asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware of the general dissatisfaction with the 30-day test and, if so, if there are any proposals for changing the regulations.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Disease Eradication.
5.
I am not aware that there is general dissatisfaction with this test and, accordingly, I do not propose to change the regulations.
Would the Minister not accept that there is general dissatisfaction among farmers and farming organisations especially in south-west Cork about the 30-day test. I got more representations on this subject than on any other. Would he further accept that it is unfair to continue this 30-day test in its present form? Would he not agree that while the results of the brucellosis test have not been returned——
The Deputy has asked a question and should wait for a reply.
——another test will be needed before cattle can be sold? Surely for a Minister for Agriculture to state that he is not aware that there is general dissatisfaction as far as the 30-day test is concerned——
The Deputy may not follow up a supplementary with a lot of argument. I cannot detect any question.
This is a big item in my part of the country.
Far from there being any dissatisfaction there is a general recognition on the part of herdowners that it is vital that it be introduced. There have been certain grounds for dissatisfaction in the slowness of the delivery of results of tests because of the postal difficulties early this year. That situation has been corrected now. There is need naturally, since there is a 30-day limit, to have the farmer in a position to avail of the maximum number of days in which he can sell or move his stock. I am applying the energies of the Department of Agriculture to solving this problem and it has been solved in large measure. I do not in any way, as a herdowner myself, share the extraordinary view expressed by Deputy Murphy that there is general dissatisfaction with it. On the contrary there is general recognition of its importance.
Had the Minister his head in the sand when he said that he is not aware of the dissatisfaction? Surely he is aware that every committee of agriculture passed resolutions and sent them to him and that farming representatives from his own party have approached him. Surely he is aware that even yet there are postal difficulties and many farmers do not get back the results of the tests for 14, and in some cases, 16 or 18 days and with the difficulty in selling small cattle at present they are missing the market and cannot have their cattle tested for a further 60 days. Large farmers perhaps do not suffer but the small farmer who has to sell his cattle to pay rates and get money is suffering severely at present.
I have already conceded that there has been difficulty in the delivery of samples.
That is a separate question.
Those difficulties are nearly eliminated and they originated from a source over which I have no control——
That is part of the general dissatisfaction.
——which damaged the whole economy of the country.
Everybody accepts that there were enormous difficulties during the postal strike. At present, after a sample is delivered to the care of his Department, would the Minister be in a position to inform the House the length of time it takes from the sample arriving at his Department to have the test carried out and being forwarded back?
That is not the point. It has to be determined by veterinary scientists as to when it is reasonably safe to carry out the movement of animals after a test. After consultations with all the technical authorities in this regard I decided that 30 days was the correct period because the objective is to give farmers a guarantee of purchasing disease-free stock. Before this administration took over there was no disease testing at all and consequently——
That is not correct and the Minister knows it.
——the health status of the cattle was absolutely disastrous.
(Interruptions.)
I am calling the next question.
There was no difference. Why is the Minister allowed to make false statements?
Arising from the Minister's reply, am I to assume that he will not review the 30-day test and will ignore the many recommendations he has such as those from committees of agriculture and other farming bodies? What advantages have accrued from the 30-day test as against a 60-day test?
These recommendations almost always come from people with an axe to grind and from people who have no connection whatever with agriculture.
I asked the Minister a specific question as to the length of time the actual technical side of the test takes to be carried out.
It can be done very quickly. I cannot say how long it takes.
Arising from the Minister's reply——
We cannot spend all day answering what are mostly irrelevant questions.
This matter is of importance.
The importance the Deputy attaches to it does not permit the Chair to allow him to ask irrelevant questions.
The question is relevant. I understand that the Minister has decided to open a number of local offices in regard to the carrying out of the tests. Is he in a position to say how many?
I hope to establish testing facilities in Cork in 1980. It takes a lot of organisation but it is necessary to do it and I am going to do it.
Are there any further ones? Will there be one in Tullamore?
There will be further ones, but to begin the key area is Cork.
6.
andMr. Tully asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware that veterinary surgeons employed on disease eradication are not being paid their fees until several months after the tests have been carried out; his proposals to remedy this position; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The payment of fees to veterinary surgeons in respect of blood sampling for brucellosis and heifer vaccination is up-to-date. While there were some delays in the payment of fees for tuberculin testing to some veterinary surgeons as a result of changing to a computerised system, a considerable proportion of the arrears has now been cleared and all possible steps are being taken to bring payment of these fees also up-to-date.
