Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1985

Vol. 108 No. 13

Control of Bulls for Breeding Bill, 1985: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture (Mr. Hegarty)

The main purpose of this Bill is to give legal effect to the decision taken by the then Government in October 1982 to discontinue the licensing of bulls. The Bill will also provide legislative powers to control bulls used for breeding purposes and to make regulations specifying the circumstances in which persons will be issued with a permit to keep an unregistered bull and the fees to be charged in connection with the issue of such permits.

The Livestock Breeding Act, 1925 was designed to control the quality of bulls used for breeding in Ireland. Under the Act inspections of bulls were carried out mainly by temporary inspectors who were selected for their knowledge of cattle. Some 7,000 bulls were inspected annually at over 400 approved centres. Between 85 and 90 per cent of the bulls presented for inspection were passed by the inspectors.

Since 1925 there have been many developments in livestock breeding — artificial insemination, progeny testing, performance testing, changes in animal husbandry and the introduction of new breeds of cattle. These developments were reflected in the type of bull in respect of which licences or permits were granted over the years. In all cases bulls had to be inspected visually under the licensing scheme. Practically all the applications were for pure-bred bulls entered or eligible for entry in the herd book of the relevant breed society. In general, non pure-bred bulls were not licensed for breeding.

However, where and whenever conditions so warranted, exceptions to this general practice were made. For example, non-pedigree Shorthorn bulls of exceptional merit were eligible for licensing throughout the country. In the Kerry cattle area non-pedigree Kerry bulls were also eligible for licensing. Following the first importation of Charolais and Simmental bulls in the early seventies there was widespread concern that the supply of such bulls from the herd-book sector would not meet the demand. Accordingly, as an interim measure, it was decided to inspect for licence, initially, half, or higher continental cross-bred bulls. As the numbers of continental pure-bred bulls increased, however, the percentage of continental blood required in the cross-bred for licensing was progressively increased to threequarters and seven-eights.

Under the old licensing arrangements, there were two rounds of inspections annually, in spring and autumn, followed by two rounds of appeal inspections. Additionally, an annual search, more commonly known as "the comb", for unlicensed bulls was carried out. As bull inspections had to be completed by specific dates, and as large numbers of bulls were inspected at over 400 approved centres, bull licensing was quite expensive to administer. The inspection system, at current prices, cost about £160,000 annually, whereas receipts by way of licence fees amounted to only £4,000. This left the nett cost of this service to the Exchequer at around £156,000 annually.

On the basis of the costs involved to the Exchequer, the previous Government decided in October 1982 to discontinue the existing system of bull licensing. The present Government endorsed this decision and announced that licences would not be required for the keeping of bulls in 1983.

EC Council Directive 77/504 on pure-bred breeding animals provides for the harmonisation of breeding quality standards and for such related matters as the recognition of breeders' organisations and associations, establishment and recognition of herd books, standards governing entry of animals into herd books, etc. In essence, the directive is stipulating that the quality of animals entering the herd book should be of a good standard and that such quality control should be exercised by the breed society concerned. However, the directive does not cover the use of non-pure bred bulls.

Following the announcement of the decision to discontinue bull licensing, the practical consequence was that there was no restriction on the use of bulls for breeding purposes. This gave rise to considerable concern by sections of the cattle and beef industry about the possible adverse effects on the quality of the national cattle herd and on the export trade in cattle, beef and beef products. It was contended that the absence of controls on the use of non pure-bred bulls for breeding purposes would result in the more widespread use of genetically inferior animals, with a consequential deterioration in the quality of the progeny. Additionally, it was claimed that the abolition of licensing could dilute the effectiveness of other measures being taken to improve the national herd.

In the light of those views, I requested the Cattle Advisory Committee, who are broadly representative of the cattle industry, to examine the matter. The Cattle Advisory Committee advised that the interests of the industry as a whole would best be served by the official authorisation for breeding of only pure-bred bulls registered in the herd book of the relevant breed society and the committee urged that appropriate steps be taken to implement that recommendation.

Agriculture accounts for roughly a quarter of our total exports. The cattle sector accounts for about 75 per cent of agricultural exports and about 13 per cent of total exports. Because of the importance of cattle to the national economy it is essential in the national interest to ensure that the quality of output from the national cattle breeding herd is capable of satisfying the demands of the market — largely an export one — and at the same time capable of giving a good financial return to the producer. The national breeding herd provides the raw material for both the dairy and beef industries. Indeed, a unique feature of the breeding herd is the considerable cross-breeding that takes place — about two-thirds of the beef output comes from the Friesian cow population. An important element in the quality of production from the cattle sector is the genetic merit of the breeding stock. Cattle breeding should be approached on a population basis to ensure that an effective national breeding programme operates.

As 80 per cent of our beef output and 65 per cent of our milk output are exported it is very important that we remain competitive internationally. To do this, we must continually improve the quality of our stock and match the progress being made by our competitors. Improvement and changes to meet needs in our livestock can be brought about by evaluation and measurement of the merit of individual animals and by selecting the best as parents of the next generation.

By repeating the process of identification and selection of superior breeding animals gradual and steady cumulative improvement takes place generation after generation.

The recording, evaluation and selection to bring about genetic improvement takes place usually in the pedigree sector. It is important that such genetic improvement is disseminated to the wider cattle breeding population, thus ensuring the continuing improvement of the national herd. Dissemination is carried out efficiently by commercial producers continually using bulls from the improved herd-book sector either as natural service sires or through the artificial insemination service. Bulls in AI usually undergo an additional phase of selection based on performance of their progeny — progeny testing — thus ensuring the highest merit in AI bulls.

A further reason for concentrating on herd-book registered bulls is the desirability of identifying the genetic make-up of an animal at the various stages of production. This country has many markets for its cattle and cattle products — each with its particular specifications. We have currently in the national cattle herd many breeds each with its own characteristics and suitability to fulfill the various market needs. Many of the requirements for markets are met best by cross-breeding. It is desirable that the breed make-up of the cattle be predictable from visual assessment — this is usually done by colour pattern combined with other minor indicators. Use of pure-bred bulls gives identification with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The significant widespread use of cross-bred bulls, on the other hand, gives undesirable variation in many traits of importance including colour which makes evaluation of genetic make-up and suitability for particular markets much more difficult.

