I call on the Leader to clarify the time limits.
Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1996: Motion.
This item replaces Private Members' time so it must conclude not later than 8 p.m. A maximum of 15 minutes per speaker, by agreement.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:
Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1996
copies of which were laid in draft before the Seanad on the 22nd day of March, 1996.
The proposed regulations would be made under the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Act, 1979, and their purpose is to reduce the financial contribution by the farming community towards the cost of the bovine TB and brucellosis eradication schemes by £18 million.
Bovine disease levies were introduced here in 1979 under the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Act, 1979, to secure a financial contribution from the farming community towards the cost of the TB and brucellosis eradication programmes. Under that Act, inter alia, a levy was imposed on all cattle slaughtered in the State, on live exports from the State and on each gallon of milk delivered for processing. Currently farmers contribute some £28 million annually by way of levy to the operational cost of the bovine TB and brucellosis programmes. The Exchequer carries the balance of the operational costs as well as the costs of salaries of administrative, veterinary, technical, laboratory and clerical staff.
The current rates of levy, generating the aggregate £28 million are £7.30 per animal slaughtered or exported live and 1.3p per gallon of milk delivered. The proposed draft regulations to reduce the bovine levies from 1 April next to £2.50 per animal exported or slaughtered and to 0.5p per gallon of milk delivered, which seek to generate an aggregate amount of some £10 million, are now before this House for approval. This levy reduction of almost two-thirds is proposed in the context of the major restructuring of the operation and financing arrangement of the TB and brucellosis eradication schemes which I am putting in place on 1 April.
The TB eradication scheme has been in operation in Ireland since 1954. The scheme succeeded in reducing the endemic levels of disease in the national herd and currently some 99.5 per cent of cattle are free of TB. The country was declared officially brucellosis free in April 1986 and currently 99.7 per cent of the country's herds are free of that disease.
Since 1954 total expenditure on both schemes has exceeded £1 billion. The total cost of the schemes in 1995 was £67 million, of which about £20 million, was spent under each of the headings, testing, compensation and administration with the balance on operational aspects. Since the disease levies were introduced, farmers have contributed about £285 million while £16 million has been received from the EU veterinary fund. Most of the EU funding received relates to the brucellosis scheme rather than the TB scheme, for which we have received minimal EU funding to date.
Notwithstanding this major expenditure, we have not, unfortunately, made progress in reducing the residual level of TB over the past 30 years. While the country was declared officially brucellosis free in 1986, and notwithstanding various intensive programmes over recent years, there are a number of areas where there is still some infection and over 400 herds were restricted in 1995.
As regards TB, the House will be aware that, under ERAD, an intensive testing programme was undertaken under a four year programme aimed at reducing the incidence by 50 per cent. Unfortunately, this did not happen for a variety of reasons. The main conclusion from the ERAD experience is that eradication of TB is more difficult than had been envisaged. Indeed, the consensus now is that while some progress can be made, final eradication will be possible only when new diagnostic tests, vaccines for wildlife and movement control arrangements are in place. Until these are developed to practical field application, the emphasis must be to contain and hopefully reduce the disease and costs of programmes.
Under current trading rules, it continues to be necessary to operate annual programmes for these diseases which are costly both to farmers and taxpayers and which cause particular difficulties and hardship for some farmers whose herds break down.
As the House will be aware, the operational aspects of both schemes have remained largely unchanged down the years. The House will also be aware that over the years a number of attempts were made to change the testing arrangements but these were resisted, mainly by the veterinary profession. Following on from the IVU's rejection of rotational testing last year, both the Government and the farming bodies considered that the continuation of the status quo— involving ongoing and escalating costs for farmers and taxpayers — was not an acceptable option for the future. Consequently, during 1995, I reviewed the measures that should be introduced from 1996 to improve their effectiveness while at the same time moderating their overall costs. The review was undertaken initially in consultation with the farming organisations which together with the Government provide the funding for the schemes and I announced the outcome of this review in November last in the Dáil, to the farming bodies and Irish Veterinary Union.
The central aspects of the proposals were as follows: the orderly annual testing of the national herd and/or designated categories of animals, with primary responsibility for arranging testing, negotiating terms and paying for certain tests being devolved to farmers; follow up and focused strategic testing, including use of blood testing in certain circumstances; a quality control programme; a comprehensive programme to expedite the lifting of movement restrictions on certain herds; a comprehensive research programme aimed at preventing TB spread by wildlife; improved epidemiology and feedback to farmers; continuation of research on developing blood tests, vaccines and other technological tools required to improve effectiveness of programmes; a rearrangement of funding, with levies to be substantially reduced and receipts to contribute to compensation on an agreed basis; the establishment of a national forum comprising representatives of the main farming organisations, the Departments of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and Finance and the veterinary unions to advise and make recommendations to me on the operation of the schemes and, finally, abolition of the compulsory two month pre-movement test.
The arrangements envisaged a partnership approach to implementing and overseeing the operation of the new arrangements at national and local levels. Farmers would have greater direct involvement and responsibility under revised and more effective measures. In particular, farmers would choose practitioners to carry out the first tests on their herds each year and negotiate and pay practitioners for such work, assist the Department in research work into disease spread by wildlife and have responsibility for protecting their own herds and, in particular, for deciding whether to buy in cattle which have been tested before movement and whether to test them after purchase.
Together with the revised operational arrangements, I proposed an intensification of control measures, a more focused approach to tackling infection, a continuation of research and a rearrangement of the financing of the operational aspects of the schemes. As indicated, farmers would engage and pay practitioners directly for the first tests on their herds each year; as these costs have been borne from central funds to which farmers contributed, the disease levies would be reduced to about £10 million a year from the first full year of operation of the new measures. Thereafter, compensation costs would be shared by the Exchequer and farmers.
In overall terms, total costs to be borne by the farmers would be moderated while some savings would also accrue from the discontinuation of the 60 day compulsory pre-movement testing requirement for internal movement. Apart from there being a reduction in overall costs, there would also be a fairer burden sharing of costs between farmers. Under the current arrangements, levies are borne by farmers who supply milk, finish cattle and whose cattle are exported live. Under the new regime, all farmers would contribute towards the costs of the measures.
Since November, the proposals have been refined following detailed discussions with the farming bodies and the Irish Veterinary Union. All the main farming bodies have indicated that they are broadly supportive of the refined proposals. Likewise, the IVU membership has voted to implement the revised arrangements. It may be the first time in the history of the scheme that the IVU has agreed to proposals as innovative as these and I publicly thank it for accepting them.
There is a new way forward for this programme. If we can achieve proper co-operation from all the sectors concerned, we can go a long way towards eradicating TB and what remains of brucellosis in the next five years. We have established the forum that was demanded for so long and, through it, I hope there will be the impetus and cooperation to ensure we have an effective programme that will clear out the residual TB levels that still remain in our national herd.
The forum, which comprises of representatives from the four main farming organisations and the three veterinary unions which met for the first time today, has a major role to play in overseeing implementation of the new arrangements and in reviewing their operation. I also consider that all parties have a contribution to make in ensuring the effectiveness of the new arrangements.
In conclusion, I commend the motion to this House so that the disease levies can be reduced as follows: in animals slaughtered or exported live from £7.30 to £2.50 per head and in milk delivered for processing from 1.3p to 0.5p per gallon. The intention is that these rates will apply from 1 April 1996 to coincide with the introduction of the new arrangements for the disease schemes.
We had a similar debate in regard to another levy some time ago. I am not entirely happy with this new bovine disease eradication scheme. Farmers will have to pay more, irrespective of what the Minister or the Minister of State thinks. Under this scheme, farmers will have to pay their vets annually for these tests and will also have to pay levies.
I do not mind paying levies if they help keep these diseases outside the farm gate. However, this will not be the case. There have been more frequent outbreaks of TB and brucellosis in my locality than there was three or four years ago. The Minister said that 400 herds were depopulated in 1995 because of brucellosis. Some herds, including my own, were depopulated in 1994. I know about the hardship experienced by any farmer who has to depopulate their herds because of these diseases. The compensation paid by the Department is completely inadequate.
