It is a fact. That is a fact documented by specific DVOs. Is it any wonder that ERAD would request the reduction from 120 days to 60 days to try to control movement? I support that but what I have major difficulty with is the two-stop concept the Minister talks about. Basically, that means that you get your animals tested with a view to bringing them to a mart to sell them. You bring them to the mart and it is a very depressed trade, as it has been for some time now. All weights of cattle are back on average £100 a head on this time last year. I am averaging that out some will be a bit more and some will be a bit less.
The farmer takes his cattle to the mart but he is not getting even an economic return, let alone a reasonable profit, and he takes them home again as he cannot face the bank manager with a smaller cheque than he originally got from him to purchase the cattle. Under the Minister's proposals the farmer must dispose of those cattle within seven days or wait to have them tested again, which he cannot do until after 60 days. This means he might have to wait 40 days to retest if he originally had them tested specifically to sell. In the meantime, there might have been a two or three weeks flier if intervention came in for the month — we have these short snappy periods of intervention — but that farmer cannot sell when the trade improves because he has to wait 60 days to retest and then go through the whole procedure again.
The factories and the middlemen know when the farmer has his hands up, that the cattle have to be sold within seven days and they can take advantage and there is no doubt that factories will take advantage. We are in a free market economy and there is no room for softies when it comes to the profit and loss game. They will do the best job they can for their company and they will purchase stock as cheaply as they can. They will know when a farmer is sitting at home with a star over the cattle saying, "must be sold in seven days".
I think it was Senator Hussey — I will stand corrected on that — who suggested to the Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy, that he consider reducing the 120 days to 45 days with no restrictions on stops. I am a little suspicious of that proposal which I feel might be planted. I know the Minister is not altogether happy with the 60-day two stop tests. He cannot be happy politically, considering the adverse reaction it has had from the different sectors. I heard on the media only yesterday that there was consideration of a 45-day nonstop test. Therefore, I am asking the Minister to come clean with us. If he wants proposals we will all give him proposals. The 60 days with two stops as presented are totally unacceptable; the period of 120 to 60 days in itself is not the problem, I support that, but limiting it to two stops with seven days in between would strike at the very heart of the cattle trade. Farmers would have no option but to sell at the first opportunity, literally with their hands up.
There are many variances within the 60 days which the Minister could look at. For example, if the Minister is insisting on two stop concepts, why are there only seven days between? Why is there a limit within the 60 days? Could he not allow the farmer to present the cattle to mart twice at any stage within the 60 days? I presume, having talked to vets, that the reason the two stops within seven days was mooted and strongly supported by them is because when the cattle come back from the mart, unsold, they are at risk of spreading infection throughout the rest of the herd on the farm. I fully agree that the mart is one of the major sources of infection because there are cattle coming in from all sources, badly or inadequately tested or not tested. Perhaps tags were switched, having travelled in dirty cattle lorries, etc. The saga goes on. Marts are, by their very nature, a major sources of infection and I think it was intended that the spread of infection from the marts would be limited if cattle were not sold and had to return home to the farm.
However, when the cattle have visited the mart and returned home, whether they are one day, seven days or 40 days at home, the infection has come back from the mart. Limiting it to seven days will not reduce infection from the first mart they visited. If they come home they risk bringing back infection. Why allow them home from the mart for seven days? Why seven days only? Why add to the bureaucratic nightmare of monitoring and administering the system from the marts and the factories point of view? Why add to the misery of the cattle farmers who are on the floor, who have their noses rubbed in it, to use the vernacular? The Minister is compounding the misery of these farmers for no reason. I cannot see the advantage. We would all take medicine if the reason for it was abundantly clear. I cannot understand why to bring the cattle back from the mart and keep them at home for seven days is any less a risk of spreading infection than keeping them at home for 30 days. If you bring cattle back from the mart at all you then risk bringing infection home.
Within the 60 days there are other possible formulae which I ask the Minister to consider. Either loosen up the two stop concept as proposed, which is unacceptable, or perhaps there should be no stops within 40 days, as was mooted by Senator Hussey this morning. Perhaps the Minister has already agreed to reconsider the matter. I hope he will be frank and will accept the points we have made.
