I wish to continue with a point I was making before Question Time which related to the enormous hardship this scheme has caused for family farms over the past 41 years.
I have vivid and sad memories when I was five years old of seeing our entire dairy herd being loaded up in trucks and taken to the factory. I recall the sadness of my father whose life's work was taken away on the trucks. The people on a number of farms in our community suffered that trauma. This is not an experience that happens once only; it can happen two and three times. Blame must rest at the door of the Department which allowed the scheme to rattle on without putting sufficient money into research or into investigations or taking brave decisions in an effort to change the scheme in such a way that it would bring about the eradication of TB.
My heart goes out to any farmer and their families when they tell me their entire herd is gone because of TB. Very often they know the cause. Sometimes they say it was due to wildlife acting as a carrier or an outbreak of the disease in a neighbouring farm. We are dealing with a disease that can spread very quickly over a parish and, indeed, the entire countryside.
This brings me to an important point, that is the compensation paid to farmers in such cases. It must be accepted by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and by Brussels that farmers suffer, irrespective of the compensation, a severe loss of income where there is an outbreak of TB. The Department pays compensation by way of reactor grant but that grant does not take into consideration the loss suffered by the farmer. The losses to which I refer included the loss of the sale value of the animal, cows sold after calving are worth very little; loss due to a lower milk supply when an animal has been removed from the herd and, most important, the extra fodder expense when farmers cannot sell their animals. If they cannot sell during a period when extra fodder is needed those circumstances should be taken into account. In some years fodder is much more expensive than in others. Regardless of the fodder expense, the farmer cannot afford to allow his animals to die. He has to take on the burden of cost, irrespective of the circumstances. Those factors are not taken into account in determining the level of compensation. This is a serious matter that needs further investigation by the Department.
Those of us who represent rural constituents know farmers who never fully recover from the financial loss; in some cases it takes up to four or five years for a farmer to recover from the financial losss incurred as a result of an outbreak of TB.
I ask the Minister to undertake a study in co-operation with the banks and the ACC Bank to establish the true nature of the loss incurred following TB outbreaks. Such a study would require the consent of farmers and would involve taking into account private and confidential financial matters. Nevertheless such a study should be undertaken by the Department. I can say without fear of contradiction that farmers are not adequately compensated in cases of TB outbreaks. In some cases they have to sell land to meet their borrowing requirements or their interest payments and they have to bear the enormous cost of providing fodder for stock which should have been sold.
I hope the Minister will take up my proposal. Such a study, if undertaken, should be comprehensive and should examine the entire financial position prior to the problem occurring and the financial deterioration following the outbreak of the disease, the loss of income, the cost of replacing stock and, more importantly, the mental hardship endured by those on family farms. I hope progress will be made in this area. Where farmers cannot sell their stock due to an outbreak of TB we must ensure they are adequately compensated and that the family farm remains viable.
The issue of ear tags is an ongoing problem. Everyone is aware there is an ongoing problem with correct reading of ear tags with consequential delays in payments of beef premiums and suckler grants to farmers. Farmers are not at fault in this regard but in adhering rigidly to departmental regulations they can find themselves suffering loss of income because they cannot read the ear tags.
It is easy for a farmer to make an error reading an ear tag when it is worn. In this age of technology development I do not understand why we cannot manufacture ear tags which cannot be removed and which could be read electronically. I speak on this issue at an opportune time because the Department is currently deciding whether the new ear tags will be plastic or metal. That decision will have a major impact on farmers and I hope the Department makes the correct decision. I favour plastic ear tags but further research should be carried out on how to make the ear tags easier to be read. That would eliminate the possibility of error when completing grant applications. That has the effect not only of wasting money and delaying payments to farmers but it costs a great deal in terms of administration.
Farmers have long singled out the badger as the cause of the spread of TB. In a former constituency of mine, Hollyford, County Tipperary, farmers held a public meeting to highlight the fact that their herds had been frequently locked up as a result of TB outbreaks. Hollyford is located in a wooded area in which there is a large number of badgers. Despite all the efforts of farmers to get their message across, the Department did not accept it. I am delighted that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, has promised further research into this area.
When speaking about the farming community it is important to say that the majority of farmers are honest and conscientious. Their prime objective is to comply with scheme regulations but they suffer because of a few careless individuals who break the law. It is soul destroying to see honest farmers being subjected to unnecessary, rigorous testing because of some individuals who are not making any effort to comply with the regulations.
I welcome the Minister's decision announced yesterday on the new approach to disease eradication. This was described earlier in the debate as a war but I do not look upon it in that light. It is an issue on which many differing views are held by the IVU, the farming organisations and the Minister. Nevertheless the Minister has come up with a worthwhile solution which I hope will ultimately solve the TB eradication problem.
I congratulate the IFA on its responsible approach to the new regulations on testing. It gave priority to the implementation of a more successful TB eradication scheme because it realised the expenditure being put into TB eradication was not achieving the required results. Under the new arrangements, taxpayers will not be saddled with the expense of paying for the herd test; the initial test will be paid for by the farmer. This arrangement is welcome because it will bring about a reduction of 65 per cent in farm levies. The annual contribution, therefore, will reduce from £28 to £10 million.
I welcome the abolition of the compulsory pre-movement test which cost the Exchequer £3.5 million. Farmers must now decide whether they wish to continue with pre-movement tests. If they are determined to eliminate TB from their herds, they should continue pre-movement or post-buying testing which restricts the spread of TB.
We have a poor record in eradicating bovine TB. Everyone welcomed the establishment of the ERAD programme which we hoped would provide the answer to this problem. Unfortunately, it was not successful. In addition to looking to the future for our solutions we should consider what has been lost in our approach to TB eradication. We failed to collect new funding of £10 million over three years agreed in 1991 in addition to funding of £20 million per year since 1993. That is an enormous financial loss to this country and to the scheme.
We have nothing to be proud of when we consider the signals we sent to the EU in not complying with its regulations. In failing to do that we not only lost a great deal of funding but we sent a signal to Europe that we were unwilling to implement an agreed programme aimed at combating TB. We failed also to relieve the burden on farmers and taxpayers who would not have been obliged to contribute the same amount if we had provided a satisfactory scheme under the regulations laid down by the EU. We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing that to happen.
The new scheme proposed by the Minister will not be successful unless we have the agreement of farmers and veterinary surgeons. I am glad the IVU did not rush the issue by making a statement on the proposal and, hopefully, it will delay making any comment until such time as it has a meeting on the issue. The fact that the farming organisations welcome the Minister's proposal is a step forward because, up to now, the cost of eradicating TB was not borne equitably by all farmers. In fact, it was borne mainly by milk suppliers, those who produce finished cattle and producers of cattle for the live export trade. I am happy that under the new regime all farmers will pay a more equitable share of the cost.
Irrespective of our lack of success with this scheme it must be pursued to a satisfactory outcome. Not only does the livelihood of farmers depend on its success but the importance of the export of livestock and livestock products to our economy and employment prospects overall cannot be under-estimated. We shall be unable to maintain our present levels of livestock exports unless we can guarantee good animal health.
I wish the Minister well in his new scheme and urge everybody to support him, ensuring that it is successful for the overall benefit of our agricultural industry.