we have had varying degrees of success; but, regrettably, in the last couple of years we seem to be sliding seriously backwards. In west Cork there is now an incidence of 7 per cent. By that I mean there is 7 per cent of herds locked up in west Cork, there is a figure of 6 per cent in other counties and lower percentages in others.
The position is extremely serious in so far as we are talking about, in many cases, perhaps one animal in a herd that restricts the entire remaining number of animals, be they 100 cattle or 50 cattle. This is where the real hardship comes upon the farmer. When he has a reactor animal that animal, of course, ought to be disposed of very rapidly to a factory. But then he has to wait for two periods of 60 days in each case, assuming success in his tests from there on, before he can sell his cattle on the open market. The farmer who is found to have a reactor and whose herd consists of small cattle that he cannot sell on the open market place, and which are unfit to sell to a factory, is very hard hit. He is in need of money. He does not have the fodder to keep these animals and he has no outlet for them. Something very imaginative must be thought up whereby clean animals, as one would describe animals not affected by TB, could perhaps be bought through some Departmental scheme, brought to a central area and kept there and brought to the fattening stage. At the moment it is only those who are affected by a restriction situation, a locked-up herd situation, who realise the very great hardship a reactor animal, as a result of TB or brucellosis, can present.
It is good to know and realise that we have been making good progress with regard to brucellosis. With regard to bovine TB, it is alarming that herds that have been free of the disease for 16 years and longer can suddenly have a reactor. The farmer is then back on the slippery slope and placed in a category where he might remain for up to five years during which time his animals are locked up and he cannot sell them. It presents, in practical terms, a very serious position.
I strongly advocate to the Minister, and the Department of Agriculture, that there be a comprehensive research programme established with a back-up service on this question of disease eradication. We have spent £750 million on this over 30 years but we have not devoted sufficient moneys to ascertain why TB breaks out in herds, sometimes suddenly and after long dormant periods. There is an urgency to establish research and back-up programmes for the whole testing operation to try to identify the causes of TB. We have done some sporadic work on wildlife, badger-testing and so on — I know of areas where goats were tested for TB — but we have not been able to come forward with any positive information with regard to what is the cause of TB.
Another point worth mentioning is the absolute accuracy of the test. Perhaps further investigation of this might be appropriate but I do not think it is as necessary as back-up and research services. On the accuracy of the test, I should like to mention to the Minister that figures reveal that 26 per cent of all reactors show lesions at the factory. However, the converse of that is that in a number of cases where animals passed through two or three tests and were absolutely clean as far as the clinical testing was concerned they also showed lesions at the factory. I appreciate also, before a reply comes my way, that disease can get to a chronic stage in an animal where it will not react, but I am not so sure that this answers the question. I must stress the urgent need to prepare research and back-up programmes to ascertain the cause of TB.
Secondly, we must again have a look at the absolute accuracy of this test. This is extremely important to the individual farmer if he is presented with one single reactor. It is not the reactor animal that causes the loss or the hardship to the farmer, it is all the other animals he is prevented from disposing of in an orderly sales way.
I should like to support fully the Minister in this regulation. We must couple that levy with a serious effort to eradicate disease. We are a long time at this and our progress, unfortunately, has not been great. The root cause must be dug out.
The Minister has not had anything but bad news for the farmers today. He has just done with another £5 million in 1984 in disease levies. We all know that these levies will be used in the eradication of disease but the whole disease programme must be looked at seriously. The disease eradication programme started, as Senator Hourigan said, about 25 or 30 years ago with the green painted tag. I remember as a child seeing the vet doing TB testing. When we see that we are still in a serious disease position we realise that many questions have to be answered. The imposition of this £1.90 fee per head is possibly the Minister's way of trying to get farmers to pay a contribution on their livestock sales. The introduction of a levy of 0.3p per gallon on milk for disease eradication is a way of getting more money from the hard-pressed farmers.
When I look at the whole problem of disease I wonder if there are not a number of new approaches the veterinary officials in the Department might adopt with regard to disease eradication. Senator Hourigan mentioned one of my pet subjects, farmers with herds locked up with TB or brucellosis who have got quite young and unsaleable cattle. Could the Department devise a scheme to allow those cattle which are healthy and disease-free but are part of a locked-up herd to be exported from here live? I know that third countries are prepared to accept certificates of origin that the animals have been tested within the previous 30 to 60 days. The Minister should devise a scheme under which such animals may be taken from the farm to the point of export. As far as farmers, the Department and the third countries are concerned, those cattle would be disease-free because they would have had a test within the prescribed number of days.