There is currently great concern about BSE. However, a farmer who has an animal infected with BSE will get greater compensation than one with brucellosis or TB and that is wrong. Some farmers who have animals infected with brucellosis were not inclined to sell them to the Department but then an animal infected with BSE was found in the herd. How did that animal turn up so conveniently? It was surprising that it had not been noticed before the animal with brucellosis was detected. The Department has many questions to answer as regards the eradication of bovine diseases — TB, brucellosis or BSE. I do not like referring to BSE because it has had a terrible effect on our beef industry. I do not think there is any BSE in Ireland.
In every profession there will always be some people who will not abide by the rules. The use of angel dust is wrong and it should be stopped. I condemn its use. One farming organisation was silent on that issue but it welcomes this scheme which I do not think is a good one. It has lost sight of complete eradication. The abolition of the pre-movement test is a disaster for the eliminating of bovine diseases. In his speech, the Minister said there will be an—
abolition of the compulsory two month pre-movement test.
The arrangements envisaged a partnership approach to implementing and overseeing the operation of the new arrangements at national and local levels. Farmers would have greater direct involvement and responsibility under revised and more effective measures. In particular, farmers would choose practitioners to carry out the first tests on their herds each year and negotiate and pay practitioners for such work; assist the Department in research work into disease spread by wildlife; . . . . .
I agree with that. However, the Minister then said that farmers should "have responsibility for protecting their own herds and in particular for deciding whether to buy in cattle which have been tested before movement and whether to test them after purchase." He also said that "In overall terms, total costs to be borne by farmers would be moderated while some savings would also accrue from the discontinuation of the 60 day compulsory pre-movement testing requirement for internal movement." That is a complete contradiction. The Minister is first saying that farmers are responsible for protecting their herds, particularly for deciding whether to buy in cattle which have been tested before movement and later says that they would make a saving because they do not have to pay for a pre-movement test. I would not buy cattle unless they passed a pre-movement test. The abolition of this test spells disaster.
I have no problem paying levies if the disease stays outside my farm gate and I sure other farmers feel the same way. We must pay the vet now and, as I mentioned on the last occasion, the vet must pay 21 per cent of his fee in VAT to the Government. When we are paying the vet, we are paying the Government VAT. It is a saving for the Government and the Exchequer but not for the farmers.
The three month test has been abolished and farmers asked to carry out their own test. I got a communication from the Department last week saying I must carry out a test. I agree with the test and I hope it will continue. I mentioned previously that an animal might not be tested for two years and I explained how this might occur.
An animal could be tested in my herd in January 1994. A couple of months later I could sell it to a farmer who may not require a test until December 1995. I received a notice saying I should test between dates in April and May. The farmer to whom I sell the animal might not be scheduled to test until two years later or he may have been scheduled to test a month before my test. The animal would not then be tested for almost two years and could still be infected with tuberculosis or another disease and spread it.
The scheme is too loose. It does not convince me or all the farming organisations. I know of one such farming organisation but it is obvious that it is loyal to the Minister and Fine Gael and would not go against them.
Would they not?
I am a member of that farming organisation.
There are four farming organisations.
There are, but the Minister of State can use his own discretion.
The BSE scare is most serious. What is the Government doing about it? There is an urgent need and onus on the Government to explain in clear language the excellent health of the Irish beef herd. It has always been healthy. The Commission in Brussels decided to ban all UK beef and this can have a knock on effect. However, it is most important that the Irish Government explain and give a clear message that our beef is a disease free source of quality meat. Ireland has a good story to tell in this regard, but the problem is that this message is not getting through to the consumer. The consumer in the marketplace is the arbiter of the value and worth of the product. If the suspicions and concerns of consumers are not cogently and urgently addressed untold damage could be done to our £1.7 billion beef industry.
Fianna Fáil in Government pursued a clear and determined policy in relation to the food sector and food quality. A separate food Ministry was established and during our time in Government that Ministry was always headed by its own Minister of State. That is lacking at present. The food Ministry was seen as a separate and completely distinct part of an integrated approach to the production and processing of food.
The approach to BSE of successive Fianna Fáil Ministers for Agriculture was always well ahead of what was required by the scientific evidence. Realising that the food industry is based ultimately on the choice and confidence of consumers, our approach in Government was always to put concerns of consumers first and foremost. The wisdom and worth of the policy pursued by our party in Government is especially evident today.
In the last two days new circumstances have arisen surrounding BSE in the UK. The British beef industry is in total crisis. The excellent health status of our own herd notwithstanding, the extent of public concern is such that there is a grave danger of our industry being brought down in the British quagmire. The first onus on the Government is to address the concerns of consumers at home and abroad about the quality of Irish beef. We are self sufficient in beef production and the importance of reassuring foreign markets cannot be overestimated.
In this context I am concerned at the complete silence of the Minister for Health on this issue. Surely if there is any semblance of an integrated approach to the food industry, and food safety in particular, the Department of Health should be to the fore in reassuring the public on the issue. In sharp conflict to the situation in Britain, neither the Minister nor the Department of Health appear to have any role in assuring the public of the health status of Irish food. There is a food and safety advisory group in the Department of Health and the public have to date heard nothing from it. Farmers are at risk of becoming the first and most seriously affected victims of the swing away from consumers by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. I emphasise that there is a decrease in the consumption of Irish beef in Ireland and this must be addressed by the Irish Government.
The Government is not adopting the proper measures. A governmental committee should be established and headed by the Taoiseach. I do not know how the Taoiseach got on today with his telephone call to Egypt. At 2 p.m. the telephone call had not been effected. If it takes 24 hours to effect a telephone call, where are we going? Are we that slow about an important issue such as three ship loads of cattle waiting to be landed in Egypt? We read in the newspapers about how the Taoiseach would make the telephone call and it is another example of public relations as highlighted by the present Minister for Agriculture. It is all very well for the Government to say it is doing this and that and have everybody read it in the newspapers, but there is no action. We want action. What action is being taken? There should be a committee at Government level headed by the Taoiseach to attack this issue. It definitely should be addressed.
I see no reason for a lengthy debate on this issue because it has been debated in both Houses over the past four or five months on at least three occasions. However, I intend to comment on the Minister's speech.
The past week in particular has seen much talk about bovine disease. There has been much misinformation in the media at all levels, which has been very damaging to the beef industry. This is a serious situation for this country. We have the best meat in the world. I have travelled in most countries and one will not get a steak as good as that which one gets here. Unfortunately, it is difficult to alter people's perceptions.
Much of what has been stated on television in respect of BSE is an absolute scandal. It is time people realised that there are far greater problems in this country than BSE. We have no BSE in this country because we have dealt with it. Fair play to the Ministers who went before us; they dealt with it effectively. We have no problem with that. Unfortunately, however, as far as this scare is concerned, we are getting caught up in this mix across Europe. The consumer's perception is that beef is a bad product when in fact it is a very nutritious product and is an absolute requirement as far as the population is concerned.
Consumers here and abroad should be aware of the quality of our beef which is grass led and grass fed. Ireland is one of the few countries that produces beef at that level. In the rest of Europe beef is not produced as a grass fed product.
In discussing this disease we are talking about changes towards new systems and methods. As far as the new arrangements are concerned, progress was slow particularly in recent years in cleaning up the last residues of TB. It is a difficult task here and in other countries also.
The general belief across Europe is that it is physically impossible to completely eradicate TB. Brucellosis, which like TB is an infectious disease, can be eradicated, but is has proved very difficult to completely eradicate TB in Europe. Some 99.7 per cent of our national herd is clear of TB. It is a good level but there must be no further deterioration.
A new programme is being put into operation and I call on everyone to operate together. That includes the Department, the vets and the farmers, because no one group can be in control. While serious negotiations have taken place about an aggravated situation, I hope it will have no effect in implementing the programme over the next few years. Any deterioration in the incidence of disease would be serious because it is a sensitive area. The value of beef exports from this county is approximately £2 billion a year, but there is room for improvement because we have the best beef in the world.
