Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Apr 1993

Vol. 429 No. 8

Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1993: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (Mr. O'Shea)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:

Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1993,

copies of which Regulations in draft were laid before the Dáil on the 28th day of April, 1993.

The proposed regulations are being made under the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Act, 1979 and their purpose is to reduce the financial contribution by the farming community towards the cost of the bovine TB and brucellosis eradication schemes by a sum of £2 million which sum it is proposed, will be saved on the estimated running costs of this year's programme.

A scheme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis in cattle was first introduced in Ireland in 1954. The scheme was successful by the mid 1970s in reducing the endemic levels of disease in the national herd to an animal incidence of approximately half of one per cent. Progress toward final eradication had, however, slowed at that level and persistent difficulties were encountered in achieving further sustained reductions in disease levels. Clearing residual levels of any infectious disease is difficult but it is surprising that achieving further reductions in the level of TB has proved so difficult.

In 1988 as a new initiative, ERAD — the Eradication of Animal Disease Board — was established by the then Government as a specialised agency to implement a vigorous four year bovine TB eradication programme. This arrangement operated from 1988 to April 1992. The main conclusion to be drawn from the ERAD experience is that eradication is more difficult than had originally been envisaged; that high volume of testing per se is not the answer; that special emphasis needs to be placed on the development of technological tools including a computerised movement permit system and a blood based diagnostic test to supplement the existing skin test together with a possible vaccine for cattle and wildlife. Consideration is currently being given to the type of arrangements appropriate for the next four years of the programme. In the meantime, however, it is necessary to continue the effort to systematically and progressively reduce the existing levels of the disease. Ireland's economy depends to a large extent on exports of beef and dairy products and we must continue to pursue the long term objective of eradication.

When ERAD was established the Government undertook that, in addition to meeting the administrative costs of the scheme, which this year will come to about £18 million it would maintain a financial commitment to the running costs of the schemes. The current running costs are shared by the Exchequer and the farming community. The farmers' contribution is provided through levies collected under the 1979 Bovine Diseases Levies Act. In 1992 farmers contributed £29 million by way of levy. For 1993 the amount now proposed for collection will be approximately £27 million while the estimated running costs of the schemes for 1993 will be reduced from £43.5 million to £41.5 million.

The background to the proposed new financial arrangements relate to the establishment of the EC Veterinary Fund under which member states can seek funding for disease eradication measures in the context of reaching a common animal health status to facilitate animal movement in the Single Market. Ireland has made application to the Commission for EC funding for part recoupment of bovine TB reactor compensation and testing costs amounting to a potential drawdown of some £20 million per year. While the application is technically acceptable to the Commission Services it has not yet been approved as the veterinary fund budget is fully taken up for 1993 and cannot, for the present, fund a number of member state programmes, including Ireland's bovine TB programme. However, I am continuing to press that the money be made available at the earliest possible date. The availability of EC funding is central to the provision of the amplified resources needed to push for a sustained reduction in the residual incidence of bovine TB and I intend to continue to ensure that securing of that funding remains a priority.

Securing this level of EC funding will, of course, allow for the possibility of a significant reduction in the financial burden of the eradication schemes on both the Exchequer and the farming community. However, pending the drawdown of the EC funding it is necessary for trading and veterinary reasons to proceed with an adequate monitoring of the national herd and this year's TB testing programme has, in fact, commenced. It is proposed that a full round of TB testing will be completed before the end of the year. This will involve a test for every herd together with any necessary consequential testing arising from reactor disclosure. In addition, the national herd will continue to be monitored for brucellosis through a combination of milk testing of the dairy herds and blood testing of the non-dairy and suckler enterprises.

Following discussions with the farming organisations it has been possible to identify agreed savings of £2 million through an adjustment in reactor compensation and a slight reduction in the amount of testing originally planned for this year's programme. These savings will allow for a reduction in the bovine diseases levies of the order of 0.1p per gallon of milk processed and 60p per animal slaughtered or exported live. It is proposed to pass back the full amount of the savings to the farming community. The savings, while relatively modest, have been accepted by the farming organisations as a recognition of the significant cost to herdowners in the context of tightening enterprise margins.

I would like to mention a number of areas of the eradication programme which have caused some controversy in recent times, particularly the role of wildlife. It has been said that my Department is operating a badger slaughter policy. This is simply not true. The position is that my Department operates a research programme against the background that it is now widely recognised that badgers play a role in the transmission of bovine TB. There is a growing body of scientific evidence to support this opinion.

With regard to control, badgers are a protected species under the Wildlife Act, 1976 and may only be removed under licence. Where my Department is satisfied that there is a probable link between badgers and an outbreak of bovine TB in cattle, application is made to the Wildlife Service of the Office of Public Works for a licence to remove badgers for post mortem. Applications are considered in the context of an agreed programme aimed at determining what role the badger plays in the transmission of bovine TB. Badgers are humanely removed by shooting and are brought to the most conveniently located veterinary laboratory for post mortem examination and disposal. The number of badgers removed from the population is minimal. Also, road casualty badgers are fully utilised as research material.