That is one way that we could alleviate the fear of testing which many farmers have. Our biggest problem arises where farmers are not presenting all their stock for testing at herd tests. This is a well known fact. It is also a fact that animals which pass the TB test may not necessarily be 100 per cent clear. Indeed, there is also the opposite case where animals which fail the test are found afterwards in factories to be free of disease. That leaves a question mark over the vaccines being used by the Department in carrying out these tests. The Department should examine the vaccines that are available throughout the world for TB testing and introduce the vaccine that is giving the highest percentage of reactor detection. There is no sense in prolonging this any more. We heard that £750 million has been spent on disease eradication and we can say it was badly spent. That is a sad fact and we have not got the desired results.
Greater progress has been made in regard to brucellosis than was made in regard to TB. Senator de Brún mentioned earlier that a large portion of the country under EEC regulations is entitled to FOB status. If that status was introduced it would have a significant bearing on the value of female cattle in the areas concerned. The present regulations forbid the export for slaughter of female stock with more than two permanent teeth and my suggestion would mean that even those can be exported for immediate slaughter. It would mean that those animals, as well as pregnant heifers and cows, could be exported from that area to Northern Ireland and England. The Minister should investigate that fully. I know from my own investigations that a large area of the north-west comes within that status. If we had that status generally it would mean that such cattle would be suitable for export and would bring greater competition to the market place. As I said at the beginning, this is a subtle way to take money from the Irish farmers. This action, combined with the new regulations which the Minister is bringing in today, will mean that a farmer will now pay in excess of £5 per animal slaughtered. The increases will mean that a farmer will pay £5.15, £1.90 disease levy, and if you add £3.25——
It is £1.05.
It is an increase of £1.05 on top of the original charge of £2.90, which brings that part of it to £3.25. You can add to that £1.90 for animals slaughtered or exported live.
The total increase is £2.05.
The total amount to be paid by farmers will be £5 odd, plus, in most cases, £1 insurance to the factory per animal. This means that from 1 January Irish farmers will pay 1p per pound to slaughter an animal.
This is a subject very dear to my heart. I have been associated with it for longer than anybody in the House. Father Hayes originally started the tuberculosis eradication scheme in my native parish of Bansha in the late forties as a pilot scheme. He realised that if farmers did not achieve a certain level of disease free animals they would have no markets open to them. Almost 30 years later we are still acting on derogation from an EEC directive to bring our livestock up to a disease-free level, but we have not achieved it despite the expenditure of colossal amounts of taxpayers' money. The Minister has given the figure of £750 million to date without taking into account the cost of administration of the scheme. Out of that amount farmers have got relatively little by way of compensation for the animals they lost. Quite a lot of money has gone on veterinary and other such items, which are hidden.
The very large amount involved in disease eradication puts a great responsibility on everybody involved to pay the closest possible attention to the status of our herds vis-à-vis our European partners. We have had an Animal Health Council for a number of years. They have done invaluable work. I was a member for a number of years and I am asking the Minister to call the council together again in the near future. He has got nominations from various concerned bodies throughout the country for the composition of the new council. The task of such a council would seem to increase rather than diminish daily with the increase in tuberculosis, particularly in parts of the country.
We cannot look at a disease like tuberculosis without considering how virulent it is and how easily transmitted it is from farm to farm, whether by lateral spread, weather conditions, the movement of animals or the switching of tags, which we know has gone on for a number of years by middlemen in the cattle trade. Because of all of that, vast amounts of money have been spent on movement of diseased animals, movement from farm to factory and from farm to farm in spite of regulations.
This has created tremendous administrative problems for DVOs throughout the country. Senator Hussey spoke about the mode of transport used for the conveyance of cattle. There is no doubt that because animals excrete quite a lot between farm and factory the level of contamination is extremely high when cattle are entering other farms on the way to the factory and conveying a commodity which spreads the disease. It is an incubating disease and if animals are moved at a particular time of the year the risk of infection is much greater than at other times of the year, because of weather conditions. At the end of a year bad results can be had because the tubercles live in certain temperatures of muck and dirt and can cause a tremendous spread, of which nobody is aware.