Every speech on TB eradication mentions the fact that the programme began in 1954 and has cost £1 billion. The contribution made by farmers has been £285 million, while the veterinary fund stands at £16 million. During that period farmers suffered terrible hardship. It is a serious situation for a farmer to discover the disease in his herd which must then be impounded. He cannot sell his calves and cannot operate the farm properly. Huge losses occur which people outside farming know nothing about.
Compensation has been paid over the years but it has never been adequate and never will be. People may complain that the TB eradication scheme has cost £1 billion, but it is good value when one sees what other diseases cost, especially human ones. It is serious because animal diseases are reflected in human beings.
In his speech the Minister said that "Notwithstanding this major expenditure we have not, unfortunately, made progress in reducing the residual levels of TB over the past 30 years". I cannot fully accept that. The disease has been kept under control and it is still under control.
The Minister continued: "While the country was declared officially brucellosis-free in 1986, we still have some 400 herds which were restricted in 1995". Research on TB has never been carried out properly and I accuse the Department of not doing it. I have been debating this matter since I became a Member of the Dáil in 1977. It has been stated and restated that the wildlife situation was never properly examined. Unfortunately, the badger is the main culprit as far as a source of the disease is concerned. This has been proven, but the Department only accepted that fact last year.
The badger population must be controlled but I am not sure how it can be done. I can assure the House that badgers in my area have TB. We have examined the situation seriously and we know how to control it. However, I have never seen any Department official or Minister stating how this matter can be dealt with. Badgers can freely roam huge areas of the country and when they are on the edge of pastures they constitute a source of infection for herds. If we are to eradicate the last 0.3 per cent of the disease the badger must be dealt with.
Central aspects of the Minister's proposals include the orderly annual testing of the national herd and/or designated categories of animal. In addition, primary responsibility for arranging testing, negotiating terms and paying for certain tests is being devolved to farmers. I am prepared to accept this. We are asking for a reduction in levies but we cannot lose sight of the fact that farmers now pay directly themselves.
Much has been made of the fact that farmers can chose their own vets, but that is not easily done in such situations. A family believes in the family doctor and likewise a farmer believes in his vet. One cannot negotiate with a vet to carry out TB testing and then go to another vet at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning to ask him to help with a cow that has a problem in calving. That is not on. Farmers stay with one vet and, thus, it is not practically possible to negotiate a price reduction from one vet to another. You will find that most farmers deal with the same vet for testing as for other veterinary functions on the farm.
In his speech the Minister refers to the follow up on focus strategy testing including the use of blood testing in certain circumstances. Where a serious breakdown occurs in an area, not just in a herd, can all blood testing be carried out on all herds in an area? I ask the Minister because I do not know the technical terms attached to this. If it is thought that blood testing can be more accurate then it should be carried out.
It is happening at the moment.
I am glad to hear that, but as far as I know it has not happened in our area. There have been breakdowns in County Wexford, particularly in the Blackwater area, where local farmers told me that testing had not been carried out. It should be carried out.
It is being carried out on brucellosis.
Yes, but I am talking about TB.
Not on TB.
I thought not. I checked whether such TB testing had been carried out and I understand it has not. I agree with carrying out a quality control programme in the case of a serious breakdown in TB. I have always had the greatest trust in veterinary surgeons. Like every profession there is the odd cowboy around, but there are cowboys in farming also.
The Minister announced a comprehensive programme to expedite the lifting of the movement restrictions on certain herds. I am not sure about this point until one is absolutely certain that there are no further sources of infection in the herd. Before lifting the restrictions on any herd the Minister must make sure that all residues of the infection have been cleared up.
I agree with the introduction of a comprehensive research programme aimed at preventing TB from spreading via wildlife. The Department should clearly state what programme it is prepared to put into operation to deal with the source of infection from wildlife. I also agree with the continued research and development of blood testing, vaccines and other technological tools required to improve the effectiveness of the programme.
I also agree with the proposal about rearranging the funding, with levies to be substantially reduced and receipts to contribute to compensation on an agreed basis. However, I have reservations about the abolition of the compulsory two months pre-movement test. The Department must be very careful in terms of allowing a period of 11 months during which cattle can be moved from one area to another.
It could be 22 months.
Perhaps. Unlike most other countries, people in Ireland could move cattle up to five times during the animal's lifetime. It has been stated that under the system which will be brought into operation it is possible that 16 or 17 months could elapse before a beast is tested if cowboys are allowed to operate in that area. I attended the vigorous debate regarding the introduction of the pre-movement test. This test was introduced for the specific reason of stopping cowboys operating with infected herds and I hope its abolition will have the effect desired by the Minister and the Minister of State, which is to improve the situation rather than disimprove it. I ask the Minister of State to closely monitor areas where the pre-movement test operated but will now operate differently to ensure there is no deterioration or further spread of TB.
I welcome the arrangements and hope they work. We have reached a stage where we are almost 99.7 per cent free of TB. It is a difficult disease to eradicate.
The Senator hopes they will work, but he is doubtful.
I hope the Minister will be in a position to state next year that we are 99.9 per cent free of TB. However, we must be clear that no country in Europe, with the exception of Denmark, has successfully eradicated TB from their herds. The eradication of the disease is difficult and I hope the new arrangements will work in Ireland. It is a very sensitive issue in a sensitive area and this point was brought home in recent days regarding the new BSE scare in Europe.
I also welcome the regulations. They are most important and not just from the economic point of view of the spread of tuberculosis and brucellosis to humans. The eradication of the disease as rapidly as possible is vital, but I take the point that it is almost impossible to eradicate it totally from herds.
The importance to the consumer of the association of an animal disease with humans has been demonstrated in recent weeks. Many lessons can be learned from events in recent years and I hope they are applied as urgently as possible. One of the saddest aspects of current events is that the innocent are going down with the guilty. This is particularly important in Ireland when our beef and other products from animals are associated with Great Britain and events there.
Since the war Britain has pursued a cheap food policy and has favoured quantity rather than quality. This has not been the practice in Ireland and it is most unfortunate that we are included in the British Isles group. The result is that those who did not feed contaminated food of the most revolting nature to herbivores are finding that their beef is also labelled inferior. The current situation is also particularly sad for farmers in England who tried to pursue a policy of feeding herbivores grass rather than the extraordinary cattle cake. They find themselves in exactly the same boat as those who were involved in feeding the cake because there is no evidence there at present of transfer from animal to animal within herds.
As far back as 1990, in an article in the Irish Medical Times, Dr. Vincent Carroll warned of the possibility of the spread of BSE from animals to humans. While I will not try to prove whether that is happening, we must consider the increase in the number of cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in young people. This is a serious alarm bell and the reason major efforts must be made to ensure the prion protein is removed from the food chain as rapidly as possible because no treatment for the disease is available.
The most worrying aspect at present is how far consumers will expect food producers to go and to what extent they will feel food is endangered. Dairy products have escaped so far, except those that contain gelatine, such as some yoghurts, desserts and fromage frais. However, it would be most serious if what I term the “yuck” factor in the production of food regarding the cattle cake feed in Britain spread to the dairy industry also. Many people will consider the material fed to dairy cows in particular and wonder about the attractiveness of food which contains offal, bones and chicken droppings. Is it ethically right to feed such food to animals? Many years ago the manager of a co-op in Ireland told me the reason he did not import the cattle cake was that the thought of feeding such material to animals was nauseating to him.
It is most fortunate that our animals were grass fed over the last few years and there has been such a low number of BSE cases in herds. Approximately 12 of the 124 cases in Ireland involved animals which were imported. Therefore, just over 100 cases have appeared in the country over the last eight years and this is a miraculously low level when one considers how high the level was in Great Britain. I note with interest that some people in Northern Ireland have decided to be Irish. This is being resisted, but it appears there are other ways, aside from removing the Border, to reunify the country.
