With regard to staffing, there is a change proposed in regard to those who will make the collection from Revenue to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, yet it is suggested that there are no staffing or financial implications in the proposed arrangements. If somebody else is taking over the job of collecting moneys it would be unusual if there were not some financial arrangement.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
The arrangements are in place and we have had no problem to date. It is a matter of using existing resources. I doubt that this is a matter of concern from the Department's point of view.
Is the Minister of State suggesting that the Department was overstaffed heretofore and it can now transfer staff to another section?
That is a different matter. I was replying to the Deputy's question by saying that we would have no problem collecting these levies. It will not create difficulty for us. The broader question mentioned by the Deputy is another issue.
To narrow it slightly, from where in the Department have the people come who are now doing the job? From what section have they been taken and how is that section operating with fewer personnel?
The Deputy should realise that the Single Market created much extra work in the Department. The Department had to adapt its resources, particularly its human resources, to meet this challenge while complying with restrictions on recruitment to the public service imposed by all Governments. At this stage the Department is dealing with all the challenges and tests adequately. In some areas, for example, in regard to intervention, there is a lesser requirement.
However, they have dealt with the new challenges very adequately, and all the schemes appear to be running very smoothly at present. I am, therefore, happy that there is no problem in any area within the Department that we are not dealing with adequately.
Is the Minister suggesting that Department officials are doing more work for the same amount of money?
That is not a relevant question.
Of course it is.
The question of payment to officials of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is not the responsibility of the committee, nor of the Dáil.
I am ruling the question out of order. It is not relevant to section 5 of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (2), lines 51 and 52 and in page 6, lines 1 to 4, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:
"(2) (a) The Bovine Diseases (Levies) Acts, 1979 and 1988, other than sections 18 (in so far as it relates to the Act of 1966), 23 and 25 of the Principal Act, and this Act, other than section 7 of this Act, and paragraph (b) of this subsection, may be cited together as the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Acts, 1979 to 1996, and shall be construed together as one Act.".
While I accept the legislation and agree with it, there will be weaknesses in the system. We will see a movement from the better type farmers and cattle breeders to have private testing. I foresee many private sales being run across the country, as was the tradition in the 1960s and the early 1970s, when we had what was known as the 14 day test for the good store cattle, and had two tiers of cattle. This is one of the big problems which the Bill, and the amending legislation, will introduce. It is not in the best interests of agriculture or of the beef industry.
I come from an area where there are many badgers and in their defence, I do not believe they are the main culprits. A two footed badger has as big a role to play in the clearance of animal disease and TB as anybody else. A problem will arise in this area.
Has there been a trade-off with the veterinary profession in the drugs area, given that there is to be further tightening up there, and is there a hidden agenda? Farmers are furious that they will not have access to anthelmintics and many drugs not on the prescribed list at present, and which will be an added cost on the farming community.
I greatly respect the veterinary profession, and I fully agree with the vet-farmer relationship. If we had disturbed this we would have broken down everything. Only a small percentage of the farming and veterinary profession acts in a rogue capacity, and it must be stamped out. However, I ask the Minister for an assurance — I know he has the goodwill of the farmers of north County Kerry and he will have the goodwill of farmers nationally — that no deal has been done which will interfere with the trading of anthelmintics and animal remedies by farmers. If this has been agreed, it will mean added cost and another layer of bureaucracy that will affect the profitability of farming. Farming prices have reached a peak and they will now possibly start moving in the other direction. We have our views on this, and on the way the Government operates with regard to the negotiations in Brussels.
We have a large population of deer across the country. When will they be subject to testing for bovine TB? There is a doubt in people's minds that they have an input to the disease problem. There should be compulsory testing of deer, in the same way as for dairy cattle, pedigree cattle, steers, heifers, calves and so on. The sooner it is put in place the better. Does the Bill cover brucellosis and other animal diseases?
We are going outside the brief of the Bill.
We are dealing with an amendment in the name of the Minister. The amendment is of no relevance to the points you have made, Deputy. I have allowed you to make comments.