In the course of the debate in the Dáil on this Bill many Deputies referred to the difficulties that would be experienced by many small suckler herds especially in the west of Ireland in purchasing and using pedigree beef bulls and argued that artificial insemination, because of their farming system, did not always offer a practicable alternative. In deference to the wishes of the Deputies, I have agreed that for a limited period of three years beef suckler herds with up to a maximum of 20 cows will be granted permits to keep quality non-pedigree bulls. The bulls must be inspected and passed by officers of the Department of Agriculture prior to the granting of permits.

There are 58,000 beef herds in Ireland with 377,000 cows in the beef suckler cow scheme with an average cow herd size of 6.5 cows. I expect, that as heretofore, many of these will continue to use artificial insemination. Indeed, I now understand that a number of AI stations have introduced a synchronised artificial insemination service resulting in higher levels of treated cow — 65 per cent approximately — proving in-calf.

The Bill provides that a person must have a permit issued under the Act if he has an unregistered bull. The circumstances in which permits will be issued will be laid down in regulations made under the Act. Permits will be issued for bulls kept for research purposes, bull beef production and similar enterprises, beef suckler herds, as defined by the scheme of premiums for maintaining suckler cows, to keep quality non-pedigree beef bulls for breeding purposes, and for pure-bred bulls registered in any herd book not recognised under Commission Decision EEC No. 84/247. This decision lays down the criteria for the recognition of breeders organisations which maintain herd books. For registered bulls, that is those entered in official herd-books, the breed society will issue a certificate for each bull entered in its herd-book.

The permits or certificates must be produced on demand to Department of Agriculture officials or the Garda Síochána when they are checking on the status of bulls under the Act. Inspectors and gardaí will have powers to enter land and to examine bulls found on that land.

If a person is believed to have an unregistered bull or a bull without a valid permit, he will be allowed 28 days to apply for a permit for the bull or else have the bull castrated or slaughtered. He can make representations against a direction to have the bull castrated or slaughtered. Should he ignore the direction to have the bull castrated or slaughtered, the Minister will be empowered to have this done at the owner's expense. The Bill sets out the maximum penalties that can be imposed for various offences under the Act. Finally, the Live Stock Breeding Act of 1925 is repealed by this Bill.

Mr. T. Hussey

I welcome this Bill as it constitutes a contribution to the upgrading of our cattle herd generally, both beef and dairy herds. The beef industry is of such importance that no effort should be spared in improving and advancing it. It is a £1,000 million industry and 65 per cent to 80 per cent of its product is exported. It is very import-and that we should continue to find new markets for our beef and, having found those markets, that we should be able to supply top quality beef.

In recent years we have seen a steady increase in exports to countries like Egypt, Libya and other countries unheard of some years ago. The contracts with those countries have put millions of pounds into the pockets of Irish farmers. The people involved in securing the contracts, the personnel from the Department of Agriculture and the meat trade, such as Larry Goodman and Séamus Purcell, are to be complimented on their success in this area. If we have a quality product to sell it makes the work of our exporters much easier. For that reason it is imperative that only the best bulls are used. As 80 per cent of our beef output and 65 per cent of our milk output are exported, it is very important that we remain competitive internationally. To do this, we must continually improve the quality of our stock and, even though this may take years and cost much money in the process, it is the only way forward.

The AI stations throughout the country are doing a good job in making available to farmers bulls of very high quality. It is unfortunate that the Government should have decided this year to discontinue the AI subsidy. This subsidy which, I understand, is still available in Northern Ireland, succeeded in making available, even to farmers in remote areas, the services of top class pedigree bulls. If the Government are really serious about improving the quality of our national herd, they should restore that subsidy immediately.

In the dairy sector there is still much to be done, even though the AI service has been available for over 30 years now. The milk yield of our dairy cows is slightly more than half of that of our Danish counterparts. In this day and age this situation should not obtain and a yield of 1,200 gallons per cow should be the norm. If the Danes can do it, why can we not do it? Our climatic conditions are suitable and our pastures are renowned for their production of lush green grass. Let us get our act together and select the best sires so that we can withstand the challenge in the market place from our competitors.

The implementation of this Bill will create problems for farmers in the disadvantaged areas who may not be able to afford the service of a pedigree bull or who, because of the remoteness of their farms, may not be able to avail of such service. In such cases the Minister has power under section 3 to grant a permit to a farmer, on payment of the prescribed fee, to have in his possession an unregistered non-pedigree bull, subject to, and in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed in the permit.

In agreeing to insert this section in the Bill, the Minister is accepting that farmers in the disadvantaged areas have special problems and need special treatment to overcome those problems. The concession allowed under this section may not satisfy herd-owners in the disadvantaged areas and, perhaps, the Minister should go the whole way and exclude from the provisions of the Bill certain areas along the western seaboard where farmers will be unable, because of the financial hardships this new law will impose on them, to provide a pure-bred pedigree bull.

Farmers in the disadvantaged areas have traditionally provided store cattle for the rest of the country and I believe that will still provide good stores even if this law is never enacted. Farmers fully realise the importance of having good quality animals with good conformation etc. It is only by producing good quality animals that they can maximise profits from their farms. I believe that, with a little modification, this Bill will go some way towards helping farmers to produce top quality animals. For that reason I support the Bill.

Mr. Hourigan

I would like to welcome this Bill very strongly and to congratulate the Minister and all concerned with its compilation. It is very obviously a positive move forward and a positive step towards improving the standard of our livestock, which at present leaves a great deal to be desired. There is great urgency about improving the quality of our livestock. The standard of our beef cattle in many instances leaves a good deal to be desired, particularly in the context of an era when we have new classification methods and new standards expected from us. Farmers selling cattle in some instances are finding themselves in an extremely awkward and difficult position by having a product at the finishing stages which is worth considerably less than it would have been had they got the basic article right on day one.

Regardless of what is said about visual assessments, appearances and all the rest, there is no way that the genetic aspect of breeding can be left aside. Feeding, care and so on can give a misleading and distorted picture of the actual quality of the stock, particularly bulls for breeding. In the past with liberal and good feeding practices many bulls were brought to a stage of artificial appearance that did not convey the true genetic qualities of the animals. For that reason, we could not over-emphasise the importance of adhering, in so far as it can be done, to the concept of the pure bred animal and, coupled with that, all the other aspects that come into play as well.