There is a tremendous lack of consumer confidence at present and it will not be restored overnight. However, an accumulation of matters, rather than the existence of a particularly serious problem, has caused this lack of confidence. For example, I do not know how seriously consumers are affected by the giving of hormones, such as testerone injections, to animals. However, consumers do not want it and that is the end of the matter. I do not know how seriously consumers are affected by angel dust, beta-agonists, which can have cardio-vascular effects. It has serious effects on those using it if they inhale it and people have died from cardio-vascular collapse. However, if the consumer does not want it, it cannot be there. Consumers now look at labels and they expect better labelling. They do not want to consume such substances and this must be the end of the matter if products which are described as clean and green are to be sold. The effect of a substance does not matter; if the consumer does not want it, it cannot be there. If consumers do not want antibiotic residues, they cannot be there.
I was disturbed the other day when the leader of a farming organisation — I cannot remember which organisation — said in relation to who would pay the beef intervention fines that it was up to those policing the situation to do so properly because people would try to get away with things if they could. This attitude will not do. We must have a situation where Irish farmers can say that people can rely totally on them and if consumers do not want certain substances in products, people can be assured they will not be there. Those involved in production processes after the animals leave the farms have a very serious responsibility regarding the health status of Irish food.
I will not rehash the beef tribunal but many matters emerged during it, such as the mislabelling of goods, the repackaging of old meat and forequarter meat replacing extensive hindquarter meat. However, if we are supposed to produce quality products, this type of thing will not do. I felt particularly sorry for the people who received canned beef under the Russian food aid project. They were supposed to get best hindquarter beef, but apparently some of the cans contained insides, outsides, knuckles and rumps. Imagine if one was in Moscow and thought one was getting nice Irish intervention beef but that is what came out when one opened the tin. Those who received forequarter and heart were extraordinarily lucky. This type of thing is unacceptable if we are supposed to produce quality products.
A major change must be made regarding An Bord Bia. The people who criticised the composition of the board because it did not include any consumers were right and this should be rectified rapidly. A food board is not just about the production of food, but rather what the consumer wants to eat. If there is any lesson we should have learned over the last week it is that when the consumer decides they do not want what is being produced, they will not eat it. The drop in the consumption of beef, even in this country where the level of BSE has been very low, has been staggering.
I visited Scotland recently and my husband pointed out that the lights in McDonald's and Burger King were going down and signs were being changed. No matter what habits consumers had in the past, if they lose confidence in a product it is pointless trying to encourage them to eat it. I do not blame them because I would not eat anything which I felt was bad. I am delighted the production of vegetables has improved so much in this country. This means that people who are not eating beef at present can be encouraged to eat what is being produced in a good way on most Irish farms.
I hope confidence will be restored rapidly in Irish beef. I regret most that the innocent are going down with the guilty. The people who tried to maintain high standards are being affected in exactly the same way as those who did not do so, whether nationally or internationally. I am sure the Department will make every effort to reassure people about the quality of our produce. However, it is pointless reassuring consumers in that regard if a fresh scam or scandal is exposed a few weeks later and consumers once again discover people tried to get away with whatever they thought possible. We must show that our policy is to put forward the best quality on the national and international market. This is the only way the Irish food business can make further progress.
Parts of the Minister's statement are in conflict. The TB eradication scheme has been in operation since 1954 and a vast amount of money has been spent on it. The Minister said the scheme succeeded in reducing the endemic levels of disease in the national herd and currently 99.5 per cent of cattle are free of TB. The country was declared officially brucellosis free in April 1986 and currently 99.7 per cent of the country's herds are free of that disease. However, the Minister also stated that while the country was declared officially brucellosis free in 1986 and notwithstanding various intensive programmes over the years, there is still infection in a number of areas and over 400 herds were restricted in 1995. Why was that large number restricted if progress was made?
The cost since 1954 of the efforts to eradicate TB and brucellosis in cattle has been one of the greatest scandals ever in this country. Some people said at the time that it would make the industry but others said that was not the case, that it was Ireland and one could be sure the programme would be abused. Those people were correct; the programme was abused. Why is there such conflict between the Irish Veterinary Union and the Department if, as we are told, everything is going well?
The beef industry and the food industry in general are two of the main pillars of the economy, providing both direct and indirect employment and playing a central role in our export economy. Consumer confidence is central to the ongoing success and expansion of the industry. There is plenty of evidence regarding the use of angel dust and the shenanigans revealed during the beef tribunal and most recently the British BSE scare have combined to undermine consumer confidence in Irish beef. Comments I have heard in recent days indicate that this is the case. Not enough was done to reassure people that there was no reason for fear. Irish beef is one of the best products on the market today.
Hear, hear.
However, this point has not been put across and people do not have sufficient confidence in it. Undoubtedly, there are a handful of unscrupulous individuals in the production and processing sectors who willingly place profit before consumer safety. However, they are in the minority and I have no doubt they will be weeded out. It is in the interest of the beef industry and all those involved in it to unite with the Government in ensuring that rogue operators are not allowed to sully the reputation of Irish beef.
The response to the current BSE scare by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry has been rigorous and principled. The Minister is making an impact in that regard. The Consumers' Association of Ireland has persuasively argued that producers should be separated from the food industry's regulator and promotional agency. It has also called for an identifiable consumer presence on An Bord Bia. Further consideration should be given to these proposals. The arguments and wrangling over the years between the IVU and the Government, in addition to the high incidence of TB and brucellosis, has not helped the problem.
Concerns have been expressed in recent days about reports of cattle smuggling from Northern Ireland. Checkpoints are now operating to stop illegal stock movement. It would be disastrous if infected animals got through and I am also concerned about the revelations that Irish certificates have been sold to give British cattle a clean bill of health. There is a need to ensure that all sections of the industry, including production and processing, operate to the highest standards. I am glad the Minister has deemed it necessary to reduce the levies. I hope he will be in a position to tell the House in the near future that, with the co-operation of producers and others, bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis have been eradicated.
I welcome the Minister's statement in relation to the bovine TB eradication programme. I particularly welcome the fact that the veterinary union has agreed to operate the scheme proposed by the Minister. This is a positive development. I wish to make some observations on the new scheme about matters which still greatly concern me. My first concern is the impact it will have on small farmers with low incomes who never supplied milk to creameries or cattle to factories and, therefore, were not liable to a levy. They exist in Kerry, Cork and Tipperary. I am referring to what are called small storemen who were never subject to any levy in respect of the range of charges applied by Government over the years.
The social implication of this scheme is the depopulation of rural Ireland. This concern is shared by all parties and I am sure Senator Sherlock is particularly concerned. These people, who should be our first priority, will be made liable for the first time for paying their vets directly for the cost of operating the bovine TB scheme. That is a retrograde step at a time when we are looking at a very serious social problem in rural Ireland. This will have a devastating effect on those low income small farmers and their families. I would like to hear the Minister's observations on that because it must have been considered when this new scheme was introduced. I encounter this problem regularly in Tipperary and it must be at least as prevalent in the west, Kerry and many other parts. We must consider those serious implications.
My second worry is in regard to the abolition of the pre-movement test. It would be fine if all farmers behaved responsibly; but, no more than in any other segment of society, one cannot exclude the possibility that some farmers will not behave responsibly, for one reason or another. If we find because of this saving that cattle which have not been confirmed as TB free in a pre-movement test are presented for sale and purchased, what will be the consequences? The Minister's answer might be that a prudent factory or purchaser would be very cautious before purchasing. However, there is no longer an obligation on them to do that. I do not understand the rationale of eliminating this very important feature of the bovine TB eradication programme.
I share the concern expressed by all that, despite the amount of money invested over the years by farmers, the Government and taxpayers, we have not succeeded in eliminating the TB bug. However, as I mentioned before, anyone who has studied that bug will know it is probably the hardiest creature of all living organisms. It can survive in the most extraordinary conditions and emerge in a spontaneous outbreak of TB in herds which had tested clear for many years. As a former Minister and Deputy who represented a rural constituency for many years, I am aware of many such cases where spontaneous outbursts of TB occurred in herds which had been TB free for a long time.
There are a number of factors involved such as wildlife, the climate and the extraordinary level of movement of our cattle in comparison to other countries. In some countries the unfortunate animal never sees the light of day and travels straight from the feed lot to termination; but in our case, because of the nature of the trade, there are sometimes at least six or seven movements. I am sure the operation of the new scheme will take all those vitally important factors into account.