I am pleased that the Minister has put heavy emphasis on the checking of the causes of the spread of the disease. Much money has been invested on epidemiology. Unless we can ensure through our laboratory tests that we can isolate the spread of the disease we will never make progress even though we invest millions of pounds in our testing programme. Testing animals does not give you the cause of the disease; it just identifies reactors. It does not identify reactors recently infected.
That brings me to the point made by Senator Hourigan that animals which react to tests in factories did not show lesions. Such animals had been recently infected and the lesions had not had time to grow so that they could be identified visibly by the veterinary inspector. The continuous use of tuberculin — Senator Ellis referred to "vaccine" when he should have referred to tuberculin which is not a vaccine — has shown clear evidence of much more positive results in the testing of animals for tuberculosis. The fact that animals do not show lesions in factories is not an indication that the animals are free from tuberculosis. Anybody who thinks that animals without lesions are not reactors is fooling himself.
I should like particularly to see an end to the tag switching that goes on by jobbers in the trade. We still have tags that can be switched and it has been proved that cards and tags for animals leaving farms to go to factories appear somehow on other animals in other parts of the country. That is frightening. It should be stopped by the full rigours of the law. Otherwise we will not be showing responsibility to the taxpayers.
The veterinary profession have a bounden duty to ensure that testing procedures will be followed strictly as laid down by the Department. The Department will know the number of animals that veterinary surgeons declare as being tested on a particular day. If it were physically possible to check all the animals that were declared on the first day, I would be satisfied. It is important to research how these tests are carried out and read. You are paid on the number of animals you inject on the first day and the number of tags you write down. You should get paid on the number of animals read and correctly interpreted on the second day.
The new Animal Health Council will have to address themselves to this, in conjunction with the veterinary representatives there, the Veterinary Union and the Veterinary Association. I have very close working relationships with them. I know exactly how they feel about this matter. People now feel that animals are not even presented on the reading day. The veterinary surgeon should be able to prove conclusively that the animal injected on the initial day was read on the second day. If a farmer, through fear or otherwise or through knowledge of what rises in the skin measurements can mean, is afraid to present them on the reading day and the proper checks are not carried out on the tags on that reading day, then a whole lot of possibly suspect animals may not even be presented for reading on the second day. I say that with all due respect to everybody involved in the scheme, but I say it in the knowledge that it is in areas like this that diseased animals seem to escape the net of the testing procedure.
I have the gravest reservations about testing. Testing on its own is insufficient, because all it can do is at best identify the animals. It does not identify the cause of disease and it certainly is no help in trying to eliminate what is a scourge on the farmer. A previous Minister, to whom the Animal Health Council made an interim submission to try to take people out of the dilemma they were in because of the losses they had suffered under this scheme, completely ignored the recommendations of the Animal Health Council. It is on the record of by-election campaigns and otherwise that that happened. I want to congratulate the Minister for including in the last budget a sum of £3 million additional compensation for farmers, because they lose money and animals as a result of this disease.
Although the national average of locked-up animals is possibly two per herd normally, because it is only in isolated areas that you get the destruction of a whole herd, it is not those two but those the farmer is left with that he is unable to dispose of.
From a disease eradication point of view I would have reservations about allowing any animals out of a herd without testing which have been in contact with reactors. Otherwise you will never be able to pinpoint the disease or the farm responsible for the disease. Just because an animal is clear one day is no guarantee that that animal will be still free within the incubation period. We should be extremely careful about how we go about this national responsibility we have.
I would like to compliment all those involved in the brucellosis scheme because here for the first time we have made real progress in the eradication of a disease, simply because the farmer was able physically to see the losses involved in his herd because of brucellosis. He saw his cows aborting their calves, there was a loss of milk and a loss of the calf. In tuberculosis that loss is not visible to the actual livestock owner because he is still looking at what looks like healthy animals walking around his farm and fit to go to a factory. We have made more progress in brucellosis because the rampages of that disease were more obvious to the herd owner. He has a major responsibility in this to ensure that the transport which comes into his farm to remove animals to the factory is as clean when it leaves as when it arrives. That is his responsibility. It he does not do that he is asking for trouble and no vet, no Department or no Minister can take him out of that trouble. With this kind of virulent disease that incubates and is transmitted very easily there is a major responsibility on everybody concerned to ensure that this scheme is brought to fruition within the derrogation period being allowed by the European Community. If it does not, if the Commission's proposals for the super-levy come into force and if we are wiped out of the trade for meat, live or otherwise, of the European Community, agriculture faces a very gloomy future — unless we really get on with the job.