We cannot over-state the importance of our agricultural industry. That has been stated in this House before and, indeed, in other places too. We sometimes fail to recognise that 25 per cent of our total exports are agricultural produce. That is not always recognised. A very sizeable proportion of it comes from the cattle sector which includes beef, milk and ancillary products. We, therefore, could not overestimate that one. We must also take into account the very high percentage of our total population directly and indirectly involved in the agricultural sector. We are talking about 45 per cent, or thereabouts, between direct employment, farmers on the land, indirect employment, people involved in processing, marketing, and so on. That is a very significant number of the labour force involved in the agricultural scene.

I welcome the modification made by the Minister in the Bill which allows, through a ministerial regulation for up to a three year period, people to keep non-pedigree animals provided they have been inspected in the first instance, under permit and then licensed. I also welcome the fact that it applies not alone to the disadvantaged areas but to the entire country. This is a very important matter because, frankly, many people outside the disadvantaged areas would be very hard hit if the non-disadvantaged areas were to be excluded. I do not take from the fact that disadvantaged areas have particular problems, but there are many areas outside the disadvantaged part of the country that suffer just as great hardship but because of lines drawn here, there and elsewhere they are excluded.

I particularly congratulate the Minister for including the entire country in this. It is a very positive step forward. It will enable people to have a pure bred bull at the end of three years or make whatever arrangements are appropriate. It applies exclusively to suckler herds throughout the country. It leaves the small dairy farmer in any part of the country one likes to choose, in a position where he is not covered by this scene. The biggest argument, of course, was that the suckler herd was the most difficult problem here. The animals in the suckler herd were the hardest with regard to heat detection, the hardest to get rounded up for insemination purposes, and so on. Nevertheless there are small dairy farmers who should be considered in the context of some assistance vis-a-vis AI subsidy. This would help along that route. After the three year period the Minister of the day can review the matter and see what the needs are. This has been very correctly done by the Minister and the people in his Department.

There are a few things that I feel are worthy of mention. For example, while reference was made in the Minister's speech this morning to Garda Síochána or officials of his Department going to the inspection scene, in so far as it can be done, the Garda Síochána should be left out of this kind of situation. It is my understanding that only in extreme cases would that be entertained in any event and it would be a matter for the Department officials to be involved in inspections.

The other point that strikes me very forcibly is the last part of the Minister's speech when he talked about the 28 days grace allowed to people who may have broken the law in this regard. Frankly, that is fairly liberal. While I am not suggesting a more penal approach to it, it should be acknowledged for what it is, a very generous approach to the matter in so far as everybody is being given an opportunity to put his house in order under that provision.

I want to again stress very briefly the question of quality because we are finding that for beef and beef products we have loads of markets but the price in many of these markets is not very good. We have markets in Libya and other places but at a price. May I stress at a price? It is easy to sell something at a giveaway price. Quite frankly, while markets are always welcome, if the price level is not reasonably satisfactory, it is of little value to the person producing the article and the person handling the article and selling it. For that reason, I believe we must not concentrate and rely too much on places like Libya for the exportation of our stock where, in fact, standards expected and asked for are very low but, may I hastily add, so are prices.

We must bear this in mind and we must not get very excited about doing great deals with the Libyans and others who are not prepared to pay prices for our produce. We must hit at the markets that are most demanding of us vis-a-vis quality, which are most lucrative. It is very important that these markets are aimed at, that we live up to the requirements of these markets, that we are in a position to supply these markets and that our farmers, in the first instance, have the raw material to produce, that our produce is catered for and treated in such a manner that at the end of the day it will hit these markets. I am talking of European and other non-third world markets in this regard because there has been too much highlighting of third world markets. The Libyan trade has been exaggerated out of all proportion.

As a person with involvement in the trade, with a knowledge of the difficulties of the trade and what is required at any given time, I know there is no point in having an outlet for a product unless you get a reasonable price for it. I would like to stress the point that achieving a market in itself is not the answer. When we achieve a market we pay the price. You must accept that if you get a good price for something you must produce good quality. This Bill certainly sets out to do that. In fact, as was indicated earlier, it is updating the livestock regulations and ensuring that what we produce will meet the challenges which we are facing. Since 1925, when the first Livestock Act was introduced until fairly recently, we had little movement of regulations or changes although we had certain shortcomings in our livestock regulations. We have seen in recent years dramatic changes. By recent years I mean ten, 12 or 14 years. We have seen dramatic changes in the last ten, 12 or 14 years. We have seen many excellent continental breeds coming into this country, of the beef type in particular, and we make the best use of those breeds. We must not allow scrub bulls to be used for getting cows in calf.

The Minister said that this new regulation emanated from the Cattle Advisory Committee. I have every confidence in their recommendations and I fully support the views that they have put forward to the Minister with regard to cattle breeding. One could speak ad nauseam about this but one is also reminded, as the Minister said of the EC requirement that as a member of the EC, we have got to adhere to certain rules and regulations in various matters, including livestock breeding. We know that a big proportion of our livestock exports come from the dairy herd and, therefore, we must have the right article coming from that source. There is also the desirability of increasing the suckler herd or the beef herd, which is extremely important.

This Bill is to be welcomed. It is a very positive step forward on the part of our Minister and our Government in endeavouring to upgrade the quality of our livestock for whatever market is available to us. It is absolutely vital that we are never confined to selling in a market that accepts only inferior type stock. It is very serious if farmers get it into their minds that there is an outlet in such and such a place. We must recognise that high standards have been acquired and in return for them we will get worth-while prices. I warmly welcome this Bill and compliment the Minister and all concerned with its introduction.

Mr. M. O'Toole

I have a few things to say to the Minister's officials. The Minister is just a rubber stamp in my view. I have had experience of this down the years. Very few Ministers get through to the civil servants in the Department of Agriculture. Some of the personnel here today worked with some of the Ministers and more of them have never worked with them. I welcome the introduction of this Bill to repeal the 1925 Act. Of course, it is a necessity. I was never in favour of the discontinuation of licensing in this country. Letting farmers run amuck with all types of unlicensed animals tends to reduce the standard of the stock and affects the store trade more than the dairy trade.