One of my achievements during my five years as Minister for Agriculture, which I would like to think was of consequence to the economy, was the fact I negotiated with the European Commission and the European Community a major contribution to the eradication programme, provided the conditions of our programme were acceptable to them. I assume that contribution, which was worth millions of pounds, is still there to be implemented and applied to us. If it is not, will the Minister tell me what has happened since I negotiated that agreement? They laid down certain conditions which must be fully acceptable now. When the Minister gave the costs to the House, did we get the full picture? I am not saying he deliberately concealed the facts. However, if we are discussing the overall costs we should recall that the level of contributions from the European Commission, unless they have radically changed their minds from the understanding and agreement I reached with them, will be very considerable. The Irish taxpayer will be very interested to know the current state of that agreement.
While Ireland has been declared brucellosis free, it is important to recognise that the money spent on bovine TB eradication over the years was not, as is so often said, wasted. It was not money down the drain or a scandal because the level of bovine TB has been consistently contained and reduced. Ireland is recognised internationally, even in respect of bovine TB, as meeting the most stringent European and international standards. We must rid ourselves of the habit of knocking everything and everyone in sight and implying they are all cowboys.
While the controls are not always as efficient as we would like, it is important to acknowledge the fact that the bovine TB eradication programme has achieved, for our health and that of the consumers to whom we export, the guarantee that our herds meet the highest standards in terms of bovine TB. I stand to be questioned and contradicted by the Minister on that but it is important to put that fact on the record. Otherwise, we will engage in the usual Irish habit of knocking everyone for this awful scandal and looking for targets to attack — rogue farmers, the vets or the Department. I can say with a degree of reassurance that the story is much better than that.
The BSE story is current these days, but not because of any issue, problem or doubt around the world about the white country status of Ireland, which is the highest possible disease free status. Due to the fact that beef is of such vital importance for us, I devoted considerable time, as would any other Minister, in the context of the outbreaks of BSE in the United Kingdom in 1989 and 1990, to deliberate planning and decisive actions to ensure that status was maintained and enhanced. It is not a matter of concern anywhere outside Ireland if we keep talking ourselves into a crisis then we will generate a problem.
I was in Geneva this week and because people knew I had been Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry during the period in question — although the issues we and representatives from countries all over the world were addressing had nothing to do with agriculture — a number of delegates from other countries approached me to congratulate me for the action I took at the time to secure our BSE status. That was most reassuring and welcome.
We must be careful. On the BBC and other British television stations, BSE and mad cow disease is the big story and those programmes are being beamed into our homes every evening. I have great sympathy for the UK and its beef producers. I also have sympathy for the European Union taking the decision to ban the export of British beef to any part of the Union. However, we must surely be able to distinguish between the British condition and ours.
When the first outbreak of BSE occurred in the UK in 1989 we were naturally concerned and we watched to see if any incidence might occur in Ireland. I remember the first case very well because it was what we had feared. It occurred in January 1989. We could trace the case directly to imported meat and bonemeal. It cannot be said often enough that the Irish beef industry is the only grass based beef industry in Europe, so the likelihood of BSE incidences in Ireland is therefore more remote than in Belgium, Holland, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Some have not reported them but I will not comment on them.
When the first incidence occurred in Ireland in January 1989 I immediately imposed a ban on the importation of meat and bonemeal. That is a matter of record and it was the first guarantee to consumers, who are the major concern at all times. The next stage was a ban on all meat and bonemeal, including that produced here, in case somewhere along the line somebody might introduce an element of ruminant feed to ruminants, which is an unnatural feed for ruminants who would never feed on anything other than a grass based, natural diet. That was implemented within the following one or two months. The next stage — and I do not say this in order to promulgate my foresight——
The Senator does.
It is important for the record that these things be known. The Minister of State can inspect the records in the Department. They should be used not to promote O'Kennedy for the great job he did but to promote the integrity of the Irish beef sector as a result of the actions we took at the time.
The next stage was the imposition of a slaughter policy. I recall going to Government with that proposal. That Government was probably the most stringent ever in terms of public expenditure. I have been privileged to be in Government many times but the privilege of serving in that Government is the one I appreciated most. We took difficult decisions. We were cutting back in every Department, including the Department of Agriculture. I was the Minister who told the farmers that if they wanted advisory services they would have to pay for them. I was criticised by all sides of the Dáil for asking farmers to pay but we did it and we were right. We took many such actions.
The Senator's time is up.
I need two more minutes. Despite those difficulties we introduced a slaughter policy at huge cost. We paid over £12 million for 126 animals. That is a huge cost because the entire herd had to be slaughtered. We should build on what we have done and not react to what is happening today.
We have a precedent in respect of Egypt and Iran. They had reservations about our product because some of our competitors were feeding them nonsense that we could not be BSE free when the disease was in Britain. I spent some time negotiating with the Egyptians and sent our vets to Egypt and Iran. I visited Iran and brought their vets back to the Irish plants. They accepted without question what the European Union, the OIE in Paris and the World Health Organisation accepted without question — that we were free of BSE. Surely the Government in the course of its current discussions with Egypt, about which there is reasonably encouraging news this evening, will be able to build on the acceptance of the Egyptians and the Iranians at that time to ensure that any barrier being imposed now will be lifted.
A Chathaoirligh, I appreciate the scope you have given me. The Minister of State is amused.
I am enjoying the speech.
It is not a matter of enjoyment for me. I am looking at a huge industry which, in my time, I did my best to protect——
I enjoy the fact that the Senator took plenty of time.
I will be happy to see the Minister of State take an extra hour.
We should build on what we have done and not be scared. I regret my colleagues in Britain did not do that and I particularly regret it for the sake of Northern Ireland farmers. Unfortunately, we did not have jurisdiction. Had we had such jurisdiction in any degree, they would now share the same status as Irish farmers. It is important that smuggling across the Border be restricted. Otherwise our competitors will be happy to say that British beef is getting into the Republic through the North.
The only issue in the regulations before us which I wish to raise is the provision regarding improved epidemiology. This is surprising after 42 years. I cannot see how it can be improved. Epidemiology is a straightforward investigative process in which one step naturally follows another.
I worked in the Department of Agriculture, but not in an exalted position; I was a deputy principal in the animal health division. That is why I am happy to make a contribution on this matter. I agree with everything that has been said about TB. There is no doubt that it is an awkward little bug. Somebody, somewhere in the EU has ruled that, in order to be officially TB free, a certain level must be reached. The State has not reached that level although it reached the required level with brucellosis. Every effort must be made to achieve the level.
I think simplistically about these matters. There are certain parties involved in the fight against disease, particularly TB. They include farmers, veterinary practitioners, Ministry veterinarians, Ministry administrators and the laboratory. Sooner or later, when the forum meets, we will have to examine what contributions have been made by each of the parties in the fight against this problem. There is no need to ruffle anyone's feathers but the forum can be conducted in such a way that each of the parties can quantify its contributions since 1954 in the struggle to reach officially free status.
The fight against BSE, as a letter to one of the English newspapers stated, has been lost. The consumer has been won over by the sensationalist material appearing on television and in the newspapers. It is important that farmers are not seen to be in the red corner and scientists in the green corner. The farming industry is not expressing its concerns about this problem forcibly enough. The same thing happened some years ago when botulism was found in salmon. A huge world industry, much greater than the agricultural industry in Ireland, was under enormous threat. Someone should find out how it survived.
From now on the State is faced with a public relations battle because hearts and minds must be won back. This is an exporting country with a magnificent reputation, as has Northern Ireland, for pedigree stock. Before pedigree stock was accepted in Northern Ireland and in the Republic it went into quarantine on Tolans Point and Spike Island, respectively. Import restrictions were sufficiently stringent to impress buyers in New Zealand and the United States. After the pedigree stock came out of quarantine, it was held on certain farms which were inspected. Public relations advice should be sought on this matter, regardless of the costs, to try to persuade the countries which always bought Irish pedigree stock but which are now refusing it entry, to change their minds. It would do no harm for the importers of this stock to support such a move because it is a public relations battle. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland is sinking from the undertow of the British Titantic.