I am sure the House will appreciate that given the overriding requirement to reduce the incidence of bovine TB, a thorough analysis of all the factors involved in disease transmission, including the role of wildlife, must be a key element of any eradication programme. On the overall question of research, the TB investigation unit has been in existence for four years now and has carried out a variety of projects in relation to factors which militate against eradication. It has carried out a considerable amount of analytical work on statistical data. Nineteen projects were completed in 1992 and an extensive programme of work has been mapped out for 1993. Valuable work is also being done by my Department's veterinary research laboratory especially on culturing post mortem samples and on the evaluation of blood tests.

Work is continuing on the development of a blood test which has been identified as a major research priority not just in this country but in others having a bovine TB problem. My Department is participating in EC funded trials, and we are also carrying out our own research projects and collaborating with research elsewhere in this area. Although the project is as yet very much at an experimental stage, and progress is slow, the objective is to get to a situation where the blood test would be reliable under practical field conditions and could augment and back up the tuberculin test in certain situations. If perfected it could be of particular use in clearing out the last vestiges of disease where chronic breakdowns have occurred.

Research is also in train on ways to address the wildlife factor. This is a difficult and complex area. There is a number of related projects in progress including a study on the feasibility of using a vaccine in wildlife. A project is almost complete also on a census of the badger population. There are lessons to be learned from other countries where wildlife infection became endemic, and we are collaborating with research workers in these countries.

Work on the computerised movement permit system is progressing well and, when completed, will be of enormous benefit to the administration of the eradication programme. The system will be extensive and complex and will form part of the current overall computerisation of my Department. In the meantime herd owners should consider the benefit of keeping their own records of the movements of cattle into and out of their holdings. In any event, such record keeping will shortly be a requirement arising from the introduction of the Single Market.

The question of value for money spent on the disease eradication schemes has often been raised. In this regard a recent comprehensive cost-benefit analysis carried out by Professor Séamus Sheehy of UCD has shown that the TB Eradication Scheme has been substantially of benefit to the national economy. In its absence, the Irish cattle and dairy industries would have remained at a very low level of development and would have been at a severe competitive disadvantage. The conclusion of the analysis indicated that the benefits exceeded the costs by a minimum of 86 per cent or a rate of real return of 16 per cent on the investment in the scheme to date. Given the anticipated improvement in the disease situation it is envisaged that this rate of return will be maintained or enhanced over the next number of years. The experience of ERAD would indicate that the goal of eradication is more difficult than originally envisaged. However, I believe that with the full co-operation of all concerned it will be possible to break the back of this disease once and for all. I commend these regulations to the House.

Mr. Dukes

I am a little disappointed that the Minister of State said that he is not in a position to tell us that there will be any substantial new breakthrough in the near future in this area. I had hoped that perhaps he might have better news for us than that. Apparently that seems not to be the case. There are a few reasons for that which I will come to in a moment.

I welcome the fact that a levy of this kind is being reduced. It is not often that happens and although the reduction is rather small, approximately 7 per cent, everybody concerned will welcome it. There is a number of areas where we need a little more information and a little more application. It is for that reason that I objected to the Government's request to take this matter in the House without debate. It did not seem to me to be appropriate to let this pass, if only for the sake of giving the Minister of State, or somebody on the Government side, the opportunity to refer to the study carried out by Professor Sheehy on the eradication programme. I am delighted to hear the Minister say nice things about Professor Sheehy's study, which are well deserved. I hope it means that the Labour Party has now come to accept that it is worth spending money on disease eradication. There was a time when the Labour Party, both in Government and in Opposition, targeted expenditure on disease eradication as the first place for cutting public expenditure. It seems now that saner counsels prevail in the Labour Party and that may be an indication of more good sense in the future than we are used to from that quarter.

We all agree that we would wish to see work going ahead as quickly as possible on the development of vaccines both for cattle and for wildlife. I will return to the wildlife aspect in a moment but the work on developing vaccines for cattle, if it were successful would considerably ease the problem of eradicating this disease. Of course, the main immediate impact of this disease on farming is in regard to the profitability of stock farming rather than anything else.

There are two areas which do not get sufficient attention. One of those is epidemiological research where I am aware some work is taking place but there would be greater rewards for expenditure in that area than there might be in some of the other areas where money is being spent. The second area is in relation to cattle husbandry. It is clear that in the areas where bovine TB is still a problem there are, undoubtedly, deficiencies in husbandry that contribute to the maintenance of reservoirs of this disease and the occasions when flare-ups and outbreaks occur. Those two areas, epidemiology and husbandry, seem to me to require more vigorous attention.

I was disappointed to hear the Minister of State say that he is not yet in a position to give us any guarantee that the funding sought from the European Community under the new veterinary fund can be assured. Is he in a position to tell us when it is expected that a final decision may be made? The securing of money from this fund and, indeed, the setting up of the fund itself, was trotted out to us some time ago by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry as being a victory for him, or a feather in his cap, when he came back from Brussels. I am disappointed to hear the Minister of State now say that the money cannot yet be made available. He said he would continue to press for the money to be available at the earliest possible date. That is the type of phrase that covers a multitude. It could mean there is a chance that it might be decided next week. It could equally mean that there is not the slightest hope that it will be made available before the end of next year. It is Department speak for keeping your options open.

On the other hand, I am delighted, along with everybody else involved, to see that we will have a full round of TB testing this year. All of us concerned with this matter would like to see the rhythm of testing and of the programme maintained. There have been too many occasions in the past few years where there were disturbances of one kind or another in the process and I am delighted that will not be the case this year. Indeed, if I am correct in my information I gather the process has already started and is fairly well underway.