I come from the west where I can say categorically that the standard has dropped considerably since the thirties, forties and fifties. While we have had the introduction of continental breeds, progeny testing and AI, which tended to give a better type bull to the farmer, any breeder or any cattle exporter will tell you that the breed in the west has dropped considerably from the standard we had in the thirties, forties and fifties. Why did that happen? It happened for two good reasons. The west of Ireland farmer had access to a good stock bull after the reintroduction of the 1925 Act and there was a good selection of good type quality bulls available in close proximity to small farmers. You brought the animal to the bull that suited your cow or heifer, whereas later on you rang up the AI and an inspector arrived with a number of bulls identified by GLD, TCP, or whatever you want to call it under these headings and the farmer had no visual assessment of what type of animal was in that tube. As a result it very often did not meet the requirements of the farmer and when the progeny arrived it was not a suitable animal to mate with that type of animal.

Breeding needs experience in any type of livestock. It is very important in the horse industry. If you bring the wrong sire to your mare you will have the wrong type of foal. The same applies to cattle. There is no screening at all on the maiden heifers going to the bull. If you have a good trade for beef heifers and for store heifers in an area, you tend to give the bull to the one you do not sell at the mart or heretofore, the heifer you did not sell at the fair. For that reason you are giving the bull to the lesser type maiden heifer you have in your herd at any given time. That, of course, gives you a calf that is not up to standard. While we introduced a Bill to cover the breeding of bulls, we have never done anything as regards scrutinising the heifers mated with this bull. There is no selection whatever except the private selection of the farmer. That is geared to those left over after sales of beef and stores. It does not tend to give you the proper type animal. I regret to say this but I have experience in this field of activity. Senator Ellis will bear out what I have said. He knows the trade very well. Continental breeds have fast maturity and if the new type hormones that are being introduced, which I am not too keen on, for fast production are not properly administered they can give you an animal that can go screwy. It looks worse after a considerable length of time when the hormones are not given at the proper time. I have had experience of that also and I am totally against giving hormones to any animal for slaughter especially in the case of the heifer breed where the meat is for human consumption within the State. I think hormones should not be used at all, but they are used very effectively in some cases with bullocks. For that reason we have quick growth, not always in the continental breeds but the continental breeds tend to give you bigger conformation and faster-growing animals but do not always give you the required quality for a store trade. You sell your store cattle on visual assessment and conformation. If you are going for beef, you are selling on the hook and you are selling by weight and the conformation does not come into play as much as if you have to go into the ring with a store animal where you must sell through visual assessment and quality and conformation.

I would welcome this Bill if it does anything to give you upgrading of the quality in our store animals. I say to the Department officials: you do not run a scheme from Kildare Street and if you try to run an effective scheme from Kildare Street you are wasting your time. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that his staff go down the country where the operation is taking place and see it for themselves. They are too much in the office administering by the pen. They should go down the country and be practical and see what is happening and I can assure them that they will have the best possible results coming back. They will get the best results from practical experience in the field of activity. That is where you learn it all: you learn nothing in offices. You only administer the legislation that is before you and you do not know if it is working because you do not see it in operation. I appeal to the Minister to let his Department's officials go down the country to find out for themselves how these schemes are operating on the ground. That is the best advice I could give the Minister at this time.

You have to be very selective in beef breeds. You have to be very selective in the selection of bulls and maiden heifers but in the dairy produce you are going on the milk, lactation period and butter fat. Statistical progeny testing will bring that about. In beef breeds it is a different matter and I think procuring the proper bull for the proper animal is something we should pursue through An Foras Talúntais and use that means of giving the farmers the best knowledge possible to ensure that he is getting the best type of animal and the best breeds mated to each other. I am sorry that the Shorthorn breed have gone off the market. I would love to see their return for a base stock in this country. We should never have lost them. With the introduction of the Friesian herd, for greater volumes of milk the shorthorn was the best dual purpose cow and I think that is well known to everybody.

I want to mention two things that may be regarded as personal. I experienced a certain amount of embarrassment in the purchase of bulls for export at Ballsbridge. When you purchased a premium bull at Ballsbridge and exported it to Scotland, under the licensing classification laws there the Scottish Department did not accept the classification and licensing of this country. If you wanted to keep that bull in Scotland you had to take him to England, have him licensed there, then reimport him into Scotland before he was eligible under the Scottish Ministry regulations. I think that is an embarrassment to our veterinary authorities here and I ask the Department officials does that still obtain? Are our licensing regulations not acceptable to the Scottish Ministry? If they are not, and if you still have to take a bull from Scotland into England to have him relicensed to import him into Scotland, then it is about time that our officials pursued the matter to ensure that we can have EC standardised licensing that would be the same throughout the EC countries. I think what I described is a disgraceful situation — to have Irish exporters purchasing premium Hereford bulls, or any type of bulls, in Ballsbridge, exporting them to Scotland and England and they are found not to be up to the standard because they have a different type of standard in Scotland and England.

I would also point out to the Minister, while we are introducing this Bill, that we have a number of islands off the west coast where they are now using unlicensed bulls. They have no other bulls; they have no access to AI. Because of the small number of cows on the various islands it is not profitable for anyone to keep a stock bull and unless there is some trained person on the islands to administer the AI services in a do-it-yourself scheme, or employed by the north-western AI station in Sligo, there will be no pedigree progeny. It has happened over the last three years that Clare Island had no pedigree bull. About 20 cows there at the moment are being served by their sons and by other scrub or unlicensed bulls and that is a dreadful situation because they live in an isolated area. I ask the Minister to take particular interest in the islands of Inishturk, Boffin and Clare as regards breeding because they have no access to AI, they have no stock bulls and they have to use whatever is available. I have seen the cattle coming from the island; they are all right when they are calved but when they start to grow they get more non-presentable for markets and they do not fetch good prices when they come to the mainland. In the islands where there is not access to AI, or it is not profitable to have a stock bull, something should be done by way of compensation to give the people in these islands the same facilities as the people on the mainland have. Under the Constitution they are entitled to that.