I congratulate the Minister for attending the committee. I understand a certain amount about agriculture and the Bill is a marginal step in the right direction. However, the points I raised are relevant to the farming community and I would not like to see them ignored.
I allowed you to make your comments out of courtesy. We will now open up the debate.
The amendment provides that the proposed Bovine Diseases (Leavies) (Amendment) Act, 1995, will be read with the previous Acts, and that these Acts shall be construed as one Act. This is a sensible proposition. However, in the construction of these Acts I ask the Minister to bear one or two things in mind.
The committee system of which we are a part is a wonderful and marvellous thing, because it has presented me with an opportunity of finding an area where I share an opinion with Deputy O'Keeffe, which is a rare enough event these days. I strongly agree with the Deputy's remarks about the alleged contribution of badgers to the spread of bovine TB. I appeal to the Minister, in construing these Acts together into divers and wonderful forms, to ask those involved in bovine TB eradication to take a more realistic view of what is in front of them and to dismiss the mythology.
On every occasion when this matter is raised, there is the inevitable expert who tells us about the experience in County Offaly, where all the badgers were taken out and where it was then found that the incidence of TB declined substantially. However, allowance is never made for the fact that something else also happened when that attempt was made. This was, and I say this with the greatest friendliness to all the farmers involved, that, perhaps for the first time in generations, the farmers concerned and involved in that project paid a good deal more attention to the management of their stock, because in carrying out the operation, they had to look at their stock more often than they had been used to. In addition the stock was being looked at by other people oftener than previously. I ask them, therefore, to bear in mind the lesson that, perhaps, more attention to the stock and a good deal more attention to the management of the stock had a role to play in this also.
The conclusion we should draw from this is not that the unfortunate badger is the cause of the problem, but that it may also be suffering from the lack of proper attention to stock management in the same way as the stock. I ask the Minister to bear this in mind.
When Deputy Dukes said he could at last agree, I thought he might have meant he could agree with the Minister.
It is only socialists with whom I disagree.
At every committee which I and Deputy Dukes attend, he disagrees with his own Ministers.
I am doing the Deputy's job for him.
I am on the Opposition side, while the Deputy is on the Government side, which he appears to forget now and again.
We are not reaching agreement, which worries me.
This is the last section we are addressing, so I will not delay matters too much. The Bill merely transfers the collection responsibilities from the Revenue Commissioners to the Department but many people are concerned about the use to which these moneys are being put, the value to the farming community and taxpayers from the investment of these funds and the continuing high level of disease among our animals. As we have now effectively concluded discussion of the Bill and are on section 8, which concerns expenditure, would the Minister care to give an opinion on whether the system applied by the Department in disease eradication is the most efficient and effective? Is much research being done to devise new and better ways? In particular, what consideration is being given to the application of a blood test to achieve a higher rate of success in disease eradication, rather than the method the Department has followed up to now? Many vets privately say that if Ireland wants to get rid of major cattle diseases we should introduce a blood test but that would not suit some of their professional colleagues, because many payments have been made to vets over the years we have sought to eradicate these diseases. I put that to the Minister who has responsibility for the administration of the funds to be collected under this Bill.
I thank Deputies for their comments. In reply to Deputy O'Keeffe, to prevent rogue operators we have set up a new quality control unit with a flying squad which will check herds, inspect tags, etc. That will yield results. I agree with him and Deputy Dukes that the badger is only one source of the problem; on the other hand, of all badgers killed and inspected 14 per cent have lesions, so there is definitely a connection. There is no trade off between the vets and the Department about any new arrangements regarding any animal medicines. The Department is working on an eradication programme for TB in deer but there are difficulties as regards arranging compensation and so on. I understand the badger connection in places where there is a high deer concentration; it seems there were breakdowns which could not be accounted for.
Deputy Molloy commented on the value of the blood test. As he knows, considerable research is being carried out at present but other countries are still using the tuberculin test because they find it the most effective. Other countries admire the amount of research we have carried out but despite all the money spent in Ireland and in other countries, we have not found the ultimate blood test, although we hope we will.