I am aware that farmers have already agreed with the modifications in the programme that lead to these reductions in the levy. It would be remiss of us and would leave the record of this House incomplete if we did not challenge the Minister's remarks that the adjustments in reactor compensation which are part of this package have been welcomed with open arms by the farming organisations. The Minister is aware that they were accepted with a certain amount of reservation because compensation for reactor animals is still a problem for many farmers. The Minister should not try to tell us that the argument is over just because an agreement has been arrived at in the context of this package.

I wish to refer to wildlife, specifically badgers, in relation to the spread of bovine diseases. I have been involved in this area in one capacity or another for over 25 years since I first went to work for what was then the National Farmers' Organisation in 1967. I have seen fashions come and go. At one time crows and badgers were blamed for spreading TB, indeed weird and wonderful cases were made in regard to its spread. When I feel particularly foolhardy I am inclined to say that, in relation to the link between badgers and TB, I suspect that very often badgers catch TB from cattle. The Minister stated that it is now widely recognised that badgers play a role in the transmission of bovine TB but I am not convinced. People have also said that the spread of bovine TB comes from nose to nose contact between badgers and cattle, usually at night which sounds very romantic but rather unlikely. The Minister went on to say that we need a thorough analysis of all the factors involved in disease transmission, including the role of wildlife. Having stated we all know that badgers are involved in the spread of the disease, he then goes on to say there must be more analysis. I am not convinced, having seen the results of the research and the presentations that we can make that kind of assertion. It is clear that in all these cases we need to consider the husbandry side. I realise that husbandry presents many difficult problems because not much is known about how and why TB can survive for so long and how reservoirs of infection which have been dormant for years can suddenly flare up. To blame the poor badger in the way it has been blamed appears to be seeking an escape route. I fear the day will come when we might decide that the poor badger was not to blame, by then there will not be many poor badgers left. The Minister said that the badger is a protected species and referred to how testing, culling and removal is done and how road casualty badgers are used and so on. However, the Minister cannot give us an assurance that badgers are killed humanely. I am not convinced that the badger plays the kind of role ascribed to it in the transmission of bovine TB. For that reason, when we are carrying out research and planning disease eradication programmes, we should plan those programmes overtly and specifically on the basis that cattle on our farms will have to co-exist with wildlife. If we want our cattle to be healthy and to flourish in co-existence with wildlife we will have to take the steps required to look after them better. We should never operate a programme where the price for maintaining healthy cattle is the removal of wildlife. There is a much wider dimension to all this than the simple question of bovine TB and badgers, but by chipping away at the edges of sanity and reality, society gets itself into stupid positions. In the future we might regret the mythology which has grown up in regard to the badger and which the Minister cultivated in his loose language today.

The Minister has told us that work on the computerised permit system is progressing well and referred to what will happen when it is completed. What does he mean by "progressing well"? When will the work be completed? This appears to be another part of the patchwork quilt of insane bureaucracy being introduced to farming. We are at the stage in farming where, thanks to the new formula, the integrated administration and control system, work cannot be done on farms without involving officialdom. Few jobs can be done on Irish farms without obtaining permission from officialdom. Unless something is done work on this computerised permit system will be an addition to the many things farmers must do to carry out their normal operations. There are rumours in some quarters that another new system for identifying animals is being considered. I would hate to see any further extra complications introduced for farmers unless they would entail substantial advantages.

Disease levies are not the only levies payable by farmers which go into the coffers of the State in connection with the cattle industry. There is also a levy to support the activities of CBF separate from this levy before us. However, a levy is a levy to a farmer selling cattle. Farmers will continue to pay to fund the operations of CBF and activities which will produce the type of results we want in terms of marketing food and food products. I heard the news this morning that it has been decided, apparently as part of the post-Culliton convulsion in the Government, that all matters of trade will remain within the remit of An Bord Tráchtála. I gather also that it has been proposed, contrary to views of the expert group on food that the activities of CBF and other food marketing operations should be subsumed in An Bord Tráchtála. An Bord Tráchtála would set up a subsidiary company and CBF, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and Bord Glas would amalgamate to form that subsidiary, that would be a very grave error, notwithstanding the protests of Senator Fergal Quinn who referred to a CBF and a Department of Agriculture that ceased to exist some years ago. My fear is that if the marketing of food supported by farmers' levies is allowed to disappear into the maw of this outrageous bureaucracy which the Government is establishing with Fobairt, Forfás, employment protection units, An Bord Trádála and subsidiary companies, we will have endless reports and arguments about who is responsible and very bad value from the levies and taxpayers' money which has been invested.

An Ceann Comhairle

I trust the Deputy will not stray too far from bovine diseases to the agricultural food sector.

Mr. Dukes

I have strayed a little from bovine diseases to bureaucratic diseases.

Mr. Ferris

The Deputy is a reactor.

Mr. Dukes

I react strongly to them, Deputy Ferris. I am delighted to see the Deputy back and I promise not to interrupt Deputy McManus by talking to Deputy Ferris when she is contributing.

I hope we do not have another outbreak of bureaucratic disease that will get in the way of the efficient use of the levies we pay for other purposes. I hope the Minister will take on board the requirement for more work on the epidemiology of bovine TB, on developing proper husbandry response to bovine TB and that we can at last give the poor badger a break.

