I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:—
Bovine Disease (Levies) Regulations, 1998
copies of which were laid in draft before the Seanad on 24th day of June, 1998.
Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1998: Motion.
Copies of the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1998, were laid in draft before the Seanad on Wednesday, 24 June 1998. The proposed regulations will be made under the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Acts, 1979 to 1996, and their purpose is to reduce the contribution by the farming community towards the cost of TB and brucellosis eradication programmes by £2 million in a full year.
Diseases levies were introduced under the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Act, 1979, to provide for the farming community to make a financial contribution towards the cost of TB and brucellosis programmes. Under this Act a levy was imposed on all cattle slaughtered in the State, on live export from the State and on each gallon of milk delivered for processing.
The rates of levy were last adjusted on 1 April 1996 when they were reduced from £7.30 to £2.50 per animal slaughtered or exported live and from 1.3p to 0.5p per gallon of milk delivered. That reduction resulted in a saving to farmers of £18 million in a 12 month period and was made in recognition of the additional cost to farmers who from that time were to pay private veterinary practitioners directly for the first TB and brucellosis test on their herd each year.
As Senators will be aware, access to EU and third country markets is underpinned by our relatively high animal health status, freedom from major diseases and by our application of animal health rules provided for in EU legislation. These factors will continue to be decisive in maintaining our access to markets as the animal health status is raised throughout the Union and elsewhere.
In the foregoing context, Ireland operates a number of measures aimed at preventing the introduction of animal diseases and at controlling, reducing and eradicating disease. The most important national animal disease programmes in terms of human, animal and financial considerations are the bovine TB and brucellosis eradication programmes. For trading purposes and to comply with EU legislative requirements, it continues to be necessary to operate annual programmes for both diseases, which are costly to farmers and the Exchequer, while progress towards reduction and the eventual eradication of the residual levels remain difficult.
We need to eradicate these two extremely serious diseases — TB and brucellosis — and any other diseases affecting the animal herd, first, in the interests of consumers, the human food chain into which animal products get, and, second, for trading purposes. We export 80 per cent to 90 per cent of what we produce in dairying, beef, cattle and livestock generally. No other European country has the same dependence on exports. Access to markets is, therefore, vital. Given the discerning consumers we have nowadays, they rightly demand the highest level of animal disease free status for, and control programmes in place in the country of origin. We are fortunate to have an exceptionally high animal health status which we want to maintain.
Since 1954, the total expenditure on the TB and brucellosis eradication programmes has been exceptionally high, exceeding £1 billion. Since the disease levies were introduced in 1979 farmers have contributed over £300 million up to the end of 1997, while £28.7 million has been received from the EU veterinary fund. While these are large sums of money, they should be seen against the value of our cattle, beef and dairy export trade. Our total food and beverage export trade was worth in excess of £5 billion last year. Cattle and beef exports contributed approximately £1.5 billion while dairy exports were of a similar value.
In 1997, farmers contributed £10.6 million by way of levy to the operational costs of the bovine TB and brucellosis programmes. The Exchequer carried the balance of the operational costs, £28.2 million, as well as the costs of salaries of administrative, veterinary, technical, laboratory and clerical staff, valued at approximately £22 million. The entire programme was funded by the Exchequer to an amount in excess of £50 million last year. Farmers contributed approximately £26 million. The total cost of the programme last year between farmers and the Exchequer amounted to £76 million. It is a costly scheme which needs to be brought under control. There is a need to reduce the incidence, eliminate it and reduce the very steep costs to farmers and taxpayers.
The proposed draft regulation to reduce bovine disease levies from 1 July 1998 to £2 per animal exported live or slaughtered and to 0.4p per gallon of milk delivered for processing should generate an aggregate amount of £2 million savings to farmers in a 12 month period. The proposed reductions are made against the background of the restructuring of the operational aspects of the brucellosis eradication scheme which I have put in place in recent months.
The incidence of TB has remained relatively unchanged over recent years. However, while the incidence of brucellosis in cattle had remained fairly stable over the years 1988 to 1995, the position deteriorated drastically in 1996 and it continued to deteriorate in 1997. Towards the end of last year Ireland's OBF — official brucellosis free — status became endangered. Under the new regulations, if the incidence exceeds 0.2 per cent of herds a compulsory pre-movement test must be introduced. Access to markets worldwide became endangered and this gave rise to a crisis.