How will the marts implement the two stop system? I presume when the cattle arrive to be sold, having been pre-movement tested, each card is inspected punched, marked, signed and dated. Is the Minister increasing manpower at all the major marts? Is he increasing the number of AOs to do this because, if not, he will have to. In Enniscorthy mart 1,300 to 1,500 cattle are sold every Tuesday and that does not include calf sales but regular sale of stores, fat cattle and heifers. Three AOs operate the present system. If that system is slowed down to the extent that every card will have to be signed, stamped, punched or identified in some way when cattle are first presented at marts and rechecked when they are presented the second time to be sure that there are only seven days since the previous outing, the present manpower will not be able to operate the scheme.
The proposed formula has caused mayhem in the industry. The Minister has not explained how he will monitor or administer the scheme at the marts and the factories and we need to know exactly what his thinking is on this? It might help to calm some of the fears and concerns in certain quarters if we knew precisely how he felt the scheme would operate.
As proposed, the scheme will destroy normal trade. I do not carry any particular brief for the marts. They provide an important function in rural communities. We only have to look back at the cattle trade over the centuries to remind ourselves of the evolution of the mart concept in rural Ireland. We have had a cattle trade for decades for centuries. In the year 3000 BC we first started livestock farming in a serious way with the neolithic agriculturalists. They introduced livestock rearing to Ireland and that was a few years ago. We have a tremendous natural advantage with our soil and climate. Long ago, 3000 BC, they recognised the natural advantage we had for cattle rearing. We are still clogging up the system here and we still cannot take that natural advantage as we look towards 1993. This was followed by the Celts, the Brehon Laws, the Anglo-Norman invasion, the Penal Laws and up the 17th century when we were exporting cattle to Britain. We exported store cattle to Britain until the Cattle Acts of the 1660s which we can remind ourselves of from our history books. After the Cattle Acts, our attention turned to trade in salted meat, butter and dairy products, generally, with Europe and further afield. The internal significance of the cattle trade was just as important over those years as the external, as the export trade was served by cattle fairs. Many here tonight remember those fairs and partook in them. The cattle export trade was served over the centuries by cattle fairs with the fair day drawing business interests together and forming the first semblance of economic unity in rural Ireland. From the fairs evolved the marts and the system we have today. The role of the cattle mart preceded by the cattle fair can be clearly traced back to the 17th century, and we understand their importance in terms of a focal point of economic unity in rural Ireland since then. The marts have a point but, frankly, if we stand on the toes of the marts it is not the main issue here. They have played a very important role but what we are talking about is eradicating bovine TB. If I was convinced that what the Minister is proposing notwithstanding the difficulties it will cause to vets, the marts, the factories and even to the farmers, would solve the problem, we would have to take the medicine. However. I am not convinced. I have heard enough about solutions, about different formulae from various Ministers and their advisers, all having different views. I am sick to death of listening to the views of different sectors. We are going nowhere fast. This is the single greatest economic scandal this country has faced, virtually since the foundation of the State and we still have no answers to it. The vets blame the badger and the movement of cattle and the farmers blame the vets and the badger. Every sector will blame someone else but nobody seems to be able to get all the different elements in the equation right and, therefore, find a solution to the problem.
There have been improvements. ERAD introduced a tightening up in many areas that will, hopefully, contribute to the solution. There is no evidence of it yet but commonsense dictates that ERAD must be making the right decisions. The speedy removal of reactors, once identified, and having them slaughtered is important. The checking of cattle in factories has been tightened up. Again, that has to be in the best interests of a solution.
The blood test has been mentioned. Hopefully, we will have early news in relation to the gama interferon test for bovine TB. Perhaps the Minister will be a little more forthcoming in his response as to the progress and the research that is going on in relation to that test. It must be better than the non-specific test we have at the moment. The test we use at the moment is, effectively, a screen test for the herd. It is not animal specific, unlike the brucellosis test which picked up each individually infected animal which could then be lifted fast from the herd. It is a screen test. There is a hit-and-miss element in relation to it. There have been the false positives and the inconclusives — we have debated them all before — going to the mart. There has been major economic misery to rural Ireland year in and year out, with all its consequences.
What is the position in relation to electronic tagging? We talked about it nine months ago but have not heard much about it in the interim. There are fashions in terms of the aspects of this problem. At any one time there are three or four issues on the table but it is a multi-factorial problem. What place does the Minister feel electronic tagging will play towards bringing about a solution? When will we be in a position to operate a system of electronic tagging?