It is very hard to move Department officials or to tell them this. I am saying it publicly today; somebody might hear me and somebody might heed. There is no licensed bull on any of the west of Ireland islands at the moment and they use unlicensed bulls because they must do so. It is the duty of the Department of Agriculture to see that something is done in that regard, whether it be to increase subsidisation for AI or to send in a stock bull and pay someone to hold him there and upgrade the stock on the islands. I welcome anything that will improve the standard of cattle. We have gone back rather than forward. I agree with Senator Hussey about the introduction of garda. What young garda would know whether an animal had been squeezed on a farm or a commonage from his visual assessment? He would have to take an animal in for examination off a commonage. First of all, he is not qualified to examine an animal and secondly, by the time the animal is examined by a proper veterinary inspector the animal will have been treated. So, you are wasting your time talking about Department officials running around commonages in cars, or bicycles, or whatever, trying to assess visually whether that animal is over six months, whether he is in proper condition to serve a cow in the commonage, and if he is licensed. First, they will not get near him to see if he is tagged or if he is a properly licensed bull. It is a waste of time. That is why I am saying to the officials that they must be practical and get out of the offices in Kildare Street, come down the country and see the terrain the farmers have to breed their animals on.

I would welcome an exemption for the greater parts of the foothills. A great case has been made here by the Sneem people in connection with a three-quarter or half-bred bull to run with animals. It is necessary to give some exemptions in these areas. This is happening anyway and this Bill will not cure it or clear it. You are as well off to legislate for what will be a reality tomorrow. All we are asking you to do is to legislate for a practical situation that we cannot avoid and will not avoid under the circumstances in which we live in this type of terrain and in isolated island areas.

I would appeal to the Minister to take into consideration these isolated areas and to do something to deal with a three-quarter bull or a seven-eights bull. These bulls are much better than bulls that are unlicensed in which case you may have inbreeding and produce nothing. I appeal to the Minister to examine these isolated areas and I welcome any improvement in the Bill that will improve our stock.

Mr. McDonald

I believe that the decontrol of the registration of bulls some years ago was indeed a retrograde step. For that reason, I welcome the Minister's decision to introduce registration again and to make a determined effort to upgrade the quality of the national herd. However, I am not happy with several aspects of this Bill. I support what the Bill sets out to do but, on reading section 8 and parts of section 6, one would be inclined to question the national order of priorities. For instance, how important to society is the scrub bull or the problems of scrub bulls when we see stronger powers being given to the gardaí and Department inspectors than were given in the very controversial Criminal Justice Bill last year?

A number of problems arise. If we take the ordinary commercial, well-organised farmer, there is absolutely no reason why he should not have a top class stock bull on his farm if he is in the top echelon of farmers in the dairy industry. The AI service have for some time now provided a do-it-yourself kit. Not only do they provide the kit and the semen but also the training necessary to use it. Certainly that development improves farm management and the economics of it. But when one comes down to small farmers, especially where a farm is run by a widow or an elderly spinster, to talk about penalties of £250, £500 or £600 is outrageous. In the main, it is a small category of people who are not able to tackle these problems or have someone to castrate calves in time, who always create the problem. This is not new. We had the problem of scrub bulls in the country when registration was there. It is the same people who are in trouble year in, year out. I do not think the Department have learned anything from their experience of 20 years ago. It is nothing new.

The points that were very clearly made by the previous speaker are valid. Subsection (1) of section 8 mentions a fine not exceeding £600 and subsection (2) mentions a fine of £250 for not producing a permit while you can drive around any part of the country in an untaxed or uninsured car and you will not be fined £250 for not producing a certificate of insurance, not will you be fined £600 even if you are convicted. I would like to know exactly why the Department find it necessary to do that. On the other end of the scale they make things very easy for themselves. Under section 7, service of notices, they take it on themselves to identify a 16 year old person so that they can serve notice on anyone they meet in the place. Why did they pick 16 years of age? Has the age of majority gone done another two years since the Bill came in a few months ago?

If they cannot find the owner of a scrub bull subsection (2) of section 7 states:

If the name of the owner of a bull to which a notice under section 6 of this Act relates is not known and the name of such owner cannot be readily ascertained by reasonable enquiry, the notice may be addressed to the owner of the bull without naming him and may be served—

(a) by sending it by post to the lands on which the bull to which the notice relates is normally kept...

If that is not the most stupid subsection I have read in 25 years in this House, it beats me. It is really stupid and I am absolutely shocked that we have three Ministers in the Department of Agriculture and they should decide on that. In the last number of years the Department have had an office in every county. I compliment the Minister on that. They know the farmers. They know the herd numbers. They are kept up-to-date and that service is excellent. You can go into the office and you have the blue card. In my own county since the present Minister took over, the Department introduced a service and has an office there. There is one in every other county. The service has been improved and there is no such thing as saying that the Department inspectors do not know the farmers, or do not know where they are, or do not know exactly what the situation is. I see no reason for serving notice on kids or writing directly to the bull himself.

That is unfortunate. It is terribly important when we think of the value of the cattle industry that an all-out effort should be made to increase the quality of our beef and to produce beef which meets the requirements of and is regarded as palatable in the markets we now have. I was impressed recently on a visit to the livestock breeding station in Enfield where such excellent work has been undertaken and where great strides and progress have been made in cattle breeding and the introduction of some new herds. They have recently introduced bulls whose progeny will yield well over 2,000 gallons. The result of the progeny testing of the recently introduced Canadian Hereford breed will give a great boost to the conformity and the general make-up of our breed.

Many years ago I was disappointed at the change the then Government made — in the former Deputy Smith's time, I think — in demoting the dual purpose cow. We had the two tried and trusted Shorthorn breeds at that time. The Government took a decision to support and to promote the dairying breeds by introducing, in particular, the Friesians to this country. That policy has served the farmers and indeed the national economy extremely well. In latter years with the recognition of the grant importance of our beef exports, it is encouraging that the breeding units, such as that in Enfield, have worked so hard and have so successfully introduced bulls that will enhance the quality of beef and also improve the economics of producing beef. That is something we must very clearly welcome.

This Bill is entitled an Act to make provision for the regulation and control of bulls used for breeding, etc. I assume the practice of rearing bull beef does not come under the scope of this Bill. A semi-State organisation, Bord na Móna, have experienced a very prosperous season and have produced excellent results in producing top class bull beef on an experimental farm in Clonsast on what was formerly cut-over peatland. Such units I assume do not come under the scope of this legislation. Their results last year show very clearly that producing bull beef was much more profitable than using the implantation of hormones in the cattle that they were housing in the beef lot.