To address this deterioration and after protracted discussion with the National Animal Health Forum, I introduced a range of additional initiatives early this year. The key elements include from 23 February 1998 all eligible animals being moved into or out of holdings, other than direct to a slaughter premises, must have passed a blood test within 30 days preceding the date of movement; in addition, all bulls over 12 months and female cattle over 18 months of age may not be sold more than once, whether by public or private sale, on foot of a brucellosis test and such cattle must be moved from the holding where tests were undertaken direct to either the purchaser's holding or direct to a mart and from there direct to the purchaser's holding; a full round of blood testing of all eligible animals is being carried out in 1998 to augment and complement existing arrangements including monthly milk ring testing; a full round of blood testing of all eligible animals in the worst affected areas has been completed in the two month period March-April 1998; a range of operational/administrative measures were introduced aimed at improving the operation and delivery of the eradication measures, including an awareness campaign, increased epidemiology, early removal of reactors, improved monitoring and other operational measures and a revamped compensation régime came into effect from 27 April 1998.
These measures were additional to those introduced during 1997. All parties represented at the National Animal Health Forum unanimously accepted these additional measures and initiatives were essential to address the deteriorating brucellosis situation and protect our trading status in relation to both livestock and livestock products. While the "one sale" aspect is over and above the strict requirements of the EU régime, it is accepted as being essential if the brucellosis problem is to be turned around quickly. In the negotiations, the farming bodies pressed strongly that the Department of Agriculture and Food should bear the costs of the additional testing which is estimated at approximately £4 million per annum.
In the context of securing the full backing of the farming bodies for the new initiatives under the brucellosis eradication scheme and partially relieving farmers of the additional testing costs, it was agreed towards the end of April 1998 that the bovine diseases levies should be reduced by amounts yielding approximately £2 million in a 12 month period which equates with 50 per cent of the additional testing costs on farmers. Necessary Government approval for this was secured on 9 June 1998, subject to obtaining necessary approval today from both Houses of the Oireachtas of the motion before each House. The reductions proposed will be effective from tomorrow, 1 July 1998.
I fully appreciate the new requirements, particularly those relating to testing and the "one-sale" régime, impose additional constraints on farmers and others. At the same time, the farming and veterinary bodies and the representatives from my own Department and the Department of Finance involved in the negotiations over an extended period in the latter part of 1997 and earlier this year, accept the veterinary advice that the new measures and initiatives already outlined would be essential, together with the full use of current technology and good herd management practices to redress the brucellosis problem in cattle, safeguard animal and public health and protect our trading position for livestock and livestock products.
The additional testing régime resulted in a huge increase in the volume of blood samples received for testing in both the Cork brucellosis laboratory and the regional veterinary laboratory in Sligo. For example, in 1998, 2.66 million blood samples were received in the Cork laboratory up to the end of last week compared with 1.6 million samples for the corresponding period in 1997, in other words, one million additional samples were received. Due to the increase in throughput in the Cork laboratory and some delays in recruiting staff, there were delays earlier this year in processing results. However, the position now is that, following initiatives taken by me, there are no arrears in the laboratory and the backlog was cleared over the June bank holiday weekend. I want to express my appreciation to the staff of the Cork and Sligo laboratories who worked late into the evenings and over weekends to clear the backlog.
The difficulties caused to farmers in this regard have been rectified and the processing of blood samples now commences on the dates they are received in the laboratory. The improved situation should be further underpinned by a number of other measures already in place or being introduced including, in particular, an inquiry desk staffed by courteous staff, further e-mail facilities which will serve to communicate results to the district veterinary offices and practices quickly and the use of An Post's swift post system for delivery of test samples to the Cork laboratory. The latter system includes a guaranteed delivery time scale as well as a tracking and tracing capability.
I am confident the systems in place and the initiatives and measures I have taken enable the Cork laboratory to provide a satisfactory turnaround for the volume of blood that will now be received. Some further steps are being taken to speed up deliveries and to identify where delays are occurring, if they occur. I am continuing to keep the situation under very close review.
