Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Thursday, 14 Jun 2012

Priority Questions

Common Agricultural Policy

Ceisteanna (1)

Michael Moynihan

Ceist:

1Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine the progress he has made in relation to reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; the estimated maximum reduction in the single farm payment here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28711/12]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (7 píosaí cainte)

Since their publication, the proposals by the European Commission for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy have undergone detailed examination at Council working groups, the Special Committee on Agriculture and the Council of Agriculture Ministers. At next Monday's Agriculture Council, the Danish Presidency will present a progress report outlining the current status of the negotiations. Negotiations on the new multi-annual financial framework, MFF, for the EU budget for the period 2014 to 2020 are being progressed in parallel, primarily through the General Affairs Council, although the final decision will be taken by the European Council. Many of the CAP issues, including the key issue of distribution of funds between member states, are being discussed in the MFF negotiations and will ultimately be agreed as part of these negotiations. These proposals are also being discussed in the European Parliament and next week will see the release of draft reports from EP rapporteurs on each of the Commission's proposals.

My key concerns about the reform proposals arise in four areas. These are the overall CAP funding, the method for distributing CAP funds between member states, the method for distributing direct payment funds within member states and the overarching need for simplification in the reformed CAP.

On the budget, the funding proposals in the MFF maintains CAP spending at current levels in nominal terms post-2013. The agriculture heading is the one showing the greatest restraint, and in my view the amount proposed by the Commission is the minimum required. However, there are continuing and intense pressures for reductions in the proposed overall EU budget, with obvious implications for proposed CAP allocations. The Government will continue to resist any pressure for reductions in the CAP budget.

As to the allocation of CAP funds between member states, the current Commission proposals for direct payments in Pillar 1 take a pragmatic approach to redistribution and are broadly satisfactory albeit with some loss to Ireland, estimated at approximately 1.4%. The Commission has yet to table a specific proposal for allocation of Pillar 2 funds for rural development. I have concerns that the basis on which they propose to do so could reduce our allocation. However, I am vigorously defending our Pillar 2 funds, and will continue to do.

As to the distribution of direct payments within member states, the Commission proposal is to gradually move towards a system of uniform per hectare payments, or flat rates, by 2019, in each member state or region of a member state. As the Deputy knows, we have a difficulty with this because we would see a significant transfer of money from the more historically productive farming sector, which is likely to continue to be productive, to the less productive sector. We recognise there needs to be a redistribution of single farm payment but we need to put limits on it to ensure we can continue to maintain, grow and expand Ireland's agrifood sector while at the same time moving away from the historical basis for payment based on 2002 and 2003 productivity levels. The Deputy will see more information in the rest of this reply.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

Many member states already have such flat rates or are evolving towards them. I recognise that we cannot continue to base our payments on outdated historic production references. Nevertheless, I have major difficulties with the pace and extent of convergence in the Commission's proposal.

Under a national flat rate, although the overall allocation to Ireland would not change, around 76,000 Irish farmers would gain an average of 86% on their current payments, while around 57,000 would lose an average of 33%. These are average percentages, and some of the gains and losses would be far larger than this. For example, in the extreme case of those on very high payments of over €1,000 per hectare, the loss would be well over 70%. In general the losses would be incurred by more productive farmers. This would have undesirable consequences at a time when Ireland is trying to encourage sustainable intensification in the agrifood sector, as we strive to achieve the objectives in the Food Harvest 2020 strategy.

I have accordingly been pressing for the maximum possible flexibility to be given to member states to design payment models that suit their own farming conditions. I also want a more gradual, back-loaded transition process. The approximation approach, by which all payments could gradually move towards, but not fully to, the average is one alternative that I believe should be considered in this regard. The Commission's pragmatic proposal for redistribution between member states is, in effect, an approximation approach and provides a useful precedent. Modelling in my Department suggests that the application of this system to the distribution of funds between farmers in Ireland would lead to much smaller gains and losses to individual farmers than a flat rate system. However, the precise level of transfers depends on the details of the methodology used.

I have been very active in seeking allies for this position, and I have been making significant progress, particularly with a group of member states with somewhat similar concerns. However, it should also be understood that a majority of member states have no difficulty with the idea of flat rate payments, although they have concerns about other aspects of the proposals.