Senator O'Toole spoke of the difficulties on the islands. The AI people may very well be able to supply the farm AI kits to some of those stations. That would be quite an improvement, time-wise, for those people.

In regard to section 6 (3) where a person has 14 days to make representations, I feel that 14 days is too short a period to make representations to the Department of Agriculture. For that reason I should like to see that period extended. It is not possible to get back the blue cards even from a local office in 14 days in my experience. If you make a representation to the Department in Dublin, by the time it gets back the 14 days are up. The elimination or eradication of scrub bulls is not of such great importance that this Bill should be as tough as drafted. I want very clearly to record my dissatisfaction with that.

Back in the fifties and early sixties when we had the registration of bulls, we also had very clearly defined and recognised rings associated with the passing of pedigree bulls. This was all tied up with the economics of producing bulls for the various shows. I hope the Minister will take every step to ensure that there is not a reintroduction of the same type of abuse. In those years a limited number of people could produce any sort of a rig and get a certificate. To get into the system then — I am speaking of about 20 years ago — was extremely difficult. The inspectors who were passing these bulls at the bull shows in the town squares in every part of the country were in the main from the Department. While it is possible to get away with some of those things the public are much more enlightened at present and I hope the same thing will not be attempted under this new legislation.

I welcome the decision to reintroduce the control of bulls. It is important that we should not only breed cattle with greater capacity for milk production and should be able to compete with the 2,500 to 3,000 gallon cows that our competitors in Europe have at their disposal, but that we should also ensure that we are able to provide the best quality beef available. I should like to re-echo the sentiments expressed by some speakers on the question of the difficulty of the suckler herd-owner in getting his cows in calf again at the earliest possible opportunity. The AI service is not a reliable service for the suckler herd. The duration of heat is not as noticeable. It is certainly more economic to let a stock bull run with a suckler herd. For that reason, perhaps, the Minister may consider reintroducing the bull premiums that were operated by the Department through the county committees of agriculture for many years. This was a system of subsidising the high cost of bulls — proportionately — in those years. If it proves difficult for the smaller owners of suckler herds to acquire pure bred pedigree bulls, the Department should consider, rather than allowing those people to go out of business or to have the space between one lactation and another grow too wide, looking at some way of subsidising bull owners.

In section 11 the Minister has very wide powers indeed so that he can introduce regulations to meet whatever problems may arise.

Mr. Ellis

First, I welcome this Bill from the point of view of the national herd that it concerns. It is important that we look at what the purposes of livestock breeding are, namely, to improve the quality of our cattle. That is, to improve the dairy herd as far as lactation, butter fat and protein content are concerned, or to improve the beef herd as far as beef production is concerned. In doing that, we want also to look at what our market needs are at the moment and to see what is required by our customers. For the past five or six years the Irish beef producer has found that his biggest market has been in the third countries.

Senator Hourigan referred to the fact that they wanted an inferior quality product at a lower price. The third countries are now becoming quite sophisticated in their demands. They want cattle which are of a certain age, of reasonable conformation and with a minimum of fat content in the boned-out beef which is to be supplied to those contracts. Therefore, it is important that we should look to see if we can improve our national herd and improve the quality of our beef production in order to go for the markets which are more lucrative, namely, the European markets, where there is quite a market for top-quality beef which we are not producing at the moment.

The number of EIs killed in any factory in Ireland in any one week are few. The numbers of E2s, U1s or U2s are very small, due to the fact that we have in the past 20 years allowed the standard of our cattle to drop considerably. We are now in a situation where we have to go back and start to rebuild. We have used the third countries for the past nine to ten years. We are finding that their changes in requirements will mean that we will have to improve the sort of products with which we are going to supply them. This is mainly due to the fact that we are now facing competition there from our European partners.

We saw recently that the Minister for Agriculture had to go to Egypt to use his power to see that Ireland got a share of a contract which it was going to lose. We see today that the price quoted is very low. There is nobody to blame for those low prices, as far as seeking those markets for our beef products is concerned, except ourselves. The CBF publish a weekly bulletin which is circulated throughout the world telling what prices have been accepted for particular contracts. This is something that is wrong. The net result is we have seen that our beef, which was worth 1,600 dollars a ton a couple of years ago is now worth 1,100 dollars to 1,200 dollars a ton. We are bringing down the market around ourselves because we are allowing a State agency to circulate information which, in my opinion, should be confidential to the person who signs the contract and to the customer. In doing so, we want to take a hard look at the operation of our beef marketing. Having said that, it may not be that relevant to this Bill but it is important that somebody should say to us that it is time we stood up and looked at where we are heading. We are going into a situation where we are becoming a nation of dumpers of Irish beef on third country markets.

Perhaps it would be better if we had left this Bill on ice for three years because some of its proposals will not be implemented for three years. The Minister stated that herd owners with up to a maximum of 20 suckler cows will be allowed to keep a quality non-pedigree bull. Let us look at a quality non-pedigree bull. If you take the cost of a non-pedigree bull to the farmer in comparison with the cost of a pedigree bull, the net result of the produce is false economy and very false economics on the farmer's part. If the farmer decides that he is going to go out and buy a top-quality Charolais weanling which he wishes to use as an upgraded bull the following year, he will pay in the region of anything from £600 to £650 for that weanling. He will feed him for six or eight months before he is of any use to him for service. At that stage he can put on another £100 to £150 to him. This means that before he uses the bull it has cost him £800. If he wishes to go to a pedigree sale and buy a pedigree Charolais bull he will not have to pay more than £1,200 to £1,400. The calves produced by the pedigree bull will be all Charolais whereas those produced by the mixed breed will show only 50 per cent of the true conformation of the breed.

This is false economy because the other 50 per cent of the calves would be worth in the region of anything from £60 to £100 less than what the true-bred calves would be worth. Here we are allowing farmers to shoot themselves in the foot by allowing them to use inferior quality bulls for their herds. If one looks at the average herd size of the suckler herd it is at 6.5 cows. The number of farmers who will be going in to buy pedigree bulls now will be so small over the next three years that no improvement is imminent as far as this Bill is concerned for at least five to six years. Five or six years are being thrown away. Three of those years could be saved if the proposals in the Bill had been implemented as and from next year.