I appreciate that with a 30 day test, one cannot use up the bulk of that time in getting samples to the laboratory and back to farmers. A notification period in excess of nine days is unacceptable. The shorter the turn around period the better. With An Post ensuring delivery of samples from veterinary practices, and the practices ensuring the samples are clearly labelled and in order, there is no undue delay. Modern technology such as e-mail is used to notify farmers of the results.
The new régime has been in place since the end of February and I am satisfied with the level of co-operation as regards blood sampling. We have identified a higher number of new reactor herds to date in 1998 by comparison with 1997. However, this has to be seen in the context of the additional testing undertaken and the locations in which a high percentage of blood samples have been taken, given that the programme has focused on areas with the highest levels of disease. At the same time the figures do give cause for concern and underpin this need for strict observance of and compliance with these new measures by all concerned. I believe that if we persist with this programme it will achieve the desired results — the elimination of this dreadful disease which wipes out entire herds and the income of the farmers affected. The drastic action which we are taking may impose some hardship but it is better to establish a comprehensive programme over a short period of time in the interests of all concerned.
I recommend that these regulations be accepted by the House.
I welcome the Minister to the House and I am glad there is some good news for the farming community.
We believe that these levies should be abolished entirely because a reduction of 0.1p per gallon in the context of the overall agriculture budget is minuscule. Every reduction, however, is welcome. The Minister is going in the right direction and this time next year I hope he will come before the House with a motion to abolish the levies. Farmers are paying for their tests and they deserve the abolition of the levies.
In the livestock sector the intervention of the Department of Agriculture and Food commences at the birth of an animal — it intervenes to tag and register the animal and the disease eradication regime starts immediately. The Department identifies when a vet must visit the farm to carry out a TB or brucellosis test and under certain circumstances it must be contacted before an animal is sold during premia retention periods. If tags go missing the Department must be contacted. Farmers understand the need for these arrangements but it should be pointed out that the constant intervention by the Department of Agriculture and Food is probably far in excess of the intervention in other areas such as social welfare. We know that 350,000 people are dependent on agriculture and there is a feeling that the Department is very intrusive.
Since the CAP reforms in 1992, the premia regime has become an extremely important sector of Irish farming. Bureaucracy has increased significantly. Farmers must fill out premia application forms for the Department and the regulations are detailed and complex. Completing these forms is a daunting task for many farmers and in some cases causes extreme stress. The Department sets out a deadline for the receipt of these forms. It recently declared the 15th as the deadline for the receipt of the suckler cow forms. The Department then found itself inundated with queries and was unable to deal with many of the applications. We all know of the consequences if an application form is not completed correctly. Adequate staff and resources were not available for the Department to deal with the onslaught of applications and queries. Teagasc provides assistance but many farmers on an average income of £4,000 per annum do not believe they should have to pay Teagasc to assist them to obtain moneys to which they are entitled. This area needs attention.
The processing of a premia payment involves the application and processing period, the farm inspection, payment, refusal and subsequent appeal, all of which take time and money. From the outset the applicant is faced with very complex application forms. The internal processing then commences in the Department. This year there have been considerable delays in premia payments caused by organisational difficulties in the Department.
The difficulties in the area aid unit in the Department have long been recognised and are continuing. In January 1998 the Department's charter review group accepted that a serious problem existed in this unit, yet it took until April before a new regime was established in the unit to rectify the situation. The result is that many farmers have experienced long delays in receiving premia balances. This has added to cashflow problems and the Department should address this situation immediately. The delays are unacceptable. Many farmers are facing extreme financial difficulties and paying for huge bank overdrafts while waiting for premia payments.
The farm inspection is a cause of further difficulties. No premia payments are made until the reports of the inspections are received by the premia units in Portlaoise and Castlebar. I live near Castlebar and know of the problems being experienced in the area. Nevertheless, the staff in Castlebar are excellent and do their best to deal with queries and problems as they arise. However, the resources are limited and the staff are overworked resulting in considerable delays. Premia payments for 1997 are delayed due to the non-receipt of reports of inspections which took place in 1997. It is obvious that farmers who were the subject of random inspections are going to have to wait longer for premia payments.