Is the Minister aware that last year I had to bring to the notice of his Department that very substantial amounts of fees were due to a vet who was unpaid until after the representation had been made and repeated? This year he and many others are in the same position. One man is owed almost £7,000 and was offered £200 of it a few weeks ago. This was not for TB but for brucellosis testing. Will the Minister not agree that there is something wrong with the system of payment when veterinary surgeons may have to wait for as long as six months for payment for some of the tests they carried out? In general they are not paid until after three months have passed.
That is not the case. There seems to be some misunderstanding. I stated in my reply that the payment of fees to veterinary surgeons in respect of blood sampling for brucellosis and heifer vaccination is up-to-date.
Will the Minister say why his Department have not replied to a letter I wrote over a week ago asking why they had not paid a particular veterinary surgeon an amount which is almost £7,000? If the answer is as the Minister stated, why was it not possible for his Department, even with the postal service the way it is, to let me have a reply?
I will ask the Department to pay particular attention to the Deputy's request.
7.
andMr. Bermingham asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware of the delay of up to three weeks in having the result of disease eradication tests returned to local veterinary surgeons; and if he will arrange for the tests to be made and results issued at local centres and, if not, his alternative proposals.
8.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the long delay in issuing results of the blood tests under the brucellosis eradication scheme and the steps he proposes to take to rectify the matter.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
I am aware that, at times recently, the interval between the taking of blood samples for brucellosis testing and the receipt of test results has been longer than would normally be the case. The situation has been remedied by improved arrangements for the delivery and handling of samples and the dispatch of test results to local offices. I am also examining the feasibility of providing test facilities at other centres.
Is the Minister aware that as recently as a little over a week ago it was taking over 24 days to get results in some parts of the country? Is he aware that in yesterday's evening paper there is a report of a man who stated that the test results had not returned in some cases until three days after the 30 days were up? Does the Minister know that if the test results do not come back the farmers either miss the market at which they had proposed to sell their stock or alternatively sell them without the test and risk the chance of spreading disease? Would he not let us know what he intends to do rather than say that perhaps next year he will introduce something in Cork?
My Department assure me that the average waiting time is now between five and seven days, which is long enough, I agree. One method by which the waiting time can be shortened is by the use of CIE's Fastrack service. I would draw Deputies' attention to the remaining possibility that may account for some delays. Practitioners may not have been lightning fast in rushing out to the herdowners with the results of tests. The despatch of the blood samples in that case may not have been as quick as it should have been. I have no reason to believe that the cause of the very serious delays mentioned by Deputy Tully can be traced solely to the Department of Agriculture or the difficulties in the postal service.
Surely it is possible to have the results issued from the local offices rather than letting the situation build up from 60,000 to 100,000.
It is 40,000 to 110,000, Deputy.
That is even worse. I asked the Minister to make a statement on the matter.
I am not persuaded that the mere despatch of results occasions any great delay and that that despatch would be hastened by having the results distributed by local offices. I know that local veterinary offices cannot carry out the brucellosis test that is now carried out in Abbotstown. It is my intention to establish a facility of this kind in Cork in the coming year.
Does the Minister not realise that this is a serious problem and that the average time for the test is 15 to 16 days? This delay puts the seller at a disadvantage. This matter is more urgent than building something in Cork in 1980.
I would ask Deputies to advise farmers to ensure that their practitioners do not cause delays. I acknowledge that there have been delays during the postal strike. I am quite satisfied that the Department of Agriculture have not caused unreasonable delays. The work load has almost trebled, as I told Deputy Tully.
Surely the Minister agrees——
We are not having a debate on this matter.
Surely the Minister agrees that the situation is serious in that it encourages people to sell before they get the results of the tests?
Anybody who would buy cattle with out-of-date test documents is as big a fool as the person who would sell them.
Will the Minister take it from us that we know from our constituents that there are undue delays to their detriment? Whatever the cause may be, would the Minister inquire into the cause of the delays? Waiting for something to be done next year is not the answer to the problem.
I acknowledge that there have been serious delays in the technical business of the despatch of samples to Abbotstown and in the return of the results to the veterinary practitioner and from him to the farmer. The bottleneck originated during the postal dispute. Even after the settlement of that dispute it took a long time to deal with the backlog that had accumulated. Parallel to that is the use by farmers of CIE's Fastrack service. Blood can be tested and the results can be on their way back to the farmer on the same day.
Does the Minister not agree that that is not so? Samples that are sent to the Department are not returned quickly. Even though the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs assures us that the postal service is back to normal, results are only being returned 24 days after they are sent in. It is unfair to suggest that the delays are caused by the veterinary surgeons.
It is possible.
This story is being spread in order to cover up the failure of the Department.
The Government and the Department are now doing their job. The difficulties under which the testing arrangements are placed cannot be blinkered. I admit that there were unreasonable delays, but the situation has now improved. I will, as Deputy Blaney suggests, exercise constant vigilance in this regard.