Are we not imposing a burden on the farming community to undertake responsibilities for the rest of us that we would not do in any other area? The Minister should be very cautious before he moves in that direction in respect of a huge national industry and a matter of fundamental importance for the health, not just of the national herd but of the community. That is one of my main concerns. We are passing the responsibility to farmers and letting them make the arrangements with their vets. It seems a little too tidy and ignores some basic realities.
We are talking about equity; someone mentioned that it would be fairer if farmers took responsibility, to a certain extent, from the taxpayer. Who will object to that? I wish to raise a question in respect of the new proposal on levies. We are all concerned about the depopulation of rural Ireland. We are particularly concerned about the almost inevitable elimination of the smaller farmer, the suckler or small store farmer. We are concerned that they are becoming almost extinct in our rural community. Those small farmers and their families are the most wonderful people in the world.
I am concerned about the suggested scheme. The bigger dairy farmers have done very well and we have all played our part in helping them reach a state of prosperity and efficiency. I claim to have done that as much as anybody in terms of the national quota and the dairy and beef sectors. It is a little inequitable and unfair that the small suckler man, who up to now has not been putting stock through the factories or been subjected to levies at the marts, will have to pay directly while the large farmer, who can afford it, will find his levies and costings reduced. I want the Minister to address that issue of equity and social policy in rural Ireland. It is not fair. I certainly would not introduce such a system, having done all I could for disadvantaged and severely handicapped areas. I am not prepared to see the small farmer pay where previously he was not required to do so while the larger farmer who can afford it will have a reduced responsibility. It is in the larger farmer's interest to maintain the health of our bovine population.
I am concerned about the proposed abolition of the free movement test. There are various arguments as to its significance. It has been said this morning that no prudent farmer, much less a prudent mart manager, would buy untested cattle. It was said that only a fool would buy an untested animal. Unfortunately, there may be fools who would take the risk. It is not enough to assume that everyone will act prudently or responsibly. The Minister should think again before proceeding with that proposal. It is meant to save £3 million to £4 million but will it cost us in the long run and will it be at the expense of a short-term saving for farmers? I would like to see that matter researched more fully.
There are many sides to this issue. There has been far too much focus on the test. One cannot test a disease out of existence. Even the most sophisticated blood test cannot and will not guarantee that one will test a disease out of existence. The comprehensive approach, which I acknowledge the Minister is taking, is in the area of research, which we introduced under ERAD, and epidemiology. He has my full support in that area. We do not want the public to get the impression that efficient testing will address the problem. That is not so and we should be careful not to give false impressions in this regard. There are many factors and everybody has a responsibility to contribute to the solution.
I agree with the suggestion of a computerised system. We began that in my time; I do not know how far it has progressed or how comprehensive it is at this point. When dealing with cattle where there is so much movement one must be able, without delay or bureaucratic checks, to locate, identify and isolate specific animals which may have particular problems. The only way one can do that is through a properly computerised system. I hope the Minister can tell us that has been introduced and implemented fully in the Department since my time there four years ago. I hope we will see further comprehensive and effective action on that front.
Dissatisfied though we are with the level of progress because of all the factors I mentioned, it is important to recognise that our herds have an internationally recognised disease-free status, and that our international record is very special. It is very important to ensure that that status is not compromised or undermined. For that reason, I negotiated with the European Union the special programme of support for our disease eradication programme. I regret that none of the money for the bovine TB eradication programme has yet come into play, although it has for the brucellosis scheme. I hope it will be possible to get those funds flowing. The EU wants to support this vital element so that our economy can realise its full potential.
As Minister for Agriculture, I was frustrated by the designation of Angus beef and I understand the current Minister's difficulty with it. Under EU regulations — some of which are unreasonable — you cannot market products by national designation and, thus, it is unacceptable to market a product by Irish designation. The canny Scots got around that, however, by marketing Angus beef.
I am not going to be parochial or chauvinistic in the Minister of State's presence. I would not mind if we used Kerry as a marketing designation because it is pretty well known but I would be happier if we used Tipperary because it too is well know and is associated only with Ireland.
Our marketing strategy must get round that bureaucratic limitation because, coming as it does from the best climatic, soil and production conditions and with the most professional people involved in the farming sector — people who have a real interest in their own business and are a credit to us all — our beef product is the best in the world. We should address that issue as a matter of fundamental urgency.
I do not regard as accurate the general impression that all this money has been scandalously wasted and washed down the drain. We have made progress because we have a 99.5 per cent disease free status, but that is not a popular thing to say and it will not grab the headlines. The headlines belong to those who attack everyone on all fronts and who say the situation is a disgrace. We must inch along from that point to reduce the incidence of bovine TB and, finally, eliminate it.
I hope the current negotiations between the Minister and the veterinary profession will be concluded in an effective and amicable way, not just for the sake of the veterinary profession or the Minister's reputation but for all our sakes. Since there has been so much criticism of some elements in our beef industry, the last thing we need is chaos in the sector after 1 April. Such an outcome would be unacceptable to the beef industry and farming generally.
The Minister should ensure that further negotiations with the veterinary profession will be approached on the basis of partnership and mutual responsibility while avoiding public statements, implications and criticisms that would only give rise to confrontation.
On many occasions the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry must bite his lip and accept much unfair criticism as if everything that happened in every factory around the country was directly due to his collusion. As Minister, I was subjected to that by many elements now in Government, yet I had nothing to answer for. As the records in the Department will show, I adhered at all stages to due process in all matters. I would like to think that my record in that Department will not just be a matter of assertion by me, but that anyone who looks into each and every file I ever dealt with will find there was no privilege, favouritism or by-passing of due process.
I regret that the current Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry implied recently that things have changed now that Fianna Fáil Ministers are no longer involved. He said that a Fine Gael Minister was totally independent of any connections. While I did not respond at the time, I found that offensive and unfair and I want to answer it now.
I had no personal dealings or acquaintance with anyone in the beef sector, much less Mr. Larry Goodman, before I became Minister. I had no dealings, none whatsoever, with anyone — specifically to the advantage of that particular person or to the disadvantage of another — during my Ministry.
This is not a criticism of my predecessor, but I was so scrupulous about this that when, six months into office, Mr. Goodman suggested that I should accompany him on a promotion tour — which might have seemed like a good idea because of our beef industry's significance in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt — as, he reminded me, my predecessor, Deputy Deasy, had done — which is a fact and I have never made a big story of this — I deliberately declined so that there could be no implication of any close cosiness, much less a cosy cartel, between me and any personality in the industry.
I am not questioning my predecessor, Deputy Deasy, for going on a promotional tour with Mr. Larry Goodman or anyone else, but, having maintained a degree of independence at all stages in respect of all players in the industry, I find it offensive that the current Minister should imply that in Fianna Fáil's time there was venality or that one could get special favours.
I do not want to make a formal complaint about this but I hope the Minister will, at least, acknowledge that — as the records of the Department will show in that, as in all the issues we are discussing — I had only one priority as Minister which was the fundamental interest of the agriculture, beef and dairy sectors. I showed no favour to any person or group.