There are a considerable number of issues which the Department should examine in order to help farmers. These include the elimination of much of the bureaucracy within the Department and in communications between the Department and the industry. The Department insists on two tags at the slaughtering of animals but this is not a regulatory requirement. EU regulations require that tags be applied to animals within 30 days. The current Department tag distribution does not even meet this deadline. A serious problem occurs in that animals are turned back at meat plants because the Department refuses to allow them be slaughtered when presented with only one tag. Many farming organisations in the country demand that animals with one tag be allowed to be slaughtered. That is something the Minister should examine.
Cattle testing prior to slaughter causes severe hardship for animals and creates significant additional costs for farmers. The Department is interpreting the EU regulations in this area very severely.
Another issue which could be examined and which would help the farming industry greatly is the establishment of a system whereby farmers would specify their veterinary treatment requirements for a certain period and vets would then give them a blanket prescription to cover those. This would apply at times such as the lambing season. It would mean farmers having full antibiotic treatment available to cover the needs of ewes requiring medication.
Overhaul of the area aid section could prevent further premia and headage delays. There should be a reduction in the severity of penalties applying to cases where mistakes are made, such as where farmers fill out forms only to discover they have made an error. The penalties for those type of mistakes are very severe and should be examined to ensure they are in proportion to what is involved.
Compulsory 30 day blood tests were introduced in 1998 and greatly restrict a farmer's opportunity to sell cattle. The ability to sell has been further restricted by significant delays in the return of blood test results. In many cases farmers have had less than a week to sell cattle. The Department gave a commitment of seven days' return period but this is not happening and is causing further hardship. The Department recently stated the backlog has been cleared. Nonetheless, farmers are still experiencing delays. All these delays and restrictions are costing money.
The Minister stated that almost £1 billion has been spent since 1954 on the eradication of bovine TB and yet, as we approach the millennium, we are still discussing bovine TB. Nevertheless, counties such as Mayo and others are almost free from brucellosis and this levy is a hardship on farmers who are relatively or almost free from brucellosis and other bovine diseases. Perhaps the Minister might examine that slight anomaly.
I welcome the Minister. I also welcome any draft regulations he introduces which mean farmers paying less for the eradication of bovine diseases. In 1996, when the levies were reduced from £7.30 to £2.50 per animal and from 1.3p to 0.5p per gallon of milk, it was stressed that farmers would save money, but I contended that they would pay more because they would have to pay their vets for the first round of bovine TB and brucellosis testing. My own experience tells me that it is expensive. The regulations brought in at that time did not save farmers money. Farmers also had to pay the levy of 0.5p per gallon and £2.50 per animal. I am delighted that the Minister for Agriculture and Food has reduced those levies and eased the burden on farmers. I hope in time that farmers who have to pay for a round of testing each year will not be required to pay levies.
I have always said that I would not object to paying levies if bovine TB were kept outside my farm gate. In 1994 I had a brucellosis outbreak in my own herd which had to be depopulated. I know how painful depopulation is and no amount of money compensates for it.
The Minister said the most important animal disease programmes in terms of human, animal and financial considerations are the bovine TB and brucellosis eradication programmes. For trading purposes and to comply with EU legislative requirements it continues to be necessary to operate annual programmes for both diseases which are costly to both farmers and the Exchequer. It is essential that our cattle are disease free. In 1997 farmers contributed £10.6 million by way of levy to the operational cost of the bovine TB and brucellosis programmes. Of course, they also had to pay for their own testing. The Exchequer carried the balance of the operational costs.
It is important that reactor cattle are removed as soon as possible. Officials of the Department do their best to help farmers who have disease in their herds but they are often not strict enough in having diseased cattle removed. Officials may think they are being helpful to a farmer by allowing him to delay in having diseased cattle removed. They do not help agriculture in general by allowing farmers time to get a heifer in calf so as to get the bigger compensation which is paid for in-calf cattle. That is wrong. When disease occurs the herd should be depopulated as soon as possible. Delay can cause the disease to spread and is not fair to neighbouring farmers. I know some awkward farmers who defy instructions from the Department to remove diseased cattle. They hold on to these cattle for far too long because they think they are not being paid sufficient compensation and for other reasons best known to themselves. Such farmers should not be permitted to endanger the disease free status of their neighbours' animals.
Last year the Minister announced new arrangements and revised compensation terms in respect of brucellosis breakdowns. These arrangements were intended to augment and complement the measures he had announced on 11 August 1997 to tackle the deteriorating brucellosis situation. Details of the measures to be taken by farmers to contain and reduce disease levels had been sent to all farmers. Details of the revamped compensation measures were also sent to farmers. There will be significant widening of the differentials between the various categories of compensation.