The new scheme proposed by the Minister, accepted by one farming organisation but not yet by the Veterinary Union of Ireland, will allow for a large amount of investment in epidemiology and increased research. I take the Deputy's point — the blood test recommendation was made forcefully in the Downey report at that time. What we are trying to achieve is an adequate blood test in the next five years.
Can the Minister say how much money is being spent annually on disease eradication, how much is being collected through the levies, how much is being paid for by the taxpayer and how much is spent on research into seeking more effective means of eradicating disease from our animal population?
The levies yield about £29 million and the total scheme costs £47 million, so the Department makes up the remainder. It is an expensive scheme. The Minister's new proposal is designed to reduce costs, especially to the farmer; time will tell whether it will. Through the levy system they are paying a large amount of money for its operation. Everyone wanted a new approach and the one now being promoted by the Minister is new and radical. Whether it is put in place depends on co-operation from vets and farmers. That co-operation is forthcoming from one farming organisation while the others have reservations and the Veterinary Union of Ireland has yet to declare definitively whether it will support and work with the scheme.
The Minister did not answer one question; what percentage of the levies is devoted to research?
I apologise. At present we spend about £500,000 on research. We must pay more if we are to get effective control measures, but that is the current expenditure. We put as much into research in this area as other countries and compare favourably with them on research into a new vaccine for TB eradication. We also work closely with them in the preparation of a new vaccine.
I detect a note of complacency in the Minister's response. He claims we should be pleased about an investment of £500,000 in research. We should bear in mind the huge moneys spent on the disease eradication scheme since the outset — the Minister probably has a ballpark figure for that but it has cost billions.
Section 8 concerns the High Court procedure and the discussion taking place is not relevant to that section, nor is it relevant to the amendment. No questions have been asked about the amendment at all. I will now put the amendment; is it agreed?
Chairman, are we on section 8?
Yes.
That section is the short title, the collective citation and the construction. You referred to court cases, I referred to section 8——
We are talking about the amendment to section 8, which has no relevance to the current discussion. I have allowed a certain amount of latitude.
Chairman, I do not understand your intervention.
Section 8 as it appears in front of me is not relevant to the discussion.
I would like an explanation. You said section 8 and the amendment referred to court cases.
Sorry, I stand corrected.
Perhaps the Chair would allow the Minister to reply to my important question.
Please proceed. I said I stood corrected.
We could not spend enough money on research to find the ultimate solution but on the other hand the Department could by no means be accused of complacency. As regards my input——
I referred not to the Department, but to the Minister's reply.
It was not complacent, I was trying to be helpful and I more or less agreed to what the Deputy said.
The Deputy must remember that we are co-operating on a continuous basis with countries such as New Zealand and with the universities so that we do not have duplication in spending resources on research. It is worth noting that less than 1 per cent of our national herd, which totals seven million animals, is infected with TB. However, we cannot become complacent about that. The TB investigation unit in the Department is working in close co-operation with the universities and with countries such as New Zealand, America and so on to find a blood test which would help to eradicate the residual amount of infection — an APT of approximately three in every 1,000.
What amount has been spent on eradication from the outset?
It is over £1 billion.
It is £0.25 billion during the lifetime of this Government if it lasts five years, which is £50 million a year.
That is fair.
The Government is spending £500,000 a year on research when it should be pumping money into it in order to eliminate the problem.
The Minister mentioned £47 million, but that figure is incorrect according to replies I received to Dáil questions. I understand the amount is £62 million of which £21 million is spent on administration, £18 million is paid to vets and £17 million is paid to farmers. The allocation of £500,000 for research shows that a genuine attempt is not being made to find out how TB spreads. Badgers are more responsible than my colleagues have said. However, they are not entirely to blame. There is no doubt that the allocation of £500,000 for research in a budget of £62 million is ridiculous. It is an indication that the Department and the Minister do not want to find out how the disease spreads. This means it will never be eradicated. The Minister said that less than 1 per cent of our national herd is infected, but we cannot be complacent about it. Some 1 per cent should not be infected after spending £1 billion to eradicate it. The situation will not change unless research is carried out. Is £62 million the correct figure?