Mr. Molloy

Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom a rá nach bhfuil an Páirtí Daonlathach sásta leis an gcóras Stáit a bunaíodh agus atá i bhfeidhm sa tír seo chun an galar seo a leigheas. Cé go bhfuil an scéim ar siúl le suas le daichead bliain agus a lán airgid — breis agus billiún punt — caite air, tá sé soiléir nach bhfuil an dul chun cinn dá réir déanta chun an aidhm seo a bhaint amach. Tá an rún seo faoinár mbráid anois ag moladh go ndéanfar laghdú ar na levies maidir leis na hathruithe ach nílimid ag dul i gcoinne sin mar, dar ndóigh, tá mo pháirtí ar son cánacha a laghdú, is cuma cén sórt cánacha iad, agus is dócha gur cánacha iad seo. Dá bhrí sin, cé go bhfuilimid ag glacadh leis an moladh atá ag an Aire inniu, caithfidh mé a chur ina luí air nach bhfuilimid sásta go bhfuil scéim fhiúntach á feidhmiú ag an Stát agus ceapann a lán daoine nach dtiocfaidh feabhas ar an scéal go dtí go ndéanfar athruithe móra, agus tá roinnt moltaí agam chuige sin.

The reduction in the levies paid by farmers on cattle and milk, totalling an estimated £2 million, which is now proposed is a joke and can be so described under a number of headings. First, for the farming community as a whole, it is a case of giving with one hand, and taking with the other, since the £2 million which farmers will save from the reduction in the rate of levies on live and slaughtered animals and on milk sold to the creameries will be largely recouped from a reduction in the State's compensation fund for reactor animals. Second, the disease levies reduction is intended as a sweetener for farmers given the failure of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to secure agreement in time for the new EC-backed disease eradication programme, which would have seen Ireland pick up approximately £20 million annually from Brussels towards the cost of an intensified eradication programme.

In May, last, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh, announced the new EC-backed scheme, and promised that as a result the levies paid by farmers could be reduced by a third, or £10 million approximately, which, of course, would be a significant saving to farmers who paid £29 million in disease levies last year. Therefore, we are talking about a significant contribution from the farming community. However, failure on the part of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to finalise the terms of the new scheme with farmers and veterinary surgeons, largely because of the veterinary surgeons, meant that when we finally got our act together, the response from Brussels was that all the money was gone. To make matters worse, when we sought to secure the first annual tranche of £20 million for this year, the same thing happened.

Sadly, therefore, our failure to get our act together in time in agreeing a revised and intensified eradication programme acceptable to Brussels has meant that we effectively lose out on the enhanced funding of £20 million annually for two years, 1992 and 1993. We have lost £40 million already. Of course, this messing is only the latest round in a sorry saga of bovine disease eradication here, which does no credit to any of the interests concerned.

Next year, the eradication programme will be 40 years old. In the meantime, well over £1 billion has been spent, in excess of two million animals have been slaughtered, and we still have not rid the country officially of bovine TB and brucellosis.

Is it any wonder that the former Senator, Dr. T.K. Whitaker, once described the disease eradication programme in the Seanad as a major scandal and the greatest waste of public funds undertaken under any public programme of which he was aware? Added to that, in some respects the position is getting worse. For instance, when ERAD, the special board to oversee the eradication of these diseases, was established in April 1988, its official target was to halve the then incidence of bovine TB in an intensified four-year programme. At the end of that period last year, the overall national figure showed no improvement, and some counties showed a significant deterioration.

It is clear, therefore, that over the past 40 years or so, disease eradication has proved a costly failure, but worse than that, it has become an industry which many veterinary surgeons especially would not like to see ended.

It is time, therefore, that we gave serious consideration to the whole basis on which the eradication of bovine disease is currently structured. Some years ago, the Progressive Democrats proposed a radical change in the operation of the bovine TB eradication programme which was acknowledged by many people in the industry as the only common sense and effective way of achieving real progress towards the goal of eliminating bovine TB altogether, that was to effectively privatise the operation, and make it an exclusively farmer-vet operation. In other words, to give the farmer responsibility for the health status of his herd, and let TB testing and its cost be entirely a matter between the herd owner and his veterinary surgeon. That would remove the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry from the administration of the scheme, and confine it to a policing role.

If the Minister were to adopt the Progressive Democrat proposal it would mean that the disease levies paid by farmers would be discontinued altogether and the cost of the State's involvement, through the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry would be reduced substantially. Under such a system the full compensation for reactors would be paid only to herd owners who comply with regular testing requirements and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry would be given the power to slaughter at-risk herds where the farmer fails to co-operate in routine testing and disease control.

If such a system were in operation I have no doubt that the cowboys and carelessness that is the cause of much of the disease problem would be quickly wiped out. All farmers would realise that it was in their own interest that proper and effective testing of their animals was carried out regularly and that proper precautions were always taken to avoid careless spreading of disease, particularly during the transportation and change of ownership. The health status of each animal would become the personal concern and responsibility of individual farmers rather than that of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, as is the perception of some unscrupulous farmers at present.

Making the farmer responsible for testing his own animals is in line with the EC principle of subsidiarity and coupled with a blood test for TB instead of the present unsatisfactory system should guarantee that Brussels would readily approve its contribution towards disease eradication here and the £20 million mentioned would help the Department meet the full cost of compensation for reactors.