The compensation arrangements are directed at encouraging farmers to take appropriate measures to protect their herds against disease. The appropriate measures include either the maintenance of closed herds or alternatively the purchase of cattle from well defined reliable sources which have been pre-movement tested on the farm from which they are bought within 60 days of purchase and which are also blood tested on the buyer's farm within 30 days of purchase.
Testing within 30 days of purchase is essential. However, some farmers tend not to read the correspondence they receive from the Department while others tend to make mistakes when filling forms. Many of them were not used to the amount of form filling now involved in farming. One of my farming neighbours bought a bull last year before the implementation of the post-purchase testing regulation last September and has discovered that since the animal was not post-tested, he will lose out in terms of compensation. That farmer has a good record of disease free herds and action should be taken in his case.
I also wish to comment on the prices factories pay for reactor cattle. They can pay what they wish. When the slaughtering premium was introduced in January 1998 the meat factories reduced the price of steers to 80p per pound for the first fortnight in January. Subsequently, the price was increased. That type of action is wrong. The same policy applies when reactor cattle are sent to factories. The prices are extremely bad, as I know from experience. This system should be examined. There should be some type of control on the part of the Department under which farmers would receive adequate payment from the factories for reactor cattle. Farmers have no other outlet for these cattle so they are at the mercy of the meat factories.
In 1995, 400 herds were depopulated because of brucellosis. Last year, the figure was worse. What is the position this year? I hope it is improving and I hope the measures introduced by the Minister last year and today will help to eradicate brucellosis and TB from the national herd.
I welcome the proposal to further reduce the bovine disease levies to £2 per animal exported live or slaughtered and to 4p per gallon of milk delivered for processing. The proposals should result in a £2 million saving per year for farmers. It is a welcome saving which will boost farmers' incomes at a difficult time.
The incidence of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis here is a major cause for concern. Despite the investment of billions of pounds into eradication schemes since its introduction in 1954, the problem still remains, causing severe hardship to many farmers as they see a whole lifetime's work of building up a herd wiped out with TB or brucellosis. My own constituency of Monaghan and Cavan has been particularly badly affected by TB as herd after herd become infected and, despite the best efforts of farmers, their herds and their incomes are destroyed.
The failure of the various eradication schemes since 1954 must be a great disappointment to all involved. Billions of pounds have been invested with no major success and at present there is little confidence of success in the near future. The system of TB testing has been very disappointing as it appears to fail to identify reactor animals while giving a positive reading on animals which may not be affected. I urge the Minister and the Government to continue with research to find a more effective scheme of testing which can completely eradicate TB and relieve the hardship suffered by farmers. Remember, it is farmers who suffer most from the failure of these eradication schemes.
I welcome the range of operational and administrative measures introduced recently to improve the operation of the scheme, in particular an awareness campaign. This campaign should emphasise to farmers the risk of the spread of the disease to their herd — for example, by buying animals from unknown sources. The early removal of reactor animals is essential to avert the spread of the disease. The improved monitoring of the spread of the disease should include the monitoring of wildlife in areas and its relation to the spread of the disease.
The recently announced measures to halt the increase in the incidence of brucellosis between 1996 and 1997 are to be welcomed and will, I believe, prove effective.
As discussed in this House on many recent occasions, the beef sector has been through a very difficult period over recent years, particularly since the BSE scare. I compliment the Minister and the Government on their continuing efforts to open the live export market. I urge the Minister to ensure these markets are opened for the autumn peak killing period of this year to ensure competition in the marketplace. Beef producers have had a difficult period over the past two years and I believe the opening of the live shipping market would greatly assist the industry and improve farmer confidence.
In conclusion, I again welcome the saving of £2 million proposed for the farming community by the reduction of the bovine levies and I sincerely hope the schemes currently in place for the eradication of TB and brucellosis are successful. It is up to all of us, farmers, vets, the Department, etc., to work together to ensure these schemes are successful and that anyone abusing them in any way is penalised severely.
I welcome the Minister here today. It is not long since he was here and he gave us a lot of good news on that occasion. Today we are also having an appropriate reduction in the levies that farmers pay in relation to the animal disease programmes.