We can all understand the position of small farmers in the west. I come from the west. Those are the farmers who traditionally have bought pedigree bulls. They are the men who have borrowed and begged to be able to go out and buy a pedigree animal. The farmers who have not used the pedigree bulls are the farmers in the south who are only worried about the milk. All they want to do is get their cows in calf. The calves did not matter. They were thrown in to the trailer and sold at two days old. As far as the farmer was concerned the calves were to be sold then and anybody else who wished could rear them into beef. That is what we are up against. It is a very serious situation. The theory with the southern dairy farmer was "bring the cow to her milk as quickly as possible in the following year and to hell with the calf". For many years the calf was classed as being of little or no benefit.

It is time that we took this livestock breeding situation seriously. Not alone must we start with the bull but we must also look at the type of heifer that is being introduced into our beef herd. Senator O'Toole said that it is "the shakings" that end up going into the next generation. The good heifers are sold for beef at 12 to 15 months old. It is the weak ones that are left behind. The inferior quality stock is what we are being left to breed from. The net result is that our livestock quality is going downhill at a rapid rate. New schemes are being introduced now. There are schemes with regard to suckler schemes. It might be no harm if Department inspectors were to take random checks and look at some of the cows on which those grants are being paid. We have adopted a system where we pay grants per head rather than pay grants for quality and ability to produce the article that is required in the market place.

A way of getting over the hardship that might be imposed on farmers with regard to having to pay the extra cost for pedigree bulls would be to give them a subsidy. For years in this country we had a premium bull scheme. Some people might not have agreed with it, but it did a great deal for livestock breeding, especially in the west, where small farmers were able to go out and buy bulls and draw back the few pounds of a subsidy which they got annually. It amounted in the latter years to £30. If we paid a decent premium now of £150 or £200 per annum, they would then go out again and buy superior quality bulls in the market place. If one looks at the old special terms system which was operated also by the Department and which has been allowed to lapse, one feels that the lapse was another retrograde step. This was a means by which a farmer could buy a bull on hire purchase. He could pay for him over four or five years. That also did quite an amount of good work.

We are now bringing this in without giving any incentive to people to improve. I said earlier that when you look at the proposals in it and the period of three years being granted, it is wrong. The first section of the Bill is defective. It states 15 months in section 1. That should be nine months.

The man who can tell the difference between a beast that is 15 months' old and one that is 20 months' old has a better eye in his head than I have. I know I could not do it and I have been involved with cattle every day of my life. The Minister should bring in his own amendment on this. At nine months the beast will not be a yearling but at 15 months he could pass as being 20 months' old. He can do the same damage at ten months as he can do at 15 months. Many farmers have found that their prize heifers were in calf because the neighbour's weanling came across the fence. A major loophole in the Bill could be closed. Also the 28-day period of grace should be omitted. Senator McDonald said that the period of grace was too short. Seven days' notice is enough to give to anybody. Under the old Act, once caught you were caught and you had to suffer the consequences.

If we are genuinely to tackle and to improve our livestock we have to start with the type of bulls that are introduced to AI stations. Down the years we have seen numerous animals being put into AI stations which did not have the desired results. They were used by farmers without having any test carried out. The AI station should not be allowed to issue semen from any bull which has not, at least, had one herd of calves produced and inspected to see if they are of the quality desired. We can understand that they have to carry out their progeny testing, but it is important that the country should not be flooded with semen from bulls of an inferior quality.

The Department of Agriculture are not giving enough money to the people from the Department who deal with livestock to go out and buy top class bulls. I have seen on numerous occasions where limited budgets have been provided to the Department to buy bulls for AI stations and to buy bulls for leasing out to pedigree breeders. It has happened especially in regard to the Aberdeen Angus breed. The top class bulls at sales have ended up being exported to the detriment of the national herd. With regard to that breed, we made a mistake in allowing the importation of Canadian bulls which brought extra growth into the Aberdeen Angus breed to do away with the true bloodline that we had. The net result is that we have Canadian bulls' blood in all our Aberdeen Angus cattle.

It is important that the Department should look at this and see to it that while there is some semblance of the old breed left it is retained, even if it is only retained in the AI stations by the storage of straws from bulls with no Canadian blood. The reason I say that is that the Canadian Aberdeen Angus are good growing cattle, but they are inclined to lose the traditional conformation which we found in the original black cattle. They have become a longer, leaner animal. If we look back to the Aberdeen Angus as the base for a suckler herd in this country, we see that the Aberdeen Angus crossed with Charolais is producing the No. 1 quality cattle which would be required on the European market. Regarding the Friesian dairy herd, numerous farmers who wish to buy Hereford bulls to place with those cattle are trying to buy bulls which have not got Canadian blood in them because there is better bone to be found in the old stock of Hereford bulls. It would be a retrograde step if we allowed those bloodlines to be lost to this country, as has happened to the Shorthorn herd.

The Minister could make quite an amount of money available to the livestock breeding section to improve our herds. Regarding importations of cattle for the improvement of our stock, we should ensure that we import top class cattle. It is better to buy one exceptional animal than to buy ten fair quality animals, especially if they are going to be introduced into AI stations. It is proposed to import more continental cattle and I would hope that there will not be a closed shop attitude taken and that any farmer who wishes to have stock taken in with any of those importations will be given the same treatment as those who are already in the pedigree society which imports them.

Many farmers would import one or two animals if they were given the opportunity. They would possibly be prepared to spend more money to import one superior quality maiden heifer than to import 30, 40 or 50 animals. The person who has produced a superior animal as far as stock is concerned in the pedigree business is the smaller breeder with three or four cows. It becomes a specialist job to such people who are supplying the superior animals. The reason is very simple. These people are in such a small way that they have to really make it pay and they must produce the superior quality product. That goes back to the ordinary commercial producer because the producer producing the better quality animal is the man with five or six cows who must produce a top-quality animal to make the maximum use of his few acres.

Looking at the overall situation we have to force the use of pedigree bulls, even if means forcing it by means of paying subsidies. Regarding dairy herds, only the top 20 per cent of the dairy herd should be used with dairy bulls. The other 80 per cent, who will never be in a position to produce heifers which would be of a superior quality, should be crossed with beef bulls and crossed with pedigree beef bulls to help to improve the standard of the dairy herd. The calves from the south being bought by farmers from the west have deteriorated. In many cases it would be impossible to say what breed they are. In many cases in trying to identify the breed, one would have to call them "Heinz". You would not know which of 57 fathers they might have had. They have no true markings and no semblance of a proper breed. We should look at the maiden heifers being allowed into our beef herd and ensure that there is a quality check kept on them.