In the interest of taxpayers and the majority of farmers who are conscientious and diligent in observing disease prevention measures, the present unsuccessful system which has cost more than £1 billion cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.

One has only to compare the lack of success in eliminating bovine TB here with the outstanding success achieved in the other jurisdiction on this island to realise that our failures relate more to the way we have organised our eradication programme as compared to the UK Government's effort in Northern Ireland. I would like the Minister to refer to the position in Northern Ireland and explain to the House why they can achieve such a high degree of success and we cannot. Blaming the badger for the spread of this disease is taking the easy way out. I have spoken to senior veterinary surgeons in the Minister's Department who do not believe the badger is to blame for spreading TB among our cattle herds. There is no definitive scientific proof available which can lead one to that conclusion.

I think this problem has more to do with the way we have organised the scheme and, in particular, the type of test applied. Vets will tell you privately, but not publicly, that they and their colleagues have a vested interest in the scheme; this scheme has been the source of very substantial income for many vets. If the skin testing method referred to by the Minister in his speech is not a success, then it is incumbent on us to change to a system which will achieve a higher degree of success. From advice I have received in discussions with vets, I am of the opinion that until such time as a blood test for each individual animal is introduced we will never succeed in eliminating bovine TB from our cattle herd. The sooner we make that change the better for the reputation of Irish farm produce and meat products. I urge the Minister to take serious account of the views expressed, both inside and outside this House, about the huge amounts of taxpayers' money which have been spent under this scheme which has not, as yet, achieved any reasonable degree of success. He should cast aside those who may have vested interests in placing obstacles in the way of the changes necessary in the scheme in order to achieve the success which is vital.

Agriculture is our primary industry. It is an indigenous industry of enormous value to this country both as a revenue earner and an employer. Farming is a way of life for many of our people. During the debate on the Animal Remedies Bill, it was emphasised by all speakers that we need to achieve the highest possible standards in our farming enterprise so that our farm produce will have the highest reputation in the market place. We can never make this claim until we eliminate bovine TB and take the right steps to do so.

Mr. T. Foxe

I wish to share my time with Deputy Liz McManus.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. T. Foxe

I was delighted to hear this morning that there was to be a reduction in the levy paid by farmers for disease eradication. I thought that at last the powers that be had seen the light. However, on further reading I discovered that the reduction would amount to a mere pittance, a mere 60p reduction from £7.90 to £7.30 per animal. The milk levy will be reduced from 1.4p per gallon to 1.3p per gallon, a reduction of 0.1p per gallon. While any reduction is most welcome, those reductions are derisory.

Reference is often made to the financial aids given to farmers for the activities in which they are engaged. However, one must bear in mind that such financial assistance is not of benefit to farmers only. Approximately 15.3 per cent of our workforce is directly involved in farming while a further 16.5 per cent is directly involved in agriculture related industries. This means that approximately 32 per cent, almost one third, of our workforce, is directly involved in farming and agriculture-related industries. Therefore, any benefits which accrue to the primary producer also benefit the country in general.

The money spent on disease eradication was essential and paid great dividends. If our disease status was not at its present level we would have forfeited our markets. There is no point in farmers having huge numbers of animals if there is no market for them, as we discovered a few years ago when it was perceived by other countries that there was an outbreak of mad cow disease, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, in our herd. This is the reason we lost our market in Libya. That perception by the Libyans was not correct. I understand that some of our competitors on the Continent broadcast that impression. As a result, we lost our Libyan market for three years. When this market was re-established in February, as a result of the efforts of the Minister and his predecessor, there was an immediate upsurge in the price of cattle which benefited farmers tremendously, both financially and psychologically. It is essential that we have a disease-free herd. Any money spent in achieving this is money well spent.

When we joined the EC farmers were told that they should increase their cattle herds and sheep flock numbers. Farmers responded in a major way to those requests. Maybe they responded too heartily in so far as sheep numbers are concerned because they are now getting less for their lambs than they got heretofore. However, that is a matter for another day. For the first time in our history there are in excess of 7 million cattle in this country. This has been brought about as a result of the response by farmers to the requests by the Department and the EC to increase numbers. The number of breeding cows has increased from approximately 1.9 million eight years ago to 2.3 million today. The number of breeding ewes has increased from approximately 2 million in 1985 to approximately 5 million today. This increase in numbers has been brought about as a result of the tremendous response by farmers to the requests by the Government to increase numbers.

It will be a pity if farmers, having responded to the requests to increase stock numbers, discover at the end of the day that there are no markets for their animals. It must be borne in mind that a farmer who invests his money in extra stock has to tighten his belt in terms of expenditure in other areas of farming. He cannot afford to go out on the town every night if he wants to invest some of his profits in his business. I must compliment the farming community on their tremendous response.

I was delighted to hear that testing for the incidence of TB and brucellosis had actually begun because I had not thought it was to begin so quickly. I understand that, within a 12-month period, there will have been in the region of 9 million tests undertaken, a tremendous amount. The costs of testing, apart from administrative costs, are in the region of £43 million of which farmers pay £29 million out of their pockets, the Exchequer bearing in the region of £13 million or £14 million in costs. While it is good to note the Exchequer is bearing that amount we must keep in mind the huge pressures being placed on the farming community for the eradication of those diseases particularly when we remember that so many of our people rely on the primary producer, namely the farmer.