I would like to point out that 98 per cent of the premia and headage payments have been allocated to farmers. The remainder that is unpaid is as a result of some difficulties. Farmers' organisations and individual farmers should urge the Department to answer any queries. They should do the same with regard to the area aid scheme. We should acknowledge that the Minister and the Department have made those payments.
Herd certification is a new problem. I ask the Minister and the Department to agree that when a vet visits farms to carry out testing, particularly TB, herd certification could also take place which would avoid unnecessary expense. Vets have requested that a separate visit should take place but this would result in unnecessary expenses. I urge the Minister to make a clear decision on this matter.
I think it is time we had a new and enhanced Veterinary Act to bring us into the new millennium and beyond, as the previous Act is now quite old. The veterinary profession have been seeking a new Act as well and it is desirable that we have one.
Brucellosis has been with us for over 100 years. Many Governments have attempted to control and regulate it, but it is very important to eliminate the disease altogether. It is very traumatic for a farmer when he has to depopulate his farm. It is also a very costly scheme. It reflects on the individual farmer and family to whom it occurs. It is a mistake to remove regulations when we seem to have control of the disease. We should maintain a tight control to protect individual farmers who suffer from it.
Some people claim farmers have little interest in their herd's health status. Nothing could be further from the truth, although some people would have more concern than others. However, by and large farmers with large and small dairy herds are particularly concerned about it. In general, farmers involved in the cattle business who buy stores and produce beef are equally concerned from the point of view of the trading and marketing of products.
The Minister correctly pointed out that we must be concerned about the health status of animals in terms of human consumption. Consumers are not interested in buying beef from a national herd which may have a problem with its status. I urge all those involved to play their rightful role in the control and elimination of disease. The new measures were announced on 24 April when the Minister said that, following detailed discussions with the farming bodies in recent months, he was introducing revised compensation arrangements in the context of the TB and brucellosis eradication schemes. The Minister also outlined details of the new arrangements and rates.
The main elements of the new arrangements are, first, a standard rate which applies to reactors in stable herds where the statutory legal pre-movement testing requirements have been fulfilled; second, a standard rate plus for closed or stable herds where, in addition to satisfying the legal requirements, all bought in eligible animals since the last herd test, but in any event during the six month period prior to the breakdown, are post-movement tested within 30 days of introduction into the herd; and, third, an other rate for reactors in other herds which do not meet standard rate or standard rate plus requirements. Herds, including dealer, turnover and feeder herds, may qualify for other rate reactor grants. Herds categorised as other rate will not qualify for depopulation grants, income supplement or hardship grants.
The milk deliveries basis for calculating dairy cow/in-calf heifer reactor grant entitlements will be retained but with the important change that the add-on figure to reflect milk usage on the farm will increase to a standard 100 gallons in respect of each cow rather than the flat 5 per cent rate applying heretofore.
There are certain other key alterations to previous arrangements under the brucellosis eradication scheme, including the removal of the requirement that the bought in eligible animals must remain clear in the 30 days post-movement brucellosis blood test, and the introduction of a pedigree supplement of £100 for specified animals in standard rate.
For both the TB and brucellosis eradication schemes new arrangements in relation to the year to be taken into account in calculating milk deliveries will apply and monthly income supplement rates for the period 1 May to 31 October will increase by £5 across individual values effective from 1 May 1998.
This new package has been agreed with the farming organisation. To ensure a viable industry sustained by a high level of absence of animal disease I urge total co-operation by all those involved. We must remember that the taxpayer is contributing a large amount of money to this area. It is a national issue and the taxpayer should get value for money. Those of us engaged in the farming industry must participate freely, fairly, honestly and honourably in the scheme to ensure the problem is overcome quickly. I commend the motion.
I welcome the announcement by the Minister and I also welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, to the House. This issue involves animal health problems which have existed for some time. The announcement on the bovine disease levies is important because any reduction in the farming community's contribution to the cost of the schemes is most welcome.
In any discussion on animal health it is important to consider people who are continuing to cause problems. I welcome and support the Department's excellent efforts to flush out the small number of such people in the business. Animal health is most important from the customer's point of view, particularly as up to nine out of ten cattle produced in Ireland are exported.
