In this limited debate we do not cover the whole agricultural field, but in its restricted form the debate covers important sectors of the industry. I agree with Deputies who suggested that as our most important industry agriculture deserves the best consideration we can give it, and that has been the aim of the Government since they took office. That has been the aim of the Minister and, naturally, I personally agree that agriculture must be given priority. It is vitally important that the Government's watchfulness and carefulness should bring about a healthy agricultural sector, and that is what has been happening. We are all grateful for that. Many farmers who were in the low income group, comparatively, are now moving upwards, and that is welcome.
One of the main matters adverted to in the debate was animal disease eradication, which I regard as of exceptional importance. One of the main aims of the Department is to eliminate, or at least to reduce drastically, bovine TB and brucellosis. Evidence of that is available in the fact that since we took office the taxpayers have contributed more than £97 million for this purpose, and there is little doubt inside or outside the House that value has been received for this money.
It is mandatory on any Government to ensure that money voted for a particular purpose will be gainfully employed, and as far as this Department are concerned, and the Government generally, we have been endeavouring to ensure that value will be received for the money we make available, and we appreciate fully the gravity of our situation if marked progress is not made in the disease eradication programme. Under the new payments scheme in regard to reactor brucellosis cattle, it was represented to the Minister that because of the numbers of cattle reacting in particular herds, grave hardship was being inflicted on the owners of such herds and that it would be a great help if the Department could relieve the financial problems of such herd owners. Our answer was the sale of cattle to the factories and direct subventions to the owners.
However, the Minister and the Department felt that because of the numbers of cattle reacting the owners were entitled to extra consideration, and this is being done in this Supplementary Estimate by way of a direct contribution at the expense of the Irish taxpayers of £1 million. This does not come from Brussels or Luxembourg. The Government accept the need for this direct contribution from the Irish taxpayers.
As I indicated at the opening stage, the Minister asked the Advisory Council on Animal Health and Disease Eradication to recommend the criteria which should be applied in defining hardship cases and the level of assistance to be given. I think that was a very fair gesture. Neither the Minister nor the Department took it on themselves to establish the criteria for the payment of this hardship money. Their report is awaited.
In making this fund available and having regard to the case made by farming organisations that this hardship was widespread and that some of their members would be affected, one would think that those who were not affected would put their hands in their pockets to help their less fortunate neighbours in the same industry. This fund was open to that kind of supplementary contribution. Deputy Callanan mentioned today a balancing fund, as he termed it. He mentioned it on the question of pigs some months ago. There is nothing to preclude any organisation from supplementing that fund. If there are, as has been represented, greater numbers of people affected than we are aware of, then the fund could help. Now of course, we will be getting reports from all around the country of all herds which are seriously affected.
The system of paying compensation for affected herds or reactors was mentioned by almost all the Deputies on the Opposition side. They contended that the Department should provide the replacement value of infected cattle. Never since the scheme was initiated has the replacement value of reactors been paid. Every Deputy in this House knows that. There was never a question of paying the replacement value of a reactor. How could it be done? On the assumption that a farmer has a cow, at present day prices——