The negotiation process on CAP is complex and difficult, but all of my efforts are focused on achieving the best possible outcome for Ireland. These efforts will be continued over the coming months as the process evolves, and will further intensify during our Presidency in 2013.

There is no question or doubt but the negotiations going on at present in Brussels and the structures the Minister mentioned are vital for the future of Irish agriculture. Last July, to the great relief of the Irish agricultural sector, the European Commission committed itself to maintaining CAP funding at 2013 levels. From the meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and Marine attended by the Members of the European Parliament and in talks and discussions we have had with various people in Europe and at home, there seems to be huge pressure on the CAP budget. Before we go into its distribution and its various sections, we need to ensure the strongest possible case is made to maintain the budget as was promised in July last year. The negotiations seem to be slowing down. It was always envisaged, and the Minister stated it on numerous occasions, the CAP negotiations would be finalised during the Irish Presidency and his chairmanship of the European Council of Agriculture Ministers. What is the likelihood of this happening? If it does not happen are contingency plans in place to roll over the present Common Agricultural Policy to 2014?

As I see it, we cannot finalise the Common Agricultural Policy reform and spending money on new schemes until the multi-annual financial framework negotiations are finalised. This is the multi-year budget which Europe must agree. The Commission hopes the MFF will be finalised in December. I would like to see this happen but I think it is unlikely politically. I think it will also be an issue for the Irish Presidency. Under our Presidency we will need to try to get agreement and finality on the MFF and in doing so protect the CAP budget. Let us be clear: More than 80% of all EU funds coming to Ireland comes through the CAP. It is by far the most important element of EU funding for us and we need to protect it. It is hard to give a date but I hope that in the first quarter of next year we will see the MFF finalised and agreed. This will mean there will be huge pressure on the Irish Presidency to get the deal on CAP done before our Presidency ends. If the detail of CAP is not agreed next year it will be impossible to see a new CAP taking effect from the beginning of 2014. There will be only six months to put the new regulations and rules in place and get the information out to farmers. There will be huge pressure on our Presidency to get this done, and this pressure will come from the Commission and other member states. I hope that in February or March of next year we will be able to finalise the MFF and in May or early June we will see CAP coming to a final conclusion. Many of the final agreed CAP proposals will have been predicted at this stage by the Commission and it will be ready to go with the new rules and regulations that need to be rolled out in the following six months for a new CAP to begin at the start of 2014. The timetable is tight but I believe it is doable.

The Minister spoke about the multi-annual budget being agreed in February or March and the CAP to be agreed in May. Surely there is not time for the system to be ready to go in Ireland by 1 January 2013-----

Sorry, 2014. The timescale seems almost impossible at this stage.

I do not think the timetable is impossible but it is very tight. If it is not possible to deliver it on time we will have to look at a contingency plan, on which the Commission will have to put proposals together, which will involve extending the implementation of a new CAP by a year and some type of continuation measure for 2014. However, this may not be possible because if it is decided in the MFF that the budget allocation for CAP for 2014 will not be what it is now we will have problems with regard to how to allocate the money. This is not straightforward which is why I believe there will be considerable pressure to get the job done within the timeframe set out. If it is not possible to do that, we will need to get on with doing the job and putting in place a contingency plan for 2014 so that a new CAP could begin in 2015. I emphasise the ambition of the Government and that of the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament as far as I know is to get the MFF and CAP finalised in a timeframe that would allow us to enter a new CAP from the start of 2014.

Departmental Expenditure

Ceisteanna (2)

Brian Stanley

Ceist:

2Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine if the limits on expenditure agreed under the bailout programme has the potential to adversely impact on the potential take-up of the EU infrastructural support, or other funds; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28863/12]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)

All Departments have been allocated fixed expenditure ceilings for the period 2012 to 2014 under medium-term expenditure framework which was introduced by the Government in the comprehensive expenditure report. The report outlines the Government's plan for a return to sustainable growth in the economy and sets out in some detail the measures that will be taken to put the national finances in order including annual public expenditure and revenue targets for the period. The expenditure ceilings in the report are given effect through the annual Votes for different Departments, including mine.