I want to add a few words, without repeating what has been said already. I am glad the Minister told us that he is having a review of the whole scheme after the present round of testing finishes at the end of January. I welcome this because I come from a county where the incidence of bovine tuberculosis has gone up. Ten years ago we were clear of the disease, but now we are back in the situation where it has re-established itself. Not alone that, but our incidence is a good deal higher, I think, than the national average.
On this review of the scheme I would ask the Minister to be particularly mindful, if he can, within the regulations one has to observe when one is trying to get rid of disease — the regulations one observes naturally have to be restrictive — of the plight of small farmers for whom, by and large, I have to speak in this House. When they meet this great misfortune of having their herds loused up because of disease, it is almost as bad as being locked up yourself. It has already been said by Senator Hourigan that those are the farmers who suffer most when animals are taken out because by and large their animals are smaller. They are not animals suitable for slaughter in factories. They have to take a price that is way below the economic price. On top of that, because their normal means of disposal of their animals is through the livestock marts, this locking-up regulation prohibits them from showing their animals in any public place for sale. If you have animals that are fit for slaughter in a factory, you can get them under permit to a factory; but for the category I am speaking of now that option is not open. I would ask the Minister to take a very serious look at this particular hardship and to see how we can ameliorate the situation affecting small farmers caught in this way.
We might say something about the way disease eradication is approached on the ground. It has often occurred to me that in the area of the country where I live, where we are by and large dry stock farmers, the time for testing of most animals should be when herds are at their most static, that is during the summertime. You get an enormous amount of movement of animals in the dry stock areas during the months of September to March. That is the normal peak selling period. During the summer months herds are, by and large, static. The number of animals presented for sale in public places like marts or for slaughter is very small. I would suggest to the Minister that the preponderance of testing be done during this period because we would be hitting more of the animals on the farm and getting them before a lot of them are moved. I honestly believe a lot of our problems are rooted in the movement of our animals from place to place. Animals are moved from one place to another by dealers and so on, and within the 30 days of their test they may find themselves in six different locations or six different farms. That kind of thing cannot be very good when you are dealing with something as virulent as the present strain of tuberculosis appears to be.
The whole area of research into this disease should also be looked at. I believe that we are now dealing with a strain of disease that is much more infectious and disease should also be looked at. I believe more money, more resources and indeed more attention should be given to that area. It would appear, regrettably, that only two people are working in Abbotstown on this area of disease eradication. I ask that this be kept in mind when the review comes up.
Each DVO organises its testing on a county basis. It appears that within each county a number of DEDs are taken together and the order will go from the DVO that the testing should be done in that area. The problem is that very often veterinary practitioners will operate in any number of DEDs and we cannot get all our practitioners operating together as is necessary in an area designated for testing. As a result of this a tideline arises between the times a practitioner can visit and test a farm and another practitioner can come to an adjoining farm. Lapses of months may arise and such a situation is not very satisfactory in disease situations where disease on one farm is likely to spread to another. I ask the Minister to have a close look at that.
It is naturally very worrying that we have now something like 6,600 herds locked up with TB. That is very serious from the point of view that we are Europe's major exporter of beef. We are under orders from the EEC to get rid of disease and it is a great pity that in the last three or maybe five years we have made no progress at all in this, notwithstanding the fact that we have spent £750 million in the last 30 years.
I hope that nothing I have said here today about perhaps relaxing regulations for farmers who are particularly hard hit will in any way operate against the general thrust of getting rid of disease. It should not. A close look must be taken at that section of small farmers who are particularly hard hit. They suffer the greatest economic loss because of disease eradication. They take the smallest price and so on. I hope above all that in their review the Department will look very closely at this category.