I was interested to hear what Deputy Dukes had to say about the badger and its association with the incidence of bovine TB. There is quite an amount of evidence demonstrating that the badger is involved directly in the spreading of TB. I might add that some experiments carried out in County Offaly approximately five years ago clearly demonstrated a link between the two. Yet the association of the badger with the spreading of the disease may not be quite as extensive as had been thought. Deputy Dukes contended that it was the badger that contracted the disease from cattle rather than vice versa. I contend that if the badger can contract the disease from cattle it is logical to conclude that the badger can pass on the disease to other cattle. However, I would not be in agreement with widespread eradication of the badger or of any wildlife. But if evidence proves that, in certain cases, wildlife is responsible for the spreading of the disease, then we must be cruel to be kind and must remove those nests of wildlife responsible, which would appear to be the approach being followed.

We must realise that there is much more involved in the eradication of disease than the mere abolition of all and sundry animals affected. In this respect greater attention to hygiene on farms and in the transport of cattle from one farm to another is much to be recommended and constitutes the right path to be followed in the eradication of disease. Farmers in their approach to the eradication of the disease, as well as cattle dealers, must accept responsibility for much of the incidence of disease which has occurred from time to time. When I refer to greater hygiene on farms I am thinking of machinery used to spread slurry and so on. While there may not be conclusive evidence, it would appear that where a contractor spreads slurry in a given area, TB appears to surface there, which pattern may follow throughout the territories in which he may have deployed his machinery. We should pay much greater attention to both hygiene and husbandry.

Professor Séamus Sheehy undertook an interesting survey on the eradication of bovine disease. Deputy Molloy was critical of the moneys spent on the eradication of TB over many years. Perhaps his suggestion of engaging private contractors in the eradication of both TB and brucellosis is worthy of consideration. Forty years ago, when the TB eradication scheme was first introduced, I doubt that such a suggestion would have gone very far. According to Professor Séamus Sheehy, even at an expense of £1 billion so far, it was a wise investment on the part of successive Governments, in that he calculated that such investment yielded a dividend of 15 per cent over those years. Professor Sheehy has calculated that the benefits of eradication exceeded costs by some 86 per cent. Since Professor Sheehy is a well-known agricultural economist I would be extremely slow to disagree with anything he might say, despite statements on the part of former Ministers.

We are told by ERAD that eradicating bovine disease is proving more difficult than had been thought originally. We must bear in mind that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Present indications are that 3.3 animals per thousand fail tests but we should never relax until the figure had been reduced to zero, though it may prove exceedingly difficult. We should acknowledge that we have progressed a long way in the 40 years since the scheme was first introduced and that there was an improvement wrought in those figures even over the past two years.

Ms McManus

The history of TB eradication has been one of continuous abject failure. For example, Dr. T.K. Whitaker, a former Governor of the Central Bank, who should know much about financial scandals described it as the greatest of all in the history of this State. More colloquially, many people have described the eradication scheme as the vets' dole. The fact that the scheme was launched in 1954 and we are still discussing the possibility of the total eradication of TB is indicative in itself. I was a small child when that scheme began; I am now a grandmother. I wonder how many more generations must pass before we will have been successful. The experience in other countries has been rather different where they have been able to enjoy the full, unconditional support of farmers for their policy of TB eradication. Here we have been hampered both by the attitude of our farmers to this eradication programme and by the rather cosy relationship the vets have enjoyed, very lucrative for them, but very unsuccessful when we examine the return we have got for our investment of £1 billion.

We would all welcome the use of improved technology but the question arises also of structural changes in the manner in which the scheme is operated. One could also ask whether it would be more cost effective to train technical staff to carry out this work rather than employ expensive vets whose record is one of failure rather than success.

In relation to the inspection of meat plants, last week agricultural officers threatened to take industrial action on the question of staffing and overtime. Again, the question must be asked whether we are obtaining the best return for the money we are investing or concentrating too much on investing in vets as opposed to technical officers who could be trained and equipped to do the job. In the case of one cold meat plant someone made the point that a vet is rather like a doctor at a morgue and somewhat superfluous.

Under these regulations a certain proportion of the cost will be shifted away from our farmers and the taxpayers, who have been bled dry during the years, and towards the European taxpayer who will be expected to carry some of the load when we can get our act together. We have to look at the way in which this money is being spent to ensure that the problem is eradicated once and for all.

In this regard, too much of the blame has been attached to the unfortunate badger which is suffering as a consequence. The Minister of State may be correct when he argues that it may well be a carrier. I strongly believe, however, that the badger is not the cause of this problem but rather the victim. Northern Ireland has been cited as an example, where the badger is clearly TB free. Therefore we need to face reality rather than make this unfortunate animal a scapegoat. It does not deserve this reputation.

Yesterday we debated the question of animal remedies and touched on the development of the food industry. It is clear and should be stated again that we have failed to monitor and ensure proper standards right across the board. This has proved damaging and is most evident in relation to the TB eradication scheme.

This is a difficult and challenging time for agriculture. Although there are great opportunities to create jobs and wealth, farmers also face difficulties in coming to terms with these challenges. We need to ensure that the highest standards are maintained and if this means that new and radical measures are required then we should introduce those measures. However, it is most disappointing that there is no evidence in the Minister of State's speech that a new and radical approach will be adopted in relation to the TB eradication scheme.