I refer Senators to "World in Action" two nights ago when the most senior veterinarian in the British Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food performed badly. At one stage he walked off camera. I strongly recommend a full briefing session for every civil servant, Deputy and Senator on this matter so that they will know what to say. When botulism was found in salmon all salmon products were recalled, which must have cost billions of pounds. However, a public relations coup had been achieved. That is what is needed in this situation.
I would like to share my time with Senator Dardis.
There are no other speakers so that will not be a problem.
I find it difficult to follow that excellent speech by Senator McAughtry which demonstrates how valuable his participation in this House is. I look forward to the day when we will have further participation from his fellow Ulster people in a parliament of some kind on this island. I also find it difficult to follow the astonishing modesty of Senator O'Kennedy. I was sad that he found it impossible to praise himself to the extent he clearly thought was necessary in the circumstances which he deserves. I looked forward to a performance which I would have relished greatly, having also enjoyed with almost equal fervour his superb performance on "Questions and Answers" which must be one of the great comic highlights of this year's television viewing so far.
There is a real problem, and not just with TB. Senator McAughtry was delicate in what he said about the involvement of various sectors which we should examine. It is ridiculous that TB has not been eradicated in 42 years so that we can get TB free status. I am at least as realistic as anyone else. We should not only look at these various sectors in terms of how they rate their performance, but we should also take into account the fact that certain groups have a vested interest in the continuation of a TB eradication programme rather than in the eradication of TB. I leave that comment to stand on its own.
I remember getting a report prepared by the Bank of Ireland on the beef industry 15 or 20 years ago, although I do not have any specialist qualifications in agriculture. I read that report when we were examining the possibility of establishing the beef tribunal. It indicated a number of things, including the fact that there is no satisfactory brand identification for Irish meat products, particularly for Irish beef. If it is as excellent as we imagine it to be — I believe it is — then surely it is a pity that there is nothing to indicate to the consumer in the European markets that this is high quality Irish produce?
It appears that the source of BSE has not been satisfactorily identified by the scientific profession. There appears to be two separate possible sources of infection, one of which is the use of so-called bone meal as a food or food additive for animals, and the other is the application of chemical substances close to phosgene nerve gas in an attempt to destroy some form of parasitic infection in animals. I find that interesting from a moral point of view because those two sources of infection come from a kind of hubris or intellectual pride by the human animal. It seems to be morally repugnant and a violation of nature to extract from a dead animal brain and spinal cord tissue to pulverise them and to force animals to become cannibals of their own species. That seems to display contempt for another life form.
What we are seeing in terms of BSE is the inevitable by-product of a lack of respect for other species. It is utterly disgusting that this type of practice should exist in an attempt to increase economic profit. I hope that some established body will take on the task of monitoring humane practice in farming because this is a revolting practice which vitiates nature and violates the natural order. It does not surprise me that nature should exact its revenge if we insist on inflicting these unnatural practices upon animals. It may surprise the House that I so freely use the phrase "unnatural practice" but I do so with a certain passion because I do not believe that 20th century farming has treated other species in the way to which, as life forms, they are entitled. If it was not from bone meal that this very unpleasant disease was acquired, then it appears to be from the nerve gas phosgene. So we have either man's inhumanity to man to thank for this or man's inhumanity to other species. In any sense, we have a moral problem here that we ought to confront.
This is not limited to BSE, which is but one manifestation. The intensive and inhumane production of animals for food consumption is not only morally wrong but, probably, in the long run, dangerous in terms of human consumption. If one buys a chicken in a supermarket nowadays, chicken is the last thing it tastes of. It tastes of fish because of the fishmeal it has been fed. They are unpleasant to eat and often contain lumps which could be cancerous tumours. This situation arises because these unfortunate fellow creatures are reared in what can only be described as concentration camps for animals.
There may be a short-term economic yield in these farming methods but they are dangerous, wrong-headed and blasphemously immoral. Neither the health of the animal nor of the human population will improve until we start to display some degree of compassion for our fellow creatures. This may be an idle hope when I look around the globe and see the way the human animal treats fellow humans. Perhaps it is a little idealistic to expect that, simply on the basis of a moral appeal, we will start to treat other animal life forms with a degree of decency.
However, if BSE has done one thing for us it has at least alerted us to the existence of this moral problem, which we should address rather than engaging in fatuous exercises such as calling out enormous numbers of troops and gardaí to police the Border. If Semtex cannot be stopped going across the Border, how are they going to stop cows?
Cows are rather larger in quantity.
Not in some cases. Sizeable quantities of Semtex have gone across the Border. There are dangerous, unnatural and immoral practices in farming in which we are not widely engaged and we must look at this situation and ensure that we do not engage in them.
Senator O'Kennedy indicated that one of the advantages of our beef herd was that it was largely grass fed. It is interesting that the reason our beef is so good is that it lives in what may still be regarded as a natural environment. I would hate to think that this country, with its good, protected, benign and clean environment, would squander this resource in the future and move away from natural methods of farming.
The consumer may be a little hysterical at present which is partly because of political stupidity on the part of the British, for which they have themselves to thank. However, the consumer is a wise bird and, in the aftermath of this scandal and others like it, there will be an increasing demand for naturally grown food products. We will find a public which is educated and prepared to pay the margin of difference for food products grown within the limits of what ordinary, decent people find acceptable.
I will decline to share my time with Senator Norris. He may not have the modest characteristics he identified in Senator O'Kennedy, but both Senators have one thing in common, and that is a healthy disregard for the clock.
I do not oppose the sensible motion before the House, but I wonder about the background to it. Henceforth, farmers will be required to pay for the TB testing of animals. Heretofore, the financing of this purchase was raised by levies imposed upon beef and milk. A cost still arises from this, which will now be borne directly by the farmer through a payment to the vet rather than by way of levy. There are certain vulnerable sections within the industry — those producing weanlings and store cattle — who heretofore did not have to bear these costs but will now have to bear them.
I hope we are not opening a Pandora's box by adopting the new practice which has been agreed by the farming organisations, the Departments and the vets. It will only be as good as the monitoring that goes into it. History teaches us that the degree of monitoring in other areas of our animal and beef industry was not what it should have been.
We are all aware of the departmental official who has been suspended and who is alleged to have passed on documents allowing British beef to be exported to the continent as Irish beef. I accept this individual is unrepresentative of the vast bulk of public servants. However, the case underlines the controls and verification that has to be in place if this green, clean image about which we all talk and which is real, is to be of any use to us. It is no good having this image unless it can be used to marked effect. This is the problem confronting us.
It was suggested that we should not react to the controversies regarding BSE. Of course we should react. Our industry is trying to survive in the marketplace where this is a reality. It requires the most vigorous reaction by the Government and everybody involved to ensure that the welfare of the 150,000 people who are working in this industry and who are deriving a living from it is protected by the State.
There is a degree of complacency, evidenced in how we approach the TB programme, which we must get out of the system. We must realise that the complacency which derived from a market where we put our beef into intervention, will no longer serve us. Intervention is gone. The consumer decides and the country had better decide that the consumer is king and react to that reality.
The Minister made an interesting statement, which I have not heard from his predecessors, and with which I agree. He said:
The main conclusion from the ERAD experience is that eradication of TB is more difficult than had been envisaged. Indeed, the consensus now is that while some progress can be made, final eradication will be possible only when new diagnostic tests, vaccines for wildlife and movement control arrangements are in place.
We may be deceiving ourselves in thinking that it is possible to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. The best we may be able to do is to contain it to the very low levels which pertain at present. I raised this point a few weeks ago when we debated the matter.
Why have we not progressed from the situation in 1989 when we talked about blood testing and monitoring the movement of cattle? We do not seem to have made any progress since then in this respect. I am sorry Senator McAughtry has left because I want to say that one of the great achievements in Northern Ireland is the ability to trace animals through the chain. Animals may move from one farm to another six or seven times in their lives and unless we can effectively trace their movement it is difficult to understand how we will be able to deal with the epidemiological aspects about which Senator McAughtry spoke. Northern Ireland uses this traceability to effect in its export markets.