The expenditure ceilings which have been set for my Department represent annual gross expenditure. The cost of all administration, service delivery and scheme implementation must be accommodated within the ceiling. In addition to the gross expenditure corresponding to the expenditure ceiling, the Vote for the Department provides for net expenditure which takes account of appropriations-in-aid, including EU receipts. In accordance with long-established practice under Government accounting procedures, all receipts, including the drawdown of EU funding are accounted for separately in that manner. There has been no change in the situation under the arrangements introduced under the comprehensive expenditure report.

EU transfers take the form of the funding for those schemes which are 100% funded by the EU, such as the single payment scheme, and the co-funding of schemes under the Rural Development Programme 2007-13 and the Operational Programme for Fisheries 2007-13. The Department has been maximising the levels of EU drawdown under both programmes to date. My intention is to continue to manage the funding available to my Department in the Vote to ensure that as far as possible all available funds are drawn down. This is an ongoing process which will be carefully managed within the constraints of the annual Vote for the Department.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Obviously the bailout programme places conditions and restrictions on expenditure across all Departments, including the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine, as the Minister outlined. It covers not only expenditure, but also policy as we have seen with other Departments. If the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine is bound by the Government expenditure rules, could it potentially cause difficulty this year or in the final year of the programme, 2013, when we try to draw down those funds? As the Minister said, some of them are 100% funded from Europe and some of them have a co-funded dimension. Could the funds from Europe exceed the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine limits on expenditure from the point of view of co-funded programmes and thus harm the ability to draw down those funds?

That is a fair question. My Department is different from many other Departments in that many of the schemes we finance are heavily co-funded by the EU. These include AEOS, which is 70% co-funded, DAS and TAM scheme in terms of rural development funding. A very significant element of our budget comes through schemes co-financed by the EU. There is also the €1.2 billion to €1.3 billion each year of direct payments which are 100% funded. These direct payments do not come under our ceilings. The issue for us is trying to manage staying within our expenditure ceiling while at the same time drawing down all the available co-funding for schemes under Pillar II money, which is under Access 1, 2 and 3. They are the schemes with which we are all very familiar, the grant aid, Leader programmes and so on. We are working carefully to ensure - as farmers would say - we do not leave any money behind in Europe. So far we have done that very successfully and obviously I am working to ensure we maximise the drawdown of EU funds. In recent months the European Commission has had a decision confirmed that allows it to increase the co-funding level of European moneys for some of the co-funding schemes by up to 85%. We need to try to work that system as best we can to make it as cost efficient for the Irish Exchequer as possible.

If the element of co-funding has been increased across the schemes, obviously that will be beneficial. From the Minister's reply, do I understand correctly that the schemes that are co-funded may be affected but the ones that are 100% funded will not be affected under the restrictions of the troika programme?

Single farm payment is not affected by ceilings. I can assure the Deputy that we will do everything we can to ensure we draw down all the available funding under the rural development programme. However, it is a management exercise to do that when we are dealing with ceilings as well as Exchequer targets. This is more difficult for my Department because setting expenditure ceilings as we have under the troika programme is a very blunt tool. It is just about what we spend and does not also take account of what we earn. When all the expenditure, whether it is the co-funding from the Exchequer or from the European Union, counts towards the expenditure ceiling it is a frustrating process. I would prefer just counting the Exchequer contribution towards an expenditure ceiling. This is difficult to manage, but we are doing it in a way that I hope will result in us drawing down all the available funds from Europe.

Agriculture Scheme Penalties

Ceisteanna (3)

Tom Fleming

Ceist:

3Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine if he will provide a breakdown by county of penalties applied to farmers by category of penalty, whether land eligibility or cross compliance; if he will provide a further breakdown by number of farmers penalised and by total value of penalty under both the single farm payment and disadvantaged area schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28866/12]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (7 píosaí cainte)

My Department, in the context of delivering the single payment scheme, disadvantaged area scheme and other area-based schemes, is required to carry out annual inspections covering the eligibility of the land declared to draw down payments and cross compliance to ensure compliance with EU regulatory requirements in the areas of public, animal and plant health, environment and animal welfare. These inspections are mandatory, and there are minimum numbers and types of inspections that must take place annually - we do not have a choice in this.

Land eligibility checks must be carried out on 5% of applicants. These checks are carried out to verify that the area claimed in the application form corresponds with the area farmed by the farmer and to ensure that any ineligible land or features are deducted. Up to two thirds of these inspections are carried out without visiting the farm