A substantial reduction in the total cost to farmers was introduced some time ago. These regulations involve a small reduction but it is most welcome. When the previous reduction was announced, the price of beef in factories was falling from 120p a lb to approximately 85p a lb. This reduction is being introduced when cattle are fetching 90p or more. Therefore, it is a real saving to farmers.
In the context of levies for the control of disease, I am aware of a case where a farmer bought a few cattle in a sale. However, a departmental official told him he could not take them out because the test had expired by two days. The official was prompt and efficient in noticing it, but one wonders how the cattle reached the sale ring? They should not have got through and this area must be tightened to ensure further such cases do not arise.
A number of complaints were made about the delay in blood samples. I welcome the improvement in that regard. The Minister stated that in excess of one million extra blood samples had been submitted to testing centres. This was a huge increase; but now that the position has improved, once blood samples leave a farmer's yard, he or she should know the result within seven days. It is most important to give farmers the maximum amount of time to decide where he or she will move their female animals. They can only go to one sale within 30 days, but the more options they have the better.
When farmers go to factories, occasionally one of the new plastic tags are missing. These tags can be lost easily and the Department should use common sense and accept that can happen. Will the Minister outline the percentage of people who seek new tags? The Department should have an indication in that regard because there is a problem with the tagging.
There are also problems in areas with a big turnover of land sales. Farmers with a very good track record sometimes wonder how everything is checked out to ensure the movement of stock into new areas will not pose problems for them. That must be constantly monitored. Land lettings must also be monitored, where cattle are moved from lands for testing. We must tighten that up to ensure diseased cattle are not brought into areas where farmers have a good track record.
It appears a number of inconclusive brucellosis tests are cropping up in some areas. Those cattle are then found to be clear in the subsequent two tests. Farmers are wondering why that is happening. We must do something in that regard.
I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Walsh, and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, on their efforts in agriculture. I welcome, from the point of view of farmers and beef producers, their recent good work in Brussels in securing the slaughter premium for the coming year. Farmers were beginning to wonder whether they should stay in the finishing of beef; the securing of the premium for another year will give them confidence.
It is very important that we continue to do more research. The reduction outlined by the Minister of £2 per animal and 0.4p per gallon of milk delivered is very welcome at a time when farmers are very hard pressed. I thank the Minister of State and wish him well in his Department.
I welcome the Minister of State and wish him well in his portfolio. I agree with my colleague, Senator Caffrey, that the levies should be completely abolished. We have been extracting money every year since 1954 from the farming community. The Minister stated that from 1979 to 1997 farmers have paid £315 million, which is a colossal amount of money. It would be fine if brucellosis had been eradicated but that is not the case. The Minister proposes to reduce the levy by 0.1p per gallon, which is a very small and insignificant reduction. I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Caffrey that those charges and levies should be completely abolished because we have been getting nowhere since 1954. The problem still exists and has created severe hardship for many farmers, despite their contribution of £315 million.
I come from County Mayo, which is virtually brucellosis and BSE free. The Minister should take into consideration that farmers in Mayo must bear the brunt of all the levies, despite being virtually brucellosis free. The value of the reactors should also be kept in line with current market prices because farmers have suffered severe hardship. Why should areas which are brucellosis free have to bear the costs of all the levies? The Minister should abolish all the levies. We will not have a brucellosis free State unless some very harsh decisions are made. Farmers cannot continue to pay enormous sums of money every year, when the job we set out to do in 1954 has not been completed.
If a farmer is unlucky enough to have to have an inspection for REPS his money is held up for three months. The Minister should speed up that process.
I apologise for arriving late. I thank Senators for their contributions. I will try to reply to many of the queries which were raised. The subject of disease levies is a very important one. Many references were made to the cost of the levies, to which I will refer.
A number of Senators, including Senator Caffrey, referred to the increased involvement of the Department. It is necessary in the context of European Union schemes that we have effective procedures in place to monitor schemes and to avoid disallowances and other problems which can arise. We must also provide the necessary guarantees to consumers in regard to the origins and treatment of cattle. For these reasons we must ensure that cattle are properly identified with ear tags and have the appropriate documentation. We must also ensure that we observe EU rules and consumer requirements in relation to veterinary medicines.
We seek to present the various arrangements in a consumer friendly way, within the constraints which exist. We are committed to continuing this approach and have recently published our intentions, which Senators have probably read.