BSE is the biggest crisis to have confronted the agricultural industry since the economic war and it must be dealt with effectively and efficiently. I do not understand why it took two days for the Taoiseach to telephone the President of Egypt to try to open that country's borders to cattle in a boat in the Mediterranean. I heard on the 7.30 a.m. news bulletin on RTE radio yesterday morning that the Taoiseach expected to contact the Egyptians over the next day or two and that the matter might be discussed at that's day's Cabinet meeting. I do not understand why this was the case because the matter was urgent and it was necessary to react quickly.
I have been asked if I am suggesting that all Ministers should put their passports in their pockets and fly around the world to protect the industry. My answer is yes, because if they can do so for St. Patrick's Day events they can do so to defend the industry on which the livelihoods of 150,000 people depend. When we have forgotten who won the by-elections in Dublin West and Donegal North-East, we will not have forgotten the week BSE hit us.
I accept everything which has been said about the quality of Irish meat. It is among the best in the world and we have a low incidence of BSE. We have had only 124 cases of this disease in a six year period compared to 160,000 cases in the UK. There is a fundamental difference between the two countries in this regard but this is irrelevant unless the purchasers and consumers of our meat are convinced that it is good and edible. The perception has become reality and hysteria dominates. Consumers react to the tabloid press in England and Sky News. Unless we find the resources to deal effectively with that propaganda machine, our industry will be on its knees. This is why the matter is grave.
It is not good enough for Ministers to go on RTE news bulletins to limit the political damage when they must limit the national damage; the two are not the same. Our whole credibility is at stake. Senator McAughtry is right about the PR aspect of the matter but we must be sure about what is in front of us in terms of dealing with it. There has been misinformation, as Senator D'Arcy said, about the potential effects of beef on humans. It is probably more deleterious to the health of Members to smoke 20 cigarettes than to eat half a tonne of beef in a lifetime but this is irrelevant if consumers do not realise it.
My local butcher has responded in the way I would expect An Bord Bia to respond. It has put advertisements in the national press, but what is it doing in international markets? Mr. Nolan in Kilcullen is my local butcher and he is one of the best in the country. He circulated a notice to his customers which states:
You can be assured of quality Irish beef in our shop. Why? All our beef are hand picked young heifers from our own farm. Our beef heifers are reared on fresh green pastures, the most natural feed known. Complementary feeding, as supplied by E. Morrin and Company Limited, a licensed feed mill compliant with all Department of Agriculture regulations, is totally free of bone meal. The beef which you buy in our shop comes from our farm directly to our new abattoir which complies with all Department of Agriculture and EU regulations. This includes a veterinary examination of all beef before it enters our shop. Nolan's quality assured beef is produced and sold with you, the customer, in mind.
The last sentence is significant. Intervention is gone and the customer rules. This is why when the An Bord Bia Bill was discussed my party put down an amendment which stated that there should be a consumer representative on the company's board. We received no support from any quarter in the House for this proposal but now Members are saying, as was said in the Dáil yesterday, that this should be the case. Where were they in 1994 when my party argued for this? There should be somebody on the board who represents consumer interests. This should not be somebody who just shops in supermarkets, even though such a person would be qualified, but somebody who can speak authoritatively on behalf of consumers.
We are in the post-intervention era and unless we get things right the industry will go nowhere. This is why the conspiracy of silence cannot continue. It has been suggested that people are anti-national if they talk about angel dust, reboxing beef or other abuses. It is the people who do those things, and not the people who highlight them, who are anti-national. Unless we bring about and end to such activities, nobody will believe the Department when it says our beef is the best in the world. This is what is at stake. We cannot in this propaganda war convince people who buy our beef that it is good, wholesome and valuable unless we can prove it, unless we have a history which establishes our credentials and the consumer and the medical profession are involved.
I attended my local cattle mart in Kilcullen this morning and, thankfully, prices seem to be holding reasonably well. If prices in livestock marts here are maintained and are on the floor in England, the conclusion is inevitable. People will try to move cattle from England to our markets and this is why it is critical to protect the Border. The Minister needs to talk to people in Northern Ireland to ensure there is a procedure at Larne whereby cattle cannot be moved from the UK to Northern Ireland. I do not know how this can be done, because both areas are a single jurisdiction as far as customs are concerned. I suspect we can achieve as much in Northern Ireland as we can in the South. There have been 1,680 cases of BSE in Northern Ireland and 124 here. Procedures have been instituted to ensure the Border will be closed and I commend them, but it is important that this be done correctly.
Senator McAughtry made an important point about the value of science. I understand why science has not been able to come up with answers as to the connection between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease or how to deal with them. Part of the reason is that we have not resourced science. This is also why it has not come up with answers to questions of epidemiology with regard to tuberculosis. Has Teagasc enough resources to deal with this?
An Bord Bia was promised money earlier in the year? Was it given this money and is it being encouraged to move beef on our behalf? There are huge opportunities to do this. McDonald's stopped using British beef in its burgers for commercial reasons to ensure people would have confidence in the beef they use. What are we doing to ensure they are now using Irish beef rather than Dutch or other beef? We need to sell our beef in the national interest.
I welcome the Minister's statement that charges for testing will be reduced. I support fully what Senator Dardis said about the failure of the Government, the Taoiseach and the Minister to deal with the urgency of the thousands of cattle on ships off Egypt which are not accepted by that country's Government. For the last 48 hours we have been told that the Taoiseach will contact the Egyptian President. Some Ministers seem to live in the Government jet, which is now in South Africa because of the visit there of the President. Surely in a national emergency like this, the Minister, the Minister of State, who is also a good rural man, or the Taoiseach should be in Egypt to fight our case.
If the live trade is terminated, there will be trouble elsewhere. This crisis has been handled badly by the Government. The lack of urgency is a disgrace. Given the risk to thousands of jobs in the meat industry and to livelihoods on the land, the haphazard approach by the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Government is sad. I hope they will not regret their lack of urgency in this area.
Over the past 40 years millions of pounds of taxpayer's money has been spent on TB and brucellosis eradication, much of which could have been saved. There have been weaknesses in the schemes over the years and I do not know why departmental officials and vets did not deal with them. I have had many breakdowns in my livestock herds which have resulted in considerable expense for the taxpayer because of repeated testing and a loss of income to myself. If a herd is locked up for six months or longer, a person could rent land five miles down the road, buy more cattle and mix them with their herd. Perhaps they are not supposed to do that, but the scheme is weak in this regard. They could bring some of those cattle to the mart and nobody would know anything about them because they would have tags and blue cards for the animals which are supposed to be disease free. This has been going on for years. Yet the so-called experts in the Department can be very strict with a farmer if a number is wrong on a blue card because perhaps the vet was in a hurry when filling it in.
There is no supervision of those obliged to keep their stock within their holding. People can rent land and buy cattle regardless. A lot of money could be spared and the spread of disease could be limited if this area was seriously looked at. I am glad that agreement has been reached with the vets and that the scheme will work smoothly from now on.
I hope this crisis will not get out of hand and that the Government will act more responsibly in the days ahead. As Senator Dardis said, this is more important than a by-election in Donegal North East or Dublin West. I hope the Government will not live to regret its scant regard for the industry. I was shocked to hear that Ministers could not get a flight to Egypt. I do not know what is wrong with the Taoiseach, who is a farmer. Perhaps the Minister could explain the lack of urgency. Some Ministers are continuously globetrotting, although I am not suggesting that the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, is, because he travels around the country each week. Some Ministers practically live on planes. Despite the crisis in this important industry, nobody seems to care. I hope the Minister will bring this message to the Taoiseach, who is an intensive farmer.
I thank Senators for their contributions. In response to Senator Byrne's and Senator O'Kennedy's question, the Taoiseach had to wait for the definitive EU Commission decision. The Taosieach announced that he had a positive conversation with the President of Egypt today. I am confident that live exports will be restored to Egypt.
I am fed up with people trying to score political points on this issue. The Government and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry have responded to this crisis, which is not of our making, in a calculated way. Their attitude and policy will be proved right. A diplomatic campaign has been conducted through our embassies in countries with markets for our beef to ensure that misinformation as regards Irish beef is dispelled. I am confident that we can regain markets which have been lost and increase our market share in those countries.