Mr. Leonard

I rise to support the motion. Reductions in levies are seldom announced — in the main, they are increased. While criticism has been expressed in relation to the amount concerned I would never be critical of any moves to put £2 million into the pockets of our farmers. This is a substantial sum of money even if it is to be divided among 172,000 herd owners. Indeed, it is nine years since the last reduction in the levies.

Many areas which were free of TB from the early fifties to the seventies now face serious problems. In some places brucellosis has reared its ugly head again. In relation to administrative costs, which amount to £43 million while the amount concerned, £7.90 for each cow slaughtered, may be considered small when inspection fees and insurance costs are taken into account the overall cost to the farmer is substantial. Last year I brought the case of a farmer who had a small number of stock and was confronted with a major problem to the attention of the Department but the amount he was given for each of the animals did not amount to twice the levy. Therefore some allowances should be made in the case of farmers who obtain a low return for their animals in regard to price and compensation payments.

I welcome the Minister of State's assurance that pending the drawdown of EC funding it will be necessary to proceed with an adequate monitoring of the national herd and that this will involve a test for each of the herds arising from the reactor disclosure. Deputy Dukes made great play of his policy but the Government of which he was a member adopted a stop-go approach in regard to testing. Every effort should be made to clear any obstacles to secure the £20 million we have applied for. In a press release the Minister indicated that a management board would be set up while today the Minister of State said that funding will be made available for new technology. Even though many surveys have been carried out this is still a recurring problem in many areas.

I also welcome the Minister of State's assurance that the rates of compensation will be reviewed. Having regard to the fact that the value of livestock has increased substantially a reasonable level of compensation should be paid so that farmers will be in a position to restock their farms as quickly as possible.

We are still waiting for the system of animal tags and numbers to be computerised and we would like to see the Minister working speedily. In this regard the Minister of State said:

Work on the computerised movement permit system is progressing well and, when completed, will be of enormous benefit to the administration of the eradication programme.

He went on to say that "in the meantime herd owners should consider the benefit of keeping their own records of the movement of cattle into and out of their holdings". For a number of years I drew the attention of agricultural policy committees and two Ministers to the system operating in Northern Ireland where there is a stock register in which all purchases and sales must be registered. If we were to adopt a similar approach here all transactions could be easily examined.

The blood test has been mentioned. In my own area we have had many problems with TB down through the years and we are still not completely free of it. While one can carry out all the surveys one likes farmers are very sharp and sometimes are much better at analysing trends than the scientists. Many will tell us that there is a need for double fencing between holdings. If it is at all possible there should be a subsidy for those who are willing to erect double fencing. This could be carried out on a pilot basis. I believe this is the type of approach we should take because lateral contact seems to cause problems.

The livestock industry continues to be very important, not only for farmers but in downstream activities like processing and exporting. I believe this is the area that has the greatest potential for job creation whether in slaughtering or in downstream processing. Seasonality of supply still causes problems for the industry. The payment of slaughter premiums in the spring may improve the situation. The problem arises because farmers are not rewarded for the intensive feeding of their cattle over the winter months with the result that a greater number of cattle come on the market at the end of the year and prices fall.

There has been a substantial increase in the number of sheep and suckler herds. The quality of stock has improved. At present because of subsidies there is a demand for a certain type of beef cow and this will result in much higher quality carcases. It is important that we cash in on this and get the best value from it. I believe we should set up a committee in the Department to examine the potential for job creation in agriculture. If necessary we should employ expert knowledge, for example in the fields of industry and technology, because one has only to go to a supermarket to see the massive number of imported meat products. There are opportunities if we were able to cash in on them and we could create many jobs in doing so.

Mr. Crawford

I welcome the reduction of £2 million in the cost of levies to farmers. While one cannot but welcome this it must however be compared with the possibility of a reduction of £10 million if proper action had been taken over the past number of years to get the agreed EC funding that was made available a number of years ago. Five years ago a senior EC official spoke at a farmers' conference and he made it clear that money was available provided a proper programme was put forward. I fully appreciate the sincere efforts of recent Ministers and the present Minister and his staff to bring forward a programme that would be acceptable to Brussels. Unfortunately, some sectors involved in the negotiations put their personal sectoral interests before the wellbeing of the national herd. As a result, the cut in levies amounts to only £2 million, instead of a possible reduction of £10 million to £20 million.

I am pleased to learn that a full herd test will be carried out this year. In my area the incidence of disease is higher than we would like. It is very important that a test of all herds is carried out each year and that the district veterinary offices are properly staffed. Because of staff shortages, a great many herd owners do not know when there is an outbreak of disease on neighbouring farms. I believe we can do a great many things to tighten up the disease eradication programme. My constituency colleague, Deputy Leonard, said it was crazy — and I agree with him — that the levies at the factories were as great as the amount paid for the total carcase, especially for small animals. I hope his colleagues in Government were listening to him. These are very sad situations and people need to be helped rather than hindered. We need to ensure there is proper compensation paid for small animals and animals in calf. There are a great many ways to improve the scheme to make it more effective for farmers and the industry in general.

We export 80 per cent of all our beef and dairy products and it is vital, therefore, that a proper scheme is put in place and that staff are available to man it and that we carry out research so that farmers may be better informed on the reasons for the outbreak of the disease. I agree with Deputy Leonard's comments on double fencing. However, in our constituency there are extremely good farmers who have double fenced their holdings and who have done everything right and yet there are outbreaks of this dreaded disease in their herds.