Quality testing has been a sort of buzz word in terms of eradication of bovine TB. There are many question marks over the quality of the testing that has been done during the years. There is a major human problem here. The farmer is dependent on his vet and the vet is dependent on his client farmer for his living. In rural Ireland, particularly in the smaller villages and towns, everybody knows everyone else and the vet who might be knocking you in the test on a Wednesday might be the same man you would have a drink with at the mart or in the bar on a Saturday night. It is a bit like the doctorpatient relationship. Perhaps there is a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt when the vet knows that a farmer has six children, is in debt in the bank and has the bank manager screaming at him. What is the thinking in relation to that? What is the thinking in relation to the quality testing we must demand now to get a resolution to the problem?
Interestingly, I heard from a private vet recently that a problem has arisen in relation to the syringes that are being used. I have spoken about bovine TB umpteen times. It is an area I have taken an interest in and I read reports on it and follow any debate on it in the Irish Farmers Journal or the Farming Independent or whatever publication I happen to be reading. According the vet I was talking to, it has been pointed out that many of the syringes they are using for testing are over ten years old. Apparently those syringes are manufactured in Scotland. Somebody must have a monopoly on them if they are only manufactured in Scotland but this is my information and I stand to be corrected. Perhaps, the Minister will confirm or deny what I say. The old type of syringe does not have the same built-in obsolescence as modern disposable equipment might have today. The ratchets of the syringe — the little notches that decide the amount of serum that should go into the animal — are worn on the vast majority of those old type syringes which have been used throughout the country. Instead of getting three ccs — I am not sure exactly what the dose is — the first animal might get six, the second animal one and the next animal could get none, if the ratchet slipped and did not hold the indicator at the right point on the syringe. The needles, which were made to last the same time as the syringe, do not last as long. They have to be replaced frequently. The point where the needle actually joins the syringe often leaks which means the accuracy regarding the quantity of serum going into each animal is questionable. There have been cases of bent needles and all sorts of other question marks about the actual equipment that vets are using to perform the test.
It all seemed highly improbable to me until I asked further questions. Apparently, ERAD have issued letters to all the private vets in recent times — I do not know when this came out, it was kept very quiet — stating that they all must have their syringes serviced in Scotland and furnish two certificates or invoices proving that they had bought two new syringes before a certain date. They are given a specific date by which they must have two new syringes to ensure that the equipment used matches the quality testing now being demanded.
It is amazing that the syringes nearly all the vets use could be a major contributor to the appalling mess that has been made of this scheme over the years. ERAD are now pursuing this matter and the vet that told me this showed me the letter he had received from ERAD telling him to have two new syringes by some time this summer.
Bovine TB has been virtually eliminated in Northern Ireland although there has been an increase in incidence of the disease in recent times but, officially, they have virtually eliminated the disease. The number of syringes being sent per annum by private veterinary practitioners from the North to Scotland to be serviced is six times that from the South. This aspect has only recently come to my attention but it is something I will be looking at with interest in the future.
The efficacy of the serum itself has been mentioned. The source of the serum has been changed over the years. It was Dutch top and British bottom. Then they went to Dutch top and bottom, or British top and bottom. The graphs and the whole estimation of the efficacy was based on a certain combination, on a certain source of serum many years ago. The source was changed without the equivalent testing and standardisations done in the Department. I have always been concerned about that aspect. It is a questionable scientific practice but it is a point we do not hear too much about from the Minister, or indeed any of the officials.
I recall two or three times over the past few years asking the Minister of the day, including a Minister of my Party, to explain to me in simple language how calves from reactor herds were free to travel the country and be sold. Surely calves from reactor herds are a major source of infection and yet they could travel the length and breadth of the country and be sold quite freely. ERAD, and the chairman of the board of ERAD agreed that there was a huge anomaly there and obviously a major source of infection that had not been controlled. Therefore, they decided that all calves had to be tagged. In other words, test the herd, tag the calves and so on. The ingenuity of the farming community has meant that now nobody has their annual round test until after the calves are sold, in case the herd would go down and the calves could not be sold. In areas where this is an issue, they are behind in their testing because they are cutting silage or at the mart or simply not available on the day they are asked to present for a test. They will get around to it within the year or whenever they have to, but they are way behind in terms of that round of testing. What I thought would be an excellent solution to the anomaly of calves from reactor herds travelling freely around the country has not turned out to be so. Now farmers are not testing until they have sold their calves. This means the calves still travel freely around the country and we do not know until they are gone if they were from reactor herds. That area needs to be looked at and needs to be tightened up.