Operational costs amounted to £47 million, while the £62 million includes administration and the Department's involvement in this matter.
Did that cost £62 million?
I gave the operational costs.
We want the total cost.
It is £62 million.
It is more than £1 billion since the scheme started.
The figures for the TB scheme ——
They are huge.
——have been published on many occasions. We had a debate in the Dáil on this issue for three days during which Members put forward good proposals.
Approximately 30 research projects are being undertaken throughout the country. We are looking at every aspect of the cause of TB. We have failed to eradicate human TB here. It is a complex disease which will take time to eradicate regardless of whether the Minister is Deputy Yates or Deputy Hugh Byrne.
I will take the job.
The Deputy would love it and I am sure the Minister would support him in the same way he supports the Minister. I hope the new proposals and the emphasis on epidemiology, research and change of practices will be adopted so that we will have a new approach to the eradication of the disease. This is a difficult issue to resolve and successive Governments and Ministers have tried their best. It is in all our interests to eradicate TB because its cost is an embarrassment to everyone. I take the points made here today, but I hope the Minister's proposals will be accepted. It is time for change. I do not want to make false claims that I or the Minister can eradicate TB overnight.
I agree with the Minister who is being fair. However, it is a national scandal that money is not being spent on researching this problem. It is a lack of discipline that measures are not being put in place. The marts have a role to play in this regard. There should be a statutory requirement to record the movement of cattle. Land here is divided because of our history of landlordism, etc. which means there is less movement of cattle.
The Minister mentioned New Zealand. What is the position in the other European Union countries in relation to this disease? He mentioned human TB. Is there a relationship between human TB and animal TB?
As a farmer, I know of herds which never had TB due to good management for 20 years or more. Yet, some herds are infected every second day and this costs money. The Department has not identified the problem and, therefore, it does not know how to solve it. In 1954 this country was declared a disease free zone by the then Minister for Agriculture, the late Deputy Blaney.
That is wrong, it was Deputy Thomas Walsh, the Deputy's hero.
They were both Ministers to be admired because they were farseeing men. We have not seen such men in recent years. That was a major step in the right direction. It is 42 years ago since that was declared but we have not made any progress since then. This problem must be identified. A large amount of taxpayers' money is being spent which could be put to good use in other areas of agriculture. The situation must be tightened up and the marts have a major role to play in this regard because they have vested interests. For years they knocked the pre-movement test and they have been successful as far as I can see. If we do not have discipline in animal disease control, we will not get rid of the problem. The regulations must be tightened up.
I welcome the Minister's contribution on the Bill. It is 42 years since compulsory TB testing was introduced.
Farmers were dismayed up to this and did not see any light at the end of the tunnel but now they do.
The light is turned off.
That is thanks to the Minister and Minister of State who, in their wisdom, are introducing the Bovine Diseases (Levies) (Amendment) Bill, 1995.
Since 1979, farmers have contributed £285 million in levies to the TB eradication scheme and 99 per cent of the national herd is clear. With 7 million cattle in the herd, a 1 per cent level of disease infection is low.
We are making good progress and it is the first time we have had co-operation from the farmers. A farmer knows his business better than anyone and now that we have co-operation with farming groups we should give this new system a chance. No doubt, it will work.
I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, and the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Deenihan, on their initiative in introducing this scheme.
On a point of order,——
I have been more than reasonable. We are straying from the subject matter before us. I will put the amendment.
On a point of order,——
There is no point of order. Is the amendment agreed?
It is not agreed. If the Chair will not let us have a discussion,——
I gave more than enough scope.
What is the hurry?
I am obliged to conduct this meeting in accordance with the Standing Orders and procedures. It is not a matter of time. If necessary, I will stay here until 12 o'clock but I do not deem it necessary. I am putting the amendment. Is the amendment agreed?
No. It is not agreed on that basis.
I want to be of assistance. It is our intention to co-operate on this Bill but the Minister and his officials are present and if we can close this meeting at 12.5 or so, I think everybody would be happy. I accept what the Deputy is saying.
It is my responsibility to conduct the meeting in accordance with Standing Orders. I will allow a final comment.
