Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 May 2015

Vol. 878 No. 3

Other Questions

Food Harvest 2020 Strategy

Bernard Durkan

Ceist:

6. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the extent to which he remains satisfied that sufficient room for manoeuvre exists to ensure that the agrifood sector will not be negatively affected by European or global carbon reduction requirements, with particular reference to expected increased food production arising from Food Harvest 2020, and in the aftermath of the abolition of milk quotas; if he is satisfied he can take adequate steps to ensure the future of the industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18645/15]

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

This question relates to the extent to which the Minister remains satisfied that the agrifood sector can develop and expand in line with the Food Harvest 2020 projections and in the aftermath of the abolition of dairy quotas and keeping in mind the extent to which he can secure that carbon penalties do not negatively impact on the sector.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I thank Deputy Durkan for raising this very important issue. As our sector grows and expands this issue will become even more significant. We need to respond to the questions regarding the sustainability of the growth of Irish agriculture. I contend that we will have a very impressive growth period in agriculture but this will be managed in a sustainable way.

It is vital that in terms of setting EU climate change policy to 2030 there is coherence with EU agriculture and food security policy. The October 2014 European Council conclusions accepted some critical principles for the multiple objectives of agriculture and the land use sector, including recognition of the limited cost-effective mitigation options available. I met with Commissioner Cañete, the Spanish climate change Commissioner, last month, with a view to building upon the October conclusions. I reiterated the reality of the challenges faced by the Irish agriculture sector and which need to be recognised in future EU climate and food policies. Officials from my Department and other Departments are applying a whole-of-government approach to engagement with the Commission in order to seek an appropriate framework for agriculture within EU climate policy. My Department has also established an agriculture climate change committee, which includes Teagasc, EPA and Bord Bia, which is informing the development of national and EU policy on agriculture and climate change.

As our largest indigenous industry, it is hugely important that we ensure the continued development of our agrifood sector. The Deputy will have heard me say previously that the real challenge is to produce more while mitigating our emissions. This can be achieved by sustainable intensification where the focus is on the emissions intensity of our production systems. We have an excellent record in this regard and it is independently and internationally recognised that ours is one of the most climate and resource-efficient agrifood production systems in the world.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he satisfied that he will achieve common cause with his EU agriculture ministerial colleagues in this regard, particularly from some countries? Will he indicate the extent and degree to which in an overall European scenario Ireland can benefit vis-à-vis those countries who do not have the major issue of developing an agricultural sector and market, while at the same time keeping within the climate change guidelines?

Deputy Simon Coveney

I am satisfied that Ireland is on course to comply with the annual mitigation targets under the 2009 EU effort-sharing decision in the first half of the 2013 to 2020 compliance period. However, there will be significant compliance challenges in the years 2017 to 2020, if the economy continues to grow as it is. The first iteration of the national mitigation plan, which is being prepared under the planned legislation, will not only focus on addressing this challenge but will also look to 2030 and beyond. My Department is developing the sectoral mitigation plan for agriculture and this will examine how the sector can play its part. I intend that it will play a significant role in that challenge.

Looking to the future and a further development of the agrifood industry over the next decade, a high-level committee which I established towards the end of last year is in the process of developing a ten-year strategy to 2025. This will include the impact of milk quota removal. While I cannot pre-empt the outcome of this important work, the emphasis must be placed on encouraging sustainable production of food in light of the growing global demand, to reduce the carbon intensity of production and to contribute to both food security and greenhouse gas mitigation objectives.

There is also a really important framing of target setting at European level in terms of the targets set for 2030 that needs to involve land use as a whole. The carbon sink value of afforestation is part of the overall agriculture story.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Can the Minister rely on support from various European Union countries in this context? For example, is it possible to identify the countries on which he can most rely for support that might have common cause with Ireland in terms of agricultural food production in general?