The number of new brucellosis cases from 1988 to 1995 ranged between 350 and 450 herds each year, depending on the volume of testing. The number of new breakdowns exceeded 600. We identified 346 new herd breakdowns to 1 June 1996 compared to 184 for the same period in 1997. Senators can see where the problem lies. As the Minister said, these higher figures must be considered against the background of additional testing. It is too early to draw conclusions on the progress of the disease, but these figures clearly do not give cause for complacency. There is good awareness of the actions needed to tackle the disease.
I was asked about veterinary legislation by my Cork friend and colleague, Senator Callanan, who is always very innovative in asking the kind of questions which one often wishes were not asked. However, it is his right and privilege to ask questions in this House. We are all very active in pursuing matters when we first become Members of these Houses.
It is planned to introduce legislation in the near future to better regulate the veterinary profession, which is in need of updating. My Department is concerned about that. Plastic tagging measures are prescribed by EU legislation, which requires two tags for cattle at all times. These rules meet consumer expectations regarding the identification and tracing of cattle. This has become very important and Departmental staff have done much work in this area.
Senator Rory Kiely mentioned reactors. Our policy is to move reactors at the earliest possible date and this objective has been achieved in almost all cases. We encountered some delays on occasion involving contact animals rather than reactors. Our first objective is to have safe herds, but where it is not considered possible to do so we recommend voluntary depopulation, though we are considering whether compulsory depopulation should be introduced in some circumstances.
This is a very important issue which has taken up much of the Department's time. Millions of pounds have been spent by farmers in this area, but millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has also been spent. If we do not have discipline at farm level, it does not matter what procedures are put in place at departmental level or who the Minister is because there will be problems.
I went to the Royal Highland Show in Scotland last week and met many people who were interested in purchasing Irish cattle, especially breeding stock. They cannot purchase Irish cattle because of the testing problem. Cattle are tested every three years in Scotland, but because of the nervousness and lack of discipline here, we have tuberculosis and brucellosis. We should be beyond that problem, but the issue is one of discipline at farm level. I congratulate my Department on its excellent work in this area under difficult circumstances. However, I cannot repeat enough the need for discipline at farm level. We must slow down the movement of female cattle particularly or the problem will continue. There is little point in discussing levies because the farming community can solve this problem with orderly operation of cattle management.
Last Sunday I got a telephone call from a farmer in County Limerick who was having 100 cows depopulated from a fine herd of Friesian cows. There were particular problems in that farmer's area which were not of his making, though he was a victim of them. I asked him for evidence of the case, but that was not forthcoming. This issue revolves around movement. We have the best veterinary and administrative staff in the Department, which has an excellent record of working on behalf of Irish farmers. If we do not have co-operation on the ground the problem will get worse. We had a clearance of TB and practically no brucellosis, but what has happened since?
Our laboratory in Cork has been criticised, but the Minister, senior departmental staff and I recently visited it. The laboratory undertakes a huge volume of work and is now working efficiently, returning samples quickly and satisfactorily. I visited the laboratory in Sligo yesterday. It is a smaller facility but it too is doing good work. There are very good dedicated staff in both laboratories who are working hard for the veterinary sector and the farming community.
I thank Senator Moylan for paying tribute to the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Joe Walsh, for his excellent negotiations in Luxembourg last week on behalf of Irish farmers. He successfully retained £16 million, or 60 per cent, of the beef scheme. Nobody expected that when he left Ireland for Luxembourg. He and the Department did other good work for Irish farmers at those negotiations. It was great to see the IFA being so appreciative. I am disappointed Senator Tom Hayes was not here today as yesterday he made statements in the newspapers about the Minister.
The Minister of State can write to him.
Recognition is important because things are not always easy in farming negotiations. We must have discipline in all areas because ours is an exporting country: we export 90 per cent of our beef, 65 per cent of our pig meat and practically all our dairy produce. We must have the tags and remedies right and everything must be in order. We are working hard on herd certification and hope to have it in place soon. The beef scheme, which is of concern to Senator Callanan, is a big job but rapid progress is being made in that area.
This is a difficult area and Members' co-operation is needed. We must have discipline at farm level or else we will be here saying the same thing in 12 months.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.