I will be brief because it appears that nearly everything to be said on this matter has been said. One matter very often mentioned at meetings is compensation for loss of cows and young cattle. People sought a change in the method of buying cows. Not so long ago the cows were bought by the AO who went to the farm and hammered out some type of deal with the owner. It seems that the IFA made a mistake, as they admit freely now, by seeking the change which they got, whereby they could take the animal to the factory and get £X in compensation. This does not compensate the farmer adequately because the liveliest or leanest cow on a farm could well be a reactor and when that animal goes to the factory it fetches little or no money. The good milking cow does not normally carry very much beef and for that reason fetches a very small price in the factory. There have been many requests to revert to the old system. Every dairyman has his record of the yield of each of his cows and he might like to be paid on the basis of the milk yield of a cow. I think that is a reasonable request and I would like to see us reverting to that system.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on increasing the compensation last year. I would like him to take another look at the question of compensation in respect of smaller animals, the younger stock. I do not know the number of young stock that are reactors; perhaps it is on record somewhere. The factory does not want young stock because they are of no use to them. I am referring to stock between six and 12 months old which if they were not reactors would realise the highest price per cwt at a sale yard. For that reason their owners are being fleeced. A farmer may have bought a calf, paying perhaps up to £200 for it, and might not get even half that amount if the animal has to be killed in a factory. I ask the Minister to look at that again. I do not know if there is any money in the hardship fund. If compensation in respect of cows and younger animals was increased and if some money could be provided for the hardship fund, herd owners would not be reluctant to come forward and have all their animals of whatever age tested because they would be working in the knowledge that they would get full compensation for all of them. Senator Ferris said that some of these people are not producing all of their animals for testing. Perhaps they are withholding their young animals from fear that reactors might be among them.
Senator Ferris referred to the accuracy of the test. Some people, indeed neighbours of mine, were very concerned, when their animals went to the factories, about what the test would show. There were no visible lesions and nothing showed up in the further laboratory test. Because the animal proves to be a reactor they believe that lesions should show up in the factory or in the test which follows. They do not necessarily hear the result but they are usually in the factory when the animal is killed and they can find out what the result is then. It might be better if they did not hear it. Many of them have expressed the view to me that the whole thing is bunkum, that there was nothing wrong with the animal. Many farmers have expressed doubts to me about the whole thing.
Another matter which has been mentioned here today is outbreak in a herd which might have been clear for ten or 15 years and perhaps no cattle at all have been bought into that herd. The farmer might have been rearing all of his own stock. That is a mystery to many people and the DVOs I have spoken to cannot explain it.
I ask the Minister to consider what I have referred to. Senator Hourigan suggested the possibility of having a centre somewhere where small cattle could be fattened. Perhaps this was mentioned previously and the powers-that-be did not think it a wise suggestion. It might be a wise idea now. Again I thank the Minister for increasing the compensation amounts.
I thank the Senators who spoke in this very constructive debate. I say what I have said previously, that I am not happy with the progress of the disease eradication programme. As I stated in my opening address, it has cost the taxpayers £750 million in present-day money values over the past 20 years. That is a very considerable amount and far too excessive for an operation which has not been fully successful. Since testing began in 1954 the incidence of disease among cattle has decreased from 17 per cent to 0.2 per cent. Last week I heard a radio commentator questioning that figure of 0.2 per cent but those are the statistics available to me from experts in my Department. That figure can be confused with the incidence of disease among herds which is a matter that is causing most concern. In 1983 the figure in question was estimated at 2.37 per cent. That is a decrease as compared with 1982 when the figure was 2.76 per cent but it is an increase as compared with 1981 when the figure was 2.11 per cent. The worrying aspect is that in the past two years there has been an increase in the number of herds affected as compared with the 1981 figure.
I want to make it clear that no mercy will be shown to anyone who is seen to contravene the disease eradication scheme. Repeatedly I have representations from members of the public or from public representatives on their behalf who have lost grants as a result of contravening the scheme. I want to make it clear that if a person contravenes the rules of the scheme he will not be entitled to payment of any grant in connection with reactors in his herd. If such a person is found guilty of moving reactors from the herd he will not get a grant and will be liable to the full rigours of the law. He will not get any compensation whatever. If a person contravenes the regulations and thinks that by approaching a politician he can evade his responsibility and qualify for a grant he can forget about it. There will be no exceptions in any circumstances. We have to make that quite clear if we are to succeed in eliminating disease.
In my opening address I said eliminating residues of the disease has proved to be extremely difficult in all countries. Where only a tiny percentage is affected, much less than 1 per cent of the total herd, it has proved extremely difficult to get rid of such residues. Every country in the EEC has a problem but our percentage is 2.37 and this is much too high. We will have to look again at the whole situation. As I stated, I am reviewing the entire disease eradication programme because I am not happy it will succeed as constituted at present. I am most interested in having research carried out to identify the sources of infection and we will go to considerable lengths to set up a programme to identify such sources. We have research facilities, considerably more than was stated in the debate today. I must pay tribute to the Animal Health Council who have done wonderful work in this area. Senator Ferris is a member of that council and his knowledge of the situation is most extensive, as he has shown in his contribution. He asked when the council would be reconvened to examine further the problem of disease eradication. I am awaiting nominations from one of the farming bodies and when they are received we will be in a position to reconvene the council.