If there were a premium to be paid of £20 extra for suckler cows of a certain standard one would find farmers moving up the line very fast. There is one thing that is an incentive to a farmer and that is profit. If he can see that he can get extra profit or extra subsidy by having a superior article, he will have it. The net result would be a gain to the Irish economy and a boost to the creation of employment. If we consider the future of our beef production, I believe we will have to look to the added-value market and look to Europe rather than to third world countries to sell our beef products. While farmers now sell their beef on the hoof there is very little incentive for the production of a superior quality carcase. When you look at the boning hall and remember that the superior quality carcase can give anything up to 6 or 7 per cent higher in yield in saleable meat terms, you can see the difference. Six per cent on a carcase will mean an extra £5 to £6 per hundred-weight of value for that animal on the foot. If you take 12 at £6 that is £72, and that is an incentive to produce something of superior quality.

I hope the Minister and the Department will buy top quality and that we will not see our prize and our prime animals leaving this country to boost the national herds of countries like Scotland and England, which they have done for the past 30 years. They have improved their stock by taking from this country the prime bulls which were available.

Mr. Ferris

This Bill, when first introduced, was almost unnoticed by the breeding industry. Suddenly, the full ramifications of its application became apparent particularly to smaller breeders and to breeders in disadvantaged areas, whether in the west of Ireland, or in Kerry, or elsewhere. Many of us at that time made representations to Deputy Hegarty, the Minister responsible for the introduction of the legislation. I was rather amazed, in spite of all our representations in this regard that, until quite recently, no non-licensed bulls would be allowed to operate in any part of the country. For that reason it surprised me that section 3 of the Bill specifically states that the Minister may, in prescribed circumstances and on payment of the prescribed fee, grant to a person a permit authorising the person to have in his possession an unregistered bull subject to and in accordance with such conditions as may be specified in the permit.

I thought originally when I was making representations that the interpretation of that section would have allowed the kind of people who expressed concern to me, and indeed to Members of the House of all parties to be considered. I have quite a lot of correspondence on the subject. I thought that the Minister would have conceded earlier that he would interpret that section as it was written. I am glad to see that, in the Minister's statement today to this House, he said that in deference to the wishes of Deputies — and I hope he included Senators as well because we expressed similar wishes to him — he has agreed that for a limited period of three years beef suckler herds with up to a maximum of 20 cows will be granted permits to keep quality non-pedigree bulls. The bulls must be inspected and passed by officers of the Department prior to the granting of permits. Basically, that meets the objections I had in principle to the Minister's interpretation of what the legislation meant. Most of the problems I encounter with smaller breeders, particularly in the beef area, will be met by the Minister's agreement on the interpretation of that section. For that reason, I welcome it.

We are now having a total change in the attitude of people in the cattle trade. I suppose the advent of the milk subsidy and milk quota system has made people more conscious of the fact that we cannot go on any longer producing an indefinite amount and an increasing amount of milk, much as we would like to see that happen. We have never been given the opportunity by the EC to exceed or, indeed, develop to the levels of our colleagues in Europe. It was a tragedy for us when in a developing agricultural section and developing milk sector, suddenly a lid was put on what we were allowed to produce. Because of the introduction of that — and, indeed, I suppose it is appropriate to pay tribute to the Minister and his officials for having got a reasonably good deal for us in the milk subsidy and the milk quota system — there is now throughout the country an awareness that there will have to be a diversification in the cattle industry. The industry will have to go into the production of beef. Because of that I have reservations, particularly for small breeders in disadvantaged areas, about insisting that all the beef produced by them from small herds will have to be by a licensed bull. I was genuinely concerned about it and was of the opinion that widespread hardship would be caused to those small breeders. There have been representations from people from the Sneem development co-operative society. I know the Minister has had streams of letters from smaller farmers throughout the country expressing this concern. I am glad the Minister has agreed to the interpretation of section 3 which I had hoped he would agree to some time ago.

I must, at this stage, pay tribute to somebody who had a life-long commitment. He is no longer, sadly, with us. He is gone to his eternal reward. I refer to J.P. McKiernan, who was the life president of the General Council of Agricultural Committees. He spent his life in the service of this section of the cattle industry to ensure that the highest possible quality would be achieved. That could only be achieved by using the proper standard of quality bull which was approved and inspected by the Department. Indeed, he gave of his best, as somebody who inspected bulls throughout this country. He was always adamant that the highest possible standard would have to be achieved in the interest of the industry itself. He held that belief up to the day of passing to his eternal reward. At that time a change had taken place on the instruction of the Department, subject to some directives by the EC. He grieved over that backward step, as he considered it to be.

We have now again changed course in this Bill. We have changed course again in this direction. I share the concern of Senator Ellis that, in changing course like this in an industry which takes a while to either adjust to the changes or, indeed, for the benefits of changes to follow, much valuable time can be lost. This concern was expressed by Senator Kiely of the Fianna Fáil agricultural team in this House in July 1983 when he raised this matter with the Minister, Deputy Hegarty, on the adjournment of the House, as reported in the Official Report of Thursday 14 July 1983 at column 1346, Volume 101. That was when the abolition of the existing licensing laws came into place. Senator Kiely, in making the case for the retention of registration of bulls, was worried that the Government of the day were just abolishing the licensing for the purposes of economics, I quote Senator Kiely who he said:

Whilst it is understandable that Governments would be anxious to effect economies, the decision to abolish bull licensing as far as the livestock breeding programme is concerned amounts to false economy. In the long-term, if there is no control on the breeding of cattle, it will have an overall effect on the standard of livestock, resulting in greater losses in the cattle export trade and breeding of cattle generally. Therefore it will be seen that the loss to the trade and the economy will be far greater than any saving effected by suspension of licensing.

The Minister in responding to him did genuinely say that the rounds of inspectors of bulls at that time was costing somthing like £160,000. He also repeated that figure in today's speech. He said that it was a considerable amount of money.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.