asked the Minister for Agriculture the amount of money that was available for the disease eradication hardship fund in 1983 and 1984.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Disease Eradication Programme.
15.
A sum of £350,000 was provided for the fund in 1983 and £1 million in 1984. The figure for 1985 is £1,750,000.
Would the Minister agree that as the hardship fund operates, one would have to dispose of almost one's complete herd before being able to avail of the fund? Up to now one would qualify on the basis of 20 per cent of a herd having to be disposed of. Last week an instance was brought to my attention of a farmer who has been informed that he does not qualify for money from the fund though 31 animals out of a herd of 64 had to be disposed of. That represented about 47 per cent of his herd.
I will look into that matter.
(Limerick West): Does the figure of £1,750,000 exclude the restructuring fund?
I shall give the Deputy the bones of what is happening. The payment of £100 is made for each qualifying animal removed for slaughter, subject to a maximum overall payment of £6,000. Qualifying animals are as follows: cows, in-calf heifers, bulls and other animals killing out under 182 kg, around 400 lbs. weight.
Would the Minister consider extending the hardship fund to diseases other than TB and brucellosis where depopulation is required? There are a number of new diseases which are hitting herds.
I am so aware.
A final supplementary. Would the Minister agree that, as Deputy Noonan has said, you must first qualify under the hardship fund in order to qualify under the replacement fund? A person who has not had his entire herd disposed of will not qualify.
This is in regard to depopulation?
Yes.
I do not want to hold out too much hope, but discretionary payments have been made in the case of partial depopulation. For instance, if a farmer had 20 heifers on an outside farm which were not in contact with the main herd, and these 20 heifers were wiped out, then the farmer could apply for partial depopulation.
This question deals only with the amount provided, but once Deputies hear the words "hardship fund" they get ideas all over the place. They are away on a chase.
We are very sensitive to any hardship.
This is in the interests of our constituents.
I am well aware of that, but the Deputies should put down separate questions.
It was extended to County Kilkenny last year.
We will come to that.
Has the Minister, or his Department, any plans to ease the criteria and the technical details viz-à-viz qualifications for the hardship fund? Would he not accept that where a farmer's herd are locked up for a period and have from two to six subsequent tests, he must provide extra feed and has no income an a result of non-disposal of animals.
That is a separate question.
Is there any possibility that the Minister could bring some flexibility into the disposal of these funds?
There is a certain amount of flexibility.
Very, very little.
This is opening up the whole subject for discussion and the question does not visualise that.
Is there any light at the end of the tunnel?
16.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the amount of money he received from the EC as a grant towards the eradication of animal disease; the amount of money he envisages to receive in the disease eradication levy; and if he will make a statement on how his Department proposes to have both spent.
From 1978 to date, approximately £12 million has been received from EC funds towards the cost of our disease eradication programme.
The bovine diseases levies introduced on 1 January 1984 yielded £5.9 million in the 1984 financial year and are expected to yield £13.7 million this year. In both instances receipts are paid into the Exchequer, the amounts involved being taken into account in settling the annual allocation for disease eradication.
This EC scheme was discontinued on 17 September, 1983.
(Limerick West): In view of the increased contribution by the farming community towards a disease levy, as outlined by the Minister, would he or his Department now consider adopting a less rigid approach with regard to the depopulation fund? I am advised that, in the best interests of disease eradication, depopulation should take place in many more instances than at present. Because of the economic situation pertaining, it is not always possible.
That is something that I would be prepared to take up with the Deputy.
When the Minister talks about the EC fund for disease eradication, does this money apply to all types of animal diseases?
No, it merely applies to TB and brucellosis.
17.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the total amount paid to farmers under disease eradication schemes for each of the last five years.
As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement I propose to circulate it in the Official Report.
The following is the statement:
Payments to Farmers
|
Year |
Reactor Grants |
Hardship Fund |
|
(£ million) |
(£ million) |
|
|
1980 |
12.601 |
0.877 |
|
1981 |
9.691 |
0.651 |
|
1982 |
5.845 |
0.603 |
|
1983 |
6.484 |
0.352 |
|
1984 |
8.191 |
0.550 |
18.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the reason for the restriction in TB testing.
19.
asked the Minister for Agriculture when the round test on brucellosis will commence.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 18 and 19 together.
These questions were asked in the context of the 1984 round of testing. Because of the reduced provision for disease eradication in that year, testing of herds for both TB and brucellosis was conducted on a selective basis. A testing strategy was devised which combined the monitoring of the disease situation in the national herd with intensified testing of herds in areas of high disease prevalence.
The Government's national plan 1985-87 provides for a full round of testing for both TB and brucellosis in each of the three years covered by the plan.
(Limerick West): The Minister is aware that the 1985 round will not be completed until 1986. Is he aware that this will affect the 1986 testing round?
I am so aware.
(Limerick West): What are his Department doing to ensure that there will be a full round of testing both for 1985 and 1986, as indicated in the Government plan, Building on Reality?
As I say, something happened which was outside our control and which thankfully has been resolved. There is much goodwill around. The new style of approach to testing is accepted by everybody as meaning more efficiency. For instance, testing will have to be completed within a certain time. Quite a lot more discipline has come on to the scene. I am confident, with goodwill, we will be line ball by the end of 1986.
(Limerick West): I am still not satisfied. Would the Minister indicate to the House that he and his Department, or the Minister, Deputy Deasy, would sit down with the IVU to discuss ways and means of completing the round within 1985, so that the 1986 round will not be interfered with? This is important.
My Department and the IVU are having daily discussions with regard to testing. I am quite sure that they have come up with the best package it is possible to produce, which would be that round, it is hoped, would finish at the end of March 1986. I cannot promise any more.
(Limerick West): Is there no possibility of finishing within 1985?
No.
20.
(Limerick West): asked the Minister for Agriculture the steps he intends taking to ensure that there will be a full round of bovine TB testing in 1985.
The Government provided ample funds for a full round of bovine TB testing in 1985, but full scale operations were considerably delayed due to the difficulties with veterinary practitioners which have now been resolved. As a result, the 1985 round will not now be completed until March next. I am confident, however, that the lost time will be made good during the 1986 round of testing.
21.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the percentage of locked-up herds in which the test disclosed only 1 or 2 TB reactor animals.
Under the 1983-84 programme of TB testing, one or two reactors were disclosed by the test in 75 per cent of the herds restricted as a result of that programme. Subsequent retesting of those herds would, of course, be expected to disclose further reactors in many instances.
In view of there being so many herds which have only one or two animals affected, would the Minister give any credence to the view that wildlife may be carrying tuberculosis, rather than that it is caused by lateral spread?
If the Deputy wants my own view, I believe that the main cause of the disease is by lateral spread and by on-farm visits of vehicular traffic and so forth. It has been proved fairly conclusively that disease has been spread by contact. I am not ruling out, of course, other factors.
Would the Minister not agree that since there are 75 per cent of herds with only one or two animals affected, that would indicate the need for further investigation by the Department and more surveys to be carried out of badger social groups and other wildlife that may be using affected farms?
One of the consoling things about this is that it means that we are getting disease under control, slowly but surely. We are down to pretty small numbers.
But what about the areas where wildlife use these affected farms?
There have been veterinary inspections of species of wildlife and in some cases they have been found to contain TB.
Did the Department carry out any testing?
No. There was no testing done in such cases.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.