This 1 per cent has been thrown around and I do not know how many cattle we are talking about. We might be talking about 50,000 cattle who are affected by the disease. I do not rate that as something to boast about. It is a serious situation.
Has the incidence of bovine TB increased over the past year? I think the answer is "yes". We must be concerned about that. I want to return to this issue and want a commitment from the Minister that more money will be spent on research on the basis that the disease will not be eradicated unless we know what is spreading it.
Finally, we were discussing live exports. Is there a fall off in the amount of money collected recently in the area of live exports by the Department?
Did Deputy Molloy want the Minister of State to reply to the question which had been asked already?
I did. First, it was fortunate that the Minister chose to make a comparison between the attempts by the Department of Health and the State to deal with TB in human beings. Thankfully, the Department of Health has not resorted to the method applied by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry whereby they slaughter the animals. If that method was available, I presume they would have made progress too.
The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry has invested enormous sums of money in this campaign to eliminate these critical diseases. It runs into billions of pounds and the Minister did not give the full figures. An interesting figure was given which revealed that vets are being paid £18 million per year. How many vets are on the Department's books for payments under this scheme? If TB and the other diseases were eradicated and the scheme was terminated, the veterinary profession would lose £18 million of its annual income so there are people who believe there is a vested interest in the industry to ensure these diseases keep ticking along at some low level, 1 per cent or 0.5 per cent, to keep the scheme in existence. That is why I expressed alarm at the paltry sum which is being invested in research from these levies and other moneys which the State is providing for the scheme. The Department should make research a priority and make substantial funds available. It should involve many more research experts to develop better methods of testing and ensure the eventual removal of this curse, which has been costing such a huge amount of money, from our agriculture industry.
What we are really critical of here are the testing methods which are not successful. If we do not come up with a better system, the cost of eliminating the disease will continue.
As the committee knows, Professor Séamus Sheehy carried out a cost-benefit analysis and he was positive about the benefit which we have achieved through this programme in relation to the integrity of the health status of our national herd. At present, we have a £2 billion export industry to protect and the people who buy our produce are very happy with our herd's health status. They are the people who count.
Irrespective of who is in power, we still try to eradicate the disease. It is in the interests of the Department's officials, the Minister and all of us to eradicate bovine TB from the national herd. At present, the level of infection is lower than 0.5 per cent.
Deputy Hugh Byrne asked whether the level of infection had risen. It has a cyclical pattern. It can rise in about 3 per cent of herds. This year, it has risen slightly.
The cycle coincides with this Government.
I do not think so. It was very high between 1989 and 1990 when Deputy Byrne's party was in power. It was 4 per cent.
In 1973, 1977, 1982, 1987.
I do not think that is a factor.
When you give latitude, that is what happens. We are discussing a technical amendment to section 2(a) of the Bill and are now getting into a debate on the whole question of the agricultural policy of the Government. Having allowed a round of questions, I ask the Minster to reply.
When this scheme was first put in place there were about 4 million cattle in the national herd, now there are about 7 million.
Fianna Fáil policy.
Also, it is worth noting that other countries have problems with mad cow disease, foot and mouth disease and other diseases. We are especially challenged by TB and brucellosis which are regarded as being less serious. I would not like people to think there was a crisis in the TB scheme.
At the same time it is a challenge for us to eradicate it. For the first time in a long time we have a new programme; a new proposal. The Government has been in office for only one year and has come up with a new proposal. I agree with Deputy Molloy about research. The proposal puts emphasis on epidemiology and more resources for research. We are accepting the case the Deputy made for research.
It is important to work closely with countries such as New Zealand and America, which are putting vast amounts of resources into research, so that we do not waste money. That is being done quite effectively.
How many vets are there?
There are 800. There is a ewe requirement but they will not need a round test every year, which would cost £14 million pounds.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Report of Select Committee.
I propose the following draft report:
The Select Committee has considered the Bovine Diseases (Levies)(Amendment) Bill, 1995, and has made an amendment thereto. The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
I thank the Minister, his officials and Members who contributed to the debate.
The Select Committee adjourned at 12.5 p.m.