There are 10,000 to 15,000 dangerous herds in the country, herds that have continuously been a problem, locked up most of the time or, if not locked up they are only free for a short time when there is another breakout. Our ambition must be to keep those herds clean. I have heard it said time and time again by the present Administration that we must keep clean herds clean. That should be our goal but to discover how bovine TB is spread, would get us out of this appalling mire.
In other countries restricted herds are given yellow cards and they can only trade with other yellow card holders, in other words, there is no risk of spreading animals from infected herds to clean herds. Maybe we will have to consider that here. There seems to be benefit in that policy but with 15,000 dangerous herds there are plenty of opportunities to trade among themselves without risking the clean herds. If our ambition is to maintain clean herds we could perhaps consider letting the infected herds trade among themselves which would be a reprieve to farmers whose herds are locked up without enough fodder for the winter.
New Zealand wildlife has caused major hardship in terms of bovine TB and they also have a problem with opossums. If wildlife enthusiasts are up in arms about the badger in this country it is nothing to the reaction in New Zealand if you mention the opossum. The opossum is a national emblem — if that is the correct expression — it has a particular meaning, and it is dear to the hearts of the New Zealanders but it is an active carrier of bovine TB. It has got so far out of control in New Zealand that they have divided the country into endemic and nonendemic areas. There are major financial hardships and implications for the beef export trade generally in New Zealand. They have lost control of the bovine TB scheme because of the wildlife factor they have not been able to control.
There is no doubt that the wildlife factor is a big issue in this country and we have to take a reasonably pragmatic view of it. I do not support the willy-nilly slaughter of badgers, nor would I say that no licences should be issued to take out badgers. If we overly restrict licences, farmers will take the law into their own hands. Frustration with the lack of progress in the bovine TB eradication scheme has driven farmers in many areas to take the law into their own hands and to take out badgers. The way they will take them out will be far less humane than if a licence were given and it was done under controlled conditions.
I ask the Minister to be sensitive, but pragmatic, in how he deals with this. Perhaps we should learn from what happened in Offaly without a licence. There must be a balance. We only need to protect the healthy badger. The infected badger is no good either to wildlife enthusiasts or to the country generally. A reasonably pragmatic approach can be taken without over-killing in this area.
The Minister was rather congratulatory when he pointed out the number of reactors that have been taken out in the last year, an increase from 30,000 to 43,000. According to dipstick and random sampling — I am only quoting that as my source, perhaps it is not gospel, but it is the only source we have at the moment — we should be taking out 60,000 reactors a year. That means we are leaving one-third of the infected animals behind. We do not know how bovine TB is spread but it does not take a lot of intelligence to come to the conclusion that if one-third of the infected animals are left behind, there is a major source of infection which is causing some type of lateral spread. Much work needs to be done in that area.
The introduction of the pre-movement test and its extreme restriction in terms of the two stop tests, with seven days between, has to be measured against what is happening in relation to brucellosis. Brucellosis testing has been specific, it has been eradicated and, officially, we are brucellosis free. Nonetheless, cases of brucellosis are on the increase. There is no pre-movement test for brucellosis and that I cannot understand. There are stories of cows aborting in the west, being presented two days later at a mart ending up at a mart in the midlands and, finally being killed. It is an accepted fact that for 14 days after a cow calves or aborts she is at her most infectious in terms of brucellosis. We have no pre-movement test for brucellosis and I do not know how that can be justified. I am assuming we are talking about bovine disease levies, generally, so brucellosis needs mention.
We also want to know the position in relation to leucosis. I do not think the Department are coming clean with us on either brucellosis or leucosis. Those diseases have very serious implications for our cattle herd. We have heard stories and we can all quote instances from different marts and DVOs around the country but officially, we cannot get the answers we would like to put on record.
I have not had the opportunity to welcome the Minister since his recent illness. I am delighted to see him in such good form and thank him for coming back to us this evening after his six months onerous job as President of the EC Agriculture Ministers.