The Government's co-ordinated approach must be recognised and the efforts made by the veterinary section of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry must be lauded. Departmental vets have travelled with the shipment to Egypt and have travelled to places where they are needed. I do not believe that we can do any more than that. Hysterical comment will not help anybody.
I refer to some statements made this evening. Given the realities of current and near future market developments, it behoves all concerned in the livestock sector to pull together in a cohesive approach and push towards final eradication at the earliest possible date. One thing is certain in today's competitive world: we are increasingly on our own in this task. As regards the implementation of the new approach, I was heartened to note that the first meeting of the national forum group, which took place this morning, immediately commenced work in mapping out the broad parameters for a co-ordinated, sustained, innovative and cost effective way forward. I am confident that with sustained input and effort as regards the new arrangements, we can make progress to reducing the level of TB and brucellosis. The close working together of farmers and veterinary surgeons and their organisations as regards herd health protection, coupled with a comprehensive research strategy, comprise the two key elements which, if preserved and persevered with, ultimately must yield a successful outcome.
We should not underestimate the challenge and the work which requires to be done. Equally, it is important from our perspective to realise that this country has a TB problem with less than 1 per cent of animals with over 99 per cent of the seven million animals in the national herd being clear of the disease. This is contrary to the trade damaging impression sometimes given that our national herd has a high TB incidence. However, in disease terms, 1 per cent infection levels are notoriously difficult to reduce. Our bovine TB is conforming to the predicable pattern in disease eradication — rapid progress in the earlier stages and eventual smaller progress increments coupled with increments of increasing difficulty.
The forum group will find that in periods when rapid progress is made enthusiasm will run high. Understandably, when progress may seem to slow to a virtual standstill, enthusiasm will wane. When that happens we must endeavour to ensure that enthusiasm is not replaced by pessimism. A 1 per cent problem is easier to deal with than a 100 per cent problem. Other countries have reduced that 1 per cent and have eradicated bovine TB.
For Ireland, as an exporting country, market image will be vital in the GATT-free market-strong competitive trade arena which we are now entering. By way of encouragement, we should be mindful of the tremendous amount of work and commitment in the farming industry since the 1950s to reduce the TB incidence level to 1 per cent. That work and effort was manifested in the conclusion of the independent Sheehy analysis, which indicated that investment expenditure in the TB eradication scheme has been of substantial benefit to the national economy. In its absence, the Irish cattle and dairy industries would have been at a severe competitive disadvantage. The conclusion of the analysis indicated that the benefits exceeded the costs by a minimum of 86 per cent, or at a rate of real return of 16 per cent. The operational expenditure has been realistic in the context of exports of livestock and livestock products which generate £2 billion annually, together with associated employment.
The proposed reduction in farmer levies as part of the new restructuring arrangements for the scheme to commence on 1 April will give an important impetus towards acceptance and effective implementation of the arrangements. I commend these regulations to the House.
With regard to the debate which took place here this evening on BSE, I agree with several speakers that our slogan to consumers must be to keep buying beef from the green grassland of Ireland which is the best quality nutritious beef that you can get anywhere. Meat is a wholesome food which can form part of any varied diet and it is essential to proper physical development. It is important that we send out a strong message to the consumer that meat is essential in any balanced healthy diet. Without meat, children's growth patterns will suffer, as will those of adults; so it is important to reemphasise the contribution which meat makes to a balanced diet.
A number of other issues arose and I wish to refer to them. On the issue of reactor compensation, our arrangement is the best in Europe — up to £600 per cow plus carcass value of on average £400 results in up to £1000 plus compensation per cow. In addition, a depopulation grant may be paid and animals are transported free of charge to the meat plant.
On the removal of the compulsory pre-movement test, the level of disease has not dropped much since the pre-movement test was first introduced in 1978. Now farmers can purchase cattle which have been pre-movement tested. There will be a ready supply at marts; and, no doubt, cattle which have pre-movement tested status will get a premium price and pre-movement testing will be an advantage.
Farmers will now have much greater freedom and flexibility to arrange their sales when they wish. Previously, they did not have that flexibility. In addition, it will bring more cattle into marts than was formerly the case because farmers used get rid of culled cows through dealers and there was a black market industry with did not involve the marts. If cattle are sold through our marts, there can be greater control and tracability. The animal now has a 12 month test-validity for sale and there will be an incentive in the reactor grant for farmers who buy voluntarily animals which have been pre-movement tested if their herd becomes a reactor subsequently.
I agree that we must all work together to implement the vigorous and effective three year programme for disease eradication. That goes without saying and is why I am delighted there was general agreement that we must work together when the forum met this morning. This is the first time the IVU has accepted a proposal put forward by a Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. It is a positive development that a proposal as comprehensive and widespread in its implications as the proposal before us at this time was accepted.
What we are saying is that most farmers will stay with the same vet for testing and general animal work. The farmer and his or her vet will work closely together to have the best possible herd health and will work out the overall bill to be paid in respect of all the farm work, including work on animals.
The relationship between bovine health and human health was raised and, as we know, there is no scientific evidence that bovine TB can transfer to humans. This point was made again with regard to the quality of milk. Ireland's one million dairy cows are grass fed and produce the highest quality milk. Emphasis has been made on the fact that our beef herd is grass fed; so are our dairy cows. The possibility of the transfer of disease from cattle to humans has never been proven scientifically, but the chances of it occurring are minuscule. With regard to hormone policy and angel dust, of which mention was made, this country has a rigorous anti-hormone policy.
Senator O'Kennedy mentioned the burden on small farmers. While small farmers will pay for the test, they will not make any contribution to the reactor fund. The larger farmers will continue to carry the smaller ones in that respect.
We will, on the basis of the new agreed approach, be seeking funding from the EU for the 1996 programme. Senator O'Kennedy referred rightly to the money for which he negotiated with the Commission back in 1991-92 but what he did not succeed in doing then was to convince either the vets or the farmers that this was the best solution because the vets and the farmers would not agree to an annual rotation of the national herd; both sides refused to accept that money. I was involved in the recent negotiations when we put a proposal to the Veterinary Union of Ireland that there be rotation over a three year period. Again, they rejected that proposal and the farmers did too. Therefore, all the money to date allocated to Ireland for our TB eradication programme, despite the fact that it has been negotiated in Europe, was rejected by both the farmers and the IVU. Now, having reached agreement, we are returning to Brussels to seek funding for our scheme. Hopefully, we will be successful on this occasion in achieving EU subsidy for our scheme now that we have the agreement of both the farmers and the vets.
I welcome Senator McAughtry's contribution regarding epidemiology. We are increasing the level of epidemiology by carrying out more intensive veterinary investigations in the case of all serious breakdowns. This is very much part of the Department's policy.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Can he clarify the termination time of this debate? My understanding is that we are due to conclude at 8 p.m.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
First, it is not customary to interrupt the Minister when he is speaking. Second, the Minister has a constitutional right to address the House, so we will take the Adjournment matters when the Minister concludes his reply.
I raised the matter because I was not sure of the procedure. I am grateful for the clarification.
On the question of monitoring, we are putting in place a new quality control unit which will carry out unannounced spot checks in regard to all operational aspects of the scheme. That was not in place before.
Mention was made of a TB blood-testing arrangement. This is a complex matter and research to come up with a blood test has gone on now for some time. As yet, we have arrived at no consistent blood test. We have come up with no alternative to the tuberculin test. We are working in collaboration with top research experts in the US, New Zealand and Europe in addition to putting our own comprehensive research programme in place. However, it is likely to be a number of years before the blood test is finally perfected. We should not forget that the TB test eradicated the disease in countries such as Denmark. Tuberculin tests have been effective in other countries and no real alternative has yet been discovered to replace it. Both cattle identity cards and tags are checked carefully at the marts by Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry officials.
I thank you, Sir, for allowing me to finish my response. I am sure the Senators in question appreciate the fact that I took this extra time. This provision should be welcomed by the House.
Question put and agreed to.
An Leas-Cathaoirleach
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.