Deputy Simon Coveney

The key issue in terms of the 2030 targets is that agricultural land use as a whole be taken into account. Rather than simply measuring the emissions from agricultural production systems, we would also have the benefit of the tree planting programme for which the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, is responsible, which has been ongoing since 1990 and is quite impressive. We have planted a lot of trees on agricultural land, which essentially are a very valuable carbon sink. That needs to be the plus if we are to get the minuses in terms of the increased mitigation that may come from increasing output. That is what the Taoiseach managed to have agreed at the European Council before Christmas and we now need to protect that aspect of the agreement. There are countries that would like to take afforestation out of the target setting process, which is unhelpful. We have fought against this and ensured that agenda has not been successful to date, but we need to be vigilant and must build a partnership with other countries. Most countries recognise that Ireland has a problem because 40% of our emissions come from agriculture. We are looking for fair treatment and if we have made significant progress in terms of afforestation, as we have, and if it has a significant carbon sink value, of course, that should be part of the calculation of our targets.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Sandra McLellan is not present to take Question No. 7.

Question No. 7 replied to with Written Answers.

Beef Industry

Seán Kyne

Ceist:

8. Deputy Seán Kyne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine based on 2015 birth rates on dairy and suckler farms, the outlook for the beef market in the next two years; if a veal market needs to be further developed, in view of the expected increase in births in the dairy herd; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18673/15]

Deputy Seán Kyne

This question relates to 2015 birth rates in the dairy and suckler herds and what the implications will be for the market in the next two years and whether the Minister sees any role for veal exports, in particular red veal, the production of which is regarded as being more humane,

Deputy Simon Coveney

I thank the Deputy for raising this question.

The forecasted increase in the size of the dairy herd will, undoubtedly, have an impact on the beef sector and, specifically, the number and type of animals entering the supply chain. Dairy breed animals will require different farm management systems and would typically not achieve the same conformation scores as animals from the suckler herd. This will be reflected in the price achievable for finished product and farmers deciding to fatten these animals for slaughter should take account of all of these factors when making their production decisions. Most farmers will understand this.

According to the data available on my Department’s animal identification and movements database, the number of calf births registered so far this year has increased by about 130,000 or 9% compared to 2014. The number of calves registered in the dairy herd is just over 100,000 higher than last year. It is a significant change. The suckler herd is also showing an increased number of births, with about 30,000 more calves registered to date in 2015. It is a positive story in the suckler sector which it is important to recognise. The increase follows two years of declining numbers in the suckler herd and while the outturn for the rest of the year remains to be seen, the figures reflect the return of some confidence to the sector in recent months. The increased output across both production systems should be seen as a positive development and the challenge for all of the sector is to deliver a solid return on the animals through continued market development and adding value to our beef output.

Traditionally, male dairy breed calves have been prime candidates for live export to continental markets and my Department has facilitated this trade to ensure it provides an alternative market outlet for Irish farmers. The veal market is important for a growing dairy sector. Advances in sexed semen technology may ultimately have an impact on the production of beef from the dairy herd and we must continue to endeavour to maximise this element of beef output.

Deputy Seán Kyne

It is interesting to see an increase of 130,000 in the number of calf births this year in both the beef and dairy sectors. That will have consequences for the market which, as the Minister is well aware, is a cyclical one. Much concern was evident in that regard in 2014. Given the figures, one would expect concerns to arise in the future also. That is the reason for the question on veal. I accept that the new beef data and genomics programme which the Minister launched this month has had a positive and stimulating effect on the beef sector. It was well flagged that such a package would be put in place. Does the Minister believe there is an export market for red or rose veal? Live exports are very important to the country. We do not want to develop a sector that will be in competition with prime beef from the suckler herd. Is there an opportunity to explore an export market for the red veal sector?

Deputy Simon Coveney

While we must look at every opportunity to add value to our beef production, I am not convinced that targeting large-scale veal production would be the best use of our resources. Irish steer and heifer beef is recognised all over the world for its excellent quality and green credentials and we need to concentrate on leveraging this position even further and increasing the efficiency of our production systems, whether from the suckler or dairy herd. We think we can put production systems in place that will allow us to add value, grow the animals here and produce more beef, but, obviously, that means we will need more markets and competition to ensure a price drop will not ensue, which is what happened last year. To date this year, on average, the price is up by approximately 10% on last year. It is 14% and 15% higher than at the low point last year. Farmers are concerned that once we go above a certain number in terms of production, there is arguably overproduction, which drives prices down. The challenge for me and the industry is to develop new markets, including in the United States, China, Japan, other parts of Europe and North Africa in order that we will have enough competition to ensure we can grow volume, as well as maintain strong value. I am pleased to state that so far this year we are at 107% of the EU 15 price for beef, which means that we are in the premium space. We are getting more money for farmers for Irish beef than most farmers in Europe are getting, which is good news.