The badger has been mentioned as one source of the disease and there is no doubt that it and deer have created problems in some areas but in the main the problem is caused by people who totally reject the scheme's conditions — people who switch tags, those who deal illegally in cattle and move cattle illegally. These practices must be stamped out. The only way we can do this is to have a properly controlled computerised permit system so that we will be able to trace, on a daily basis, where our cattle are and where they should be. Progress has been made on computerisation but I was saddened that the Minister was not able to tell us if and when it will come into operation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has graciously given Deputy Ferris five minutes of his time.

Mr. Ferris

I thank the Minister for allowing me to say some few words on this subject. I probably have more experience than anybody in this area. I was surprised at the contributions of some of the Members, for instance, Deputies Dukes, Molloy and McManus. The other contributors, however, have some experience and have worked at the coal-face of the eradication programme.

In 1954 the late Canon Hayes promoted a pilot scheme in disease eradication in my native parish of Bansha. We carried out intra-dermal tuberculin testing and compensated the farmer by replacing the animal that was taken away. That was the beginning and end of State intervention in farmers' business.

Since then we have moved from the saga of turpentine testing and the complete disregard for technical experience available through the Department. As a past member of the Animal Health Council — I served with many people on that council including the current President of the IFA — the advice available within the Department, and from their veterinary staff, was not always acceptable either to the veterinary profession or to the farming organisations. We have come through a phase of colossal spending by the State in this area, which is the responsibility of the State. In this regard I disagree totally with Deputy Molloy who talked about privatisation and said the farmer should be responsible for this aspect of animal husbandry. I remind the Deputy that responsibility for the national herd and its health is a matter for the State. In that area lies the international dimension of trading, whether in live animals or meat exports.

The main beneficiaries of this scheme since its initiation have been the factories which took advantage of farmers in difficulty, the hauliers who would not even clean their trucks and the veterinary profession who are paid on a headage basis. There is no incentive to provide management or husbandry advice to farmers. Because payment is made on a headage basis these people are interested only in getting in and out of a farm as quickly as possible.

I want to put on record my appreciation, and that of many people, for the efforts of Dr. Downey who published his view on how this should be developed. The major responsibility for testing lies not alone with the farmer but also with the veterinary profession.

Difficulties arise in that animals become desensitised to the continuous use of tuberculin and as a result do not react to the normal intradermal testing. Advanced technology in the area of tuberculin is necessary. In some cases animals that do not react are later found by the factories to have positive lesions. As a result farmers lose faith in the whole process of tuberculosis testing.

I commend the Minister for his contribution and his assurance that further money will be invested in epidemiology and finding the root cause of diseases. He said consideration would be given to the lateral spreading of disease from wildlife. Badgers have been identified as carriers of disease but nobody knows whether it is transmitted to them from other animals. A blood testing system should be introduced to identify tuberculosis, thereby resulting in a more effective system than exists.

Farmers have contributed much money by way of levies but not one farmer has made a half-penny from the scheme. They have incurred losses with depopulation of stock, loss of markets and herds being locked up. Farmers would like to see the eradication of disease so that no testing would be necessary. The incidence of disease is decreasing but the State has a major responsibility to ensure the protection of the health of our national herd. I commend the Minister for his efforts and I will monitor progress in this regard. We all have a responsibility in this area irrespective of the views expressed by Deputy Dukes that socialists hold different views on this matter—one could not but have a different view to that of Deputy Dukes. The Labour Party has played a major role in this scheme from its initiation and has always defended the rights of herd owners.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (Mr. O'Shea)

I will first refer to some of the points made by Deputy Dukes in relation to expenditure on disease eradication. As I said, and as has been mentioned in the debate, the farming community makes a very sizeable contribution, in the order of £29 million, to the overall funding of disease eradication — the State's contribution amounts to about £80 million. There may have been over-emphasis on the taxpayers' contribution as referred to by Deputy Dukes.

As regards the vaccination of animals, this is a matter the consumer would not be very happy to accept, and it is not being pursued in the Department. The areas of epidemiology and husbandry need greater attention. As regards scientific investigation, the extra funds being actively pursued by the Minister at European level will play a big role in this area. The funds being sought, £20 million annually for three to four years, would reduce considerably the financial burden on both the Exchequer and the farming community. I emphasise that this year under the scheme 9.8 million tests will be carried out on our herd of 7 million animals.

There has been much comment in relation to the badger and slaughter of that animal. I referred to that matter in my opening speech. The estimated population of badgers here is in the order of 250,000 and the number removed annually for health and scientific purposes is between 1,500 to 1,800. Obviously, the Department takes advantage of road casualties among badgers for use in scientific research. The number of badgers removed each year in a humane way is not significant in terms of the overall population—the badger population here is equivalent to that in Sweden. The solution to the badger problem lies in the development of a suitable vaccine and, as I indicated, work is proceeding in this area. Deputy Dukes referred to the effect of badgers on cattle in rural areas. Even though responsibility for wildlife lies with the Office of Public Works, my Department is anxious to ensure a continuation of the wildlife population. However a balance must be struck.

In the promotion by CBF in British and other European markets the quality of our product is emphasised. CBF have made tremendous strides in establishing a quality image for the Irish product.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I must ask him to conclude the debate.

Mr. O'Shea

I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.