It is apparent that sharp practice is involved in the disease eradication programme and it is much more prevalent than any of us would wish. Rackets and rings are operating in the country for disposing of cattle from locked-up herds. There is tag-switching which is illegal. We must ensure that this sharp practice is eliminated and if that necessitates the formation of a task force to identify the sources it will be done. I am considering that matter at the moment. We do not just want to identify the people who are engaged in such rackets and who, as a result, are defeating the purpose of the scheme but we must also have an intensive programme to identify the source of disease in a herd, to trace back the animal to the original herd and thus identify the reason for the outbreak.
A number of suggestions have been put forward with regard to the cause of bovine TB. Senator Ellis wondered if we were using the right vaccine. Last week in the Dáil his constituency colleague, Deputy Leyden, said that the serum we were using was not the correct one. I believe it is not referred to either as a vaccine or a serum — I think the proper technical name is tuberculin, as used in testing for TB. It has also been suggested that badgers, foxes or goats may be responsible for transmitting the disease but this has not been proved definitely to be correct. They are all possible sources for the transmission of the disease.
Senator Ellis maintained that we should be able to export infected animals but that is not acceptable. It would be most unfair to countries to whom we export live animals to give them handpicked infected animals from our herds. It could ruin our export trade and I could not agree at all with the statement of the Senator. We must be very careful about this matter. As other Senators and I have pointed out already, our export beef trade is worth £800 million and we should not do anything to jeopardise it. To risk losing that trade by deliberately exporting diseased animals would be most ill-advised.
Senator Hussey and Senator Ellis were critical of the introduction of the levies in connection with disease. The correct word would be "reintroduction" because they were introduced by Fianna Fáil in 1979. They were introduced at a rate double that which we are now bringing back. The rate then was £3 a head for cattle and .5p per gallon of milk. Taking inflation into account you can see that the effects of the levies at that time were considerably greater than those which we are introducing today. I also wish to point out that farming was in the throes of a dreadful depression during the years 1979, 1980 and 1981. Therefore, I do not see why any member of the Opposition can complain about a much less severe levy.
Senator Ellis referred to it as a subtle way of taking money from farmers. There is nothing subtle about it, it is straightforward and we are not making any excuses for doing so. The disease eradication programme is costing this country £20 million per year, we have decreased expenditure on this programme from £30 million per year. We are looking for £5 million to offset the cost of the scheme because it is unfair that the taxpayer should have to bear the whole burden.
Several Senators mentioned the illegal movement of cattle and the proliferation of dirty lorries which are used for transporting them. Such incidents should be reported immediately to the local district veterinary office. Every citizen has a duty to do so, there is no point in passing the buck. This disease will only be eradicated by wholehearted co-operation from all members of the public.
Senator Connor repeated much of what Senator Ferris said in requesting further research facilities which would establish the cause of the disease. The present research facilities at Abbotstown are considerable and we have plans to provide further facilities at that centre. A number of Senators complained about the levels of compensation, in particular for small cattle. That is a real problem to which I have no ready answer. We did provide an extra £3 million in the current year to help increase the price paid for reactors. That sum represented increases ranging from 41 per cent to 75 per cent on the previous prices paid for reactors. We have made considerable funds available in a very difficult financial climate and it has not been easy to do so.
Senator Hussey and a number of other Senators asked that the hardship fund should be replenished. They will be glad to know that whereas in 1983 we provided £350,000 for that fund the Book of Estimates published last week provides £1 million for 1984. We hope to be able to deal with any outstanding cases which are left over from 1983 in the first weeks of January. Senator Hussey was Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture for two and a half years and he has an appreciation of the problems that confront us regarding the eradication of disease. All are unanimous in their view that he was a courteous and hard-working Minister during his term of office.
I should like to thank the Senators who were so generous in their praise for our decision with regard to Tuam sugar factory.
I knew you would say something about that.
I understand the Minister has a constitutional right to say what he likes.
You mean I cannot give myself a pat on the back with regard to the decision? There are all sorts of rumours and reports about the numbers of people to be let go but no decision has been taken in that regard. It is a matter for study by the Sugar Company and I will be consulting them in that regard.
Question put and agreed to.