Deputy Seán Kyne

I accept the Minister's position. Obviously, adding value within the country is what we should be doing. Farmers want a fair price for the work and investment they put into their business. The live trade is equally important in terms of the competition it provides. Is the Minister confident that, for example, the work he has done in the US market will sustain prices in the years ahead, notwithstanding the increase in the number of calf births?

Deputy Simon Coveney

In case I am being misunderstood, live cattle exports are really important and calf exports are part of that story, too. Work has been ongoing at an industry level to ensure we have the connections and the routes to markets that we need through France to access the market for calves. That work is active and will continue to be so. However, our strategic thinking as a country, where possible, should be concerned with growing animals in Ireland. That is where the jobs are and the value is added. In that way we will build a bigger industry. We must always maintain a certain amount of live exports to keep the home market honest, if one likes, in terms of what the factories pay for animals. We will pursue both aspects. We will facilitate live exports, but we will also try to put the case together to ensure farmers can also make money in growing, finishing and slaughtering animals in Ireland in order that we build the biggest business we can.

Dairy Sector

Éamon Ó Cuív

Ceist:

9. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the milk superlevy bill imposed on Ireland; the arrangements made for paying this superlevy on a phased basis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18459/15]

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

This question is about the superlevy. The Minister might let us know the extent of the superlevy fine imposed on Ireland. Farmers are very anxious to know when the so-called three year scheme for repayment will be put in place. How will it operate? Has the door been absolutely closed to amelioration in respect of the outrageous superlevy being imposed on this country at the point of abolition of milk quotas?

Deputy Simon Coveney

The preliminary output estimate for the end of the final milk quota year, based on returns to my Department by the milk purchasers and taking into account the relevant butterfat adjustment, is that Ireland will finish 4.34% over quota. This represents a superlevy bill in the region of €69 million.  While the confirmed final position will not be available until August, when all flexi-milk is distributed and all returns have been received, the figure is not likely to deviate much from that estimate.

As in previous years, responsibility for collecting the superlevy liability rests with the milk purchaser. The milk purchaser must remit the collected moneys to my Department before 1 October in order that it will be in a position to pay the European Commission before 30 November. However, new arrangements recently introduced by the Commission allow member states to facilitate the payment by milk producers of the superlevy liability in three annual instalments, without interest. The first instalment must be collected by the milk purchaser and paid to my Department by 1 October and the two subsequent payments must be paid by similar dates in 2016 and 2017. I certainly see that this facility will be of immense value to the dairy sector in helping to lift the cash flow burden of having to pay the superlevy bill in full this year.

Officials in my Department are putting procedures in place for the collection of the first instalment before end of September and the introduction of a scheme to collect the remaining instalments in September 2016 and September 2017. I expect to be announcing the details of the scheme in the very near future. Under the proposed scheme, the Department will, on receipt of a formal application from a milk producer wishing to participate, raise a debt against that milk producer for the outstanding amount of superlevy due and facilitate the payment in three annual instalments. Milk producers wishing to avail of the scheme will be asked to apply through their milk purchaser and the scheme will, at the outset, involve the establishment of a contract between the milk producer and the Department, where the value of the debt being raised and the conditions that must be complied with are set out. I am satisfied that this approach strikes the balance between offering flexibility to farmers, while also safeguarding the Exchequer.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I am glad that we are getting some clarification on the issue. Bearing in mind the raising of the debt and the question of liability, would it be possible for the milk purchaser to take the money in 12 equal instalments between this year and next year and forward-pay part of the debt by 1 October to the Department? In other words, the purchasers, particularly if they are co-operatives, would give a free loan for six months. Thus, rather than the farmer having to come up with all of the money between now and 1 October, the purchaser could allow a period of year. Would this be allowable under the rules, as long as the Department received the money from the purchaser?

Deputy Simon Coveney

To be clear, many farmers have already paid the money. It has been taken out of their milk cheque. They asked for it to be taken out and have paid on a monthly basis. Some farmers, depending on the arrangement between them and the purchaser, will have to pay a lump sum, or a lump sum will have to come out of their milk cheque. Others have been calculating their liability.

We all hate the superlevy. I hate it and the fact that we have to pay it. It is a nonsense that when the objective is to wean countries off the quota, there is actually a date before which there is a full quota and after which there is no quota and in respect of which people are punished by superlevy fines when quotas have actually been removed. It makes no sense and we did our best to change it. We got a majority of countries in the European Union to support us, but we did not have a qualified majority. Some of the bigger countries blocked our proposal. We appealed to the new Commissioner arguing that, although there had to be a superlevy because we could not change it, we should at least examine repayment options that would allow for the making of payments over a three year period. Farmers and co-operatives were anticipating this and had started deducting payments in anticipation of a superlevy fine. Many farmers, therefore, will not have a big lump sum cash flow problem. If they do, we have allowed purchasers, or co-operatives in most cases, to put repayment mechanisms in place. As long as my Department receives the lump sums it needs by each appointed date in the next three years, we can finance it after this.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Let me outline what seems sensible to me. I accept that some people, particularly those who do not have a big superlevy bill, will pay in full, but it depends on cash flow. Young farmers, for example, might be under pressure. People's circumstances vary. What I am saying is that if purchasers and producers wanted it, they could say they would take the money in 36 equal instalments, starting from 1 May, and that as long as the Department received the money from them on 1 October every year, it would be happy. Is that correct?

Deputy Simon Coveney

Absolutely. The arrangements between farmer and purchaser are flexible. As long as we receive the lump sum each year, we will be repaid. Let us be clear: my Department has to pay the Commission in full this year, but we are to get our money back in the next three years. Co-operatives should be talking to their members, as they are, about how best to manage cash flow so as not to cause difficulties for foreigners. There is the flexibility about which the Deputy is talking.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Martin Ferris who submitted Question No. 10 is not present.

Question No. 10 replied to with Written Answers.

Agriculture Scheme Payments

Éamon Ó Cuív

Ceist:

11. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the number of rural environment protection scheme and agri-environment options scheme payments made this year or held up owing to inspections and queries; when it is hoped all payments for 2014 will be fully made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18460/15]

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

A large number of queries are being received now that payments are due under both the REPS and AEOS. The Minister might give us an update on how many farmers have been paid, how many remain to be paid and when we hope to have clarity on all REPS and AEOS payments for 2014 which will be paid in 2015.

Deputy Simon Coveney

With regard to the REPS, total payments of €23.53 million have been made in 2015 to date. The vast majority relate to 2014, while payments for 2015 have not yet commenced. A total of 3,371 REPS 4 applicants have received payments this year to date in respect of their 2014 contracts, while 157 applicants have received payments in respect of their 2013 contracts.

In 2014 there were 865 REPS 4 cases selected for on-the-spot inspections. Almost 96% of these inspections have been fully completed, leaving a further 38 cases to be finalised. In many cases, further documentation is awaited from the REPS participant. Once the outstanding documentation has been furnished, processing of the remaining cases will be completed as quickly as possible.

Under the terms and conditions of REPS 4, all payments are made following initial administrative checks and, where appropriate, following an on-farm inspection. In second and subsequent years annual payments under the scheme also become subject to the participant providing an annual declaration of compliance with his or her agri-environmental plan. Under the terms and conditions of the scheme, it is the farmer’s responsibility to ensure required documentation for the release of payments for all years is submitted on time.

On the AEOS, total payments amounting to €25.67 million have been made to date in 2015. In 2014 there were 1,010 AEOS on-the-spot inspections undertaken. Almost 95% have been fully finalised, leaving just 5% outstanding. Payments for the finalised 2014 inspection cases commenced this week and every effort will be made to issue all outstanding payments for finalised inspection cases in the next few weeks. In many of the outstanding cases further documentation is awaited from the AEOS participant. Other outstanding 2014 inspection cases which have not received payments for the 2014 scheme year relate to administration issues with payments for previous years, which must be resolved before the 2014 inspection results can be finalised.

There is another issue I want to raise, but I will return to it when the Deputy has spoken.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

It probably relates to trees. The Minister can take it that this question has been raised by me with him. He might provide further clarification on that issue. Does he agree that it is vital that all outstanding cases are resolved? I hear what he is saying about outstanding documentation which obviously has to be submitted, but we need to finalise this issue because farmers are waiting for their cheques which are badly needed.

Once there is clearance it is important that the cheque issues within a week. If a PAYE worker was left waiting for his or her wages for months on end we would hear about it. It is the same for farmers; they need the money.

Deputy Simon Coveney

The Deputy will see from those figures that the vast majority of cases have actually been paid and sorted out and that clarification is needed in about 5% or 6% of cases. Approximately 870 AEOS files are currently held for 2014 payment pending further processing due to a range of issues. Of those, approximately 400 have been subject to a Department review of the non-productive capital investment claims submitted by the applicants in 2014. That is the issue to which the Deputy has referred. This review identified irregularities with documentation submitted for reimbursement in some of these claims. A full Department investigation was then initiated which in turn led to the matter being referred to An Garda Síochána. Payments to applicants under review have been deferred pending the outcome of that investigation. My Department will be writing to all affected participants very shortly seeking further evidence to support their claim for payment in the amounts declared. Where satisfactory proofs are provided, payments will then be processed.

We have an awkward issue here where it looks as if people, essentially, were making claims that they were planting trees for which they were seeking payment. It looks as if some of those trees might not have been planted and that documentation was put in place that should not have been put in place. We have referred that issue to the Garda Síochána for a full investigation. As soon as that investigation is completed we will try to ensure that people who need to get paid are paid provided they have been compliant with the rules.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I have always taken a very different view where clearly there are misunderstandings and inadvertent mistakes made by people. I think we are over-strict on those. It would appear to me from what the Minister has said, in respect of 400 applicants in regard to some planting issue, that a high number of people have been involved in that type of error because I presume that not all that planting took place given the total number of AEOS applications. Is the Minister surprised that this question is so widespread and is affecting 400 farmers? Is there some explanation as to how it could affect so many farmers given that the Minister has said there may be some question that they did not do the planting which they said they did and for which they submitted documentation? I take it now that the matter has been referred to An Garda Síochána, there are serious concerns about the issue and that something systematic may be going on? Is that correct?

Deputy Simon Coveney

I am reluctant to put details on the record when a Garda investigation is taking place. In essence, it is pretty close, I think, to what the Deputy is suggesting. I do not want to assume that anybody is guilty of anything-----

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

No, I did not say that.

Deputy Simon Coveney

-----until we get the results of a full investigation. Clearly, we are sufficiently concerned that we referred the file to An Garda Síochána. Unfortunately for farmers, some have probably got caught up in this unfairly but it is very difficult for me to distinguish who they are. We will shortly write to the 400 people whose payments have been held up due to this investigation and if they can provide the proof that what they have claimed they have done has actually been done, payment will be made straightaway. We will deal with the Garda investigation when we get the results of it.

Bovine Disease Controls

Maureen O'Sullivan

Ceist:

12. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine in view of a report (details supplied) and the findings of the study that badgers avoid fields of cattle and farm buildings containing cattle, if he will acknowledge that badgers have been wrongfully vilified; if he will accordingly suspend his Department's practice of badger cull, which to date has resulted in the snaring and killing of a large number of badgers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18538/15]

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan

The question relates to a recent report after a four year study which indicates that badgers do not seek out cattle and actively avoid them. In that case is there not a justifiable reason to suspend the culling of badgers?

Deputy Simon Coveney

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. She and I have spoken about badgers many times and I know where she is coming from.

The badger removal strategy, which has been part of our TB eradication programme for some years, has been developed in response to research which has demonstrated that the eradication of the disease in cattle is not a practicable proposition until the reservoir of infection in badgers, with which it has also been found they share localised TB strains, is addressed. This is based on a number of studies which showed that badger removal had a significant beneficial impact on the risk of future breakdowns, with areas where badgers were not removed being some 14 times at greater risk than in areas where badgers were removed.

It is also notable that there has been a significant improvement in the disease situation in Ireland both in the cattle and badger populations since the badger removal programme was put on a more structured footing in 2004. The incidence of TB in cattle has fallen by almost 40% since 2008 and is currently at record low levels. It is particularly interesting that the incidence of TB in Northern Ireland, where badger removal is not prioritised, is approximately twice as high as on this side of the Border.

The study referred to by the Deputy is ongoing and is designed to find out how exactly the disease transmission between badgers and cattle takes place with a view to building up a comprehensive picture of badger movements and helping to design a viable vaccination programme for badgers, which is my Department’s preferred way of addressing the issue, if we can make it work. The fact that badgers tend to avoid buildings does not mean that they do not transmit disease to cattle. The position is that badgers can and do transmit TB to cattle via faeces, urine or latrines, and strain-typing has shown that badgers and cattle share the same strain of TB which is prevalent in the locality. Apart from this, research has shown that, as I have stated above, the removal of badgers from a locality has resulted in a significant reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle.

My Department endeavours to ensure that the badger culling programme takes place as humanely as possible. The restraints used in the capture of badgers are approved under section 34 of the Wildlife Act 1976 and research conducted within UCD has shown that damage or injury to captured badgers is minimal and is lower than with other capture methodologies. The badger removal programme is based on research, is conducted humanely and only to the extent where it has been found to assist in reducing disease levels and, through the evidence of the sustained reductions in disease levels, both in cattle and badgers, has demonstrated its effectiveness. I am confident it can be replaced by a badger vaccination programme in due course and, as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better but I need to do it on the basis of science.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan

I suggest there could be other reasons for the improvement in the reduction in the levels of bovine TB apart from the cull of the badgers. There is no doubt that everybody wants a cattle herd free of bovine TB. It was interesting to read this report which was carried out by the Minister's Department, Trinity College and the National Parks and Wildlife Service over four years. What it discovered was that badgers actively avoid areas where there are cattle, whether in a yard or out in the wild. They have been observed on their nightly wanderings and if they come into a field where there are cattle they divert somewhere else. In the meantime, 80% of the badgers being culled are perfectly healthy animals. We are aware that even though there are licences to shoot them, they are culled in most horrific circumstances. We have seen badgers caught in the trap where they are shot. Poison has been laid. Slurry has been left in some of the traps in order to further intensify the cruelty. This is being carried out under licences issued by the Department.

There is a need for a more holistic approach to bovine TB rather than blaming the badger for everything. I hope the Minister will look at the report which provides interesting findings and see the impetus for the vaccine.

Deputy Simon Coveney

We will look at the report. It would be dishonest of me to say that I do not think that the badger targeted cull programme is being done in as humane a way as we can do it. If there are other suggestions as to how we can do it better, we would happily take them on board but to suggest it is not working would be wrong. This has been a hugely successful programme where we have virtually halved bovine TB in Ireland. We have less bovine TB in Ireland now than at any time since 1954 when records began. The UK has not had success in reducing the incidence of bovine TB. I suggest this is partly because it has not been able to take the same approach towards a targeted culling programme where it is aware of a localised bovine TB problem and outbreak.

I want to move to a vaccination programme where we vaccinate badgers against TB.

We will do that when we feel we can do it and maintain the approach that we have at the moment, which is driving down TB numbers. I do not think we can do that purely on animal welfare grounds without having negative consequences for the spread of TB. However, as soon as we feel we can do that, we will do it. I will happily look at the report to which the Deputy referred. If she knows of instances where badgers were trapped inappropriately, I would like to hear about it. We have an approach which insists that traps are set in the most humane way possible. However, the idea that badgers actively avoid cattle because they are shy animals, which they are, and therefore there is no connection between the two does not stack up when one looks at how TB is actually spread, through urine, faeces and so forth.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan

There must be other reasons for the reduction in the levels of bovine TB. This cull of badgers has been called slaughter masquerading as science.

Deputy Simon Coveney

It is not slaughter.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan

A farmer who gave a presentation recently before the Committee of Public Accounts acknowledged that he had been responsible, along with an official from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, for inhumanely slaughtering 4,000 pigs. This is the type of thing that is going on. We had lots of discussion on the Animal Health and Welfare Bill and there was so much expected of that legislation, which has gone a long way but it is disappointing that inhumane treatment continues.

Deputy Simon Coveney

It is also inhumane that we have to slaughter cattle because they have TB when we know that we can get the incidence of TB down. That is no more humane than the badger cull. What is humane for me is to get TB out of the herd, which is what we are trying to do, and out of the badger population too. In that way, we will not have to target cattle and badgers. We have other questions with regard to deer in Wicklow, for example. Are they spreading TB and if they are, how can we manage that in a practical way? Can we have a targeted, humane cull to try to deal with killing off a disease that has bedevilled Irish agriculture for more than 50 years? We want to stop killing animals because they are carrying or spreading TB. The way to do that is to eradicate TB, which is what we are trying to do. That is in the welfare interests of animals as well as the interests of farming.

Written Answers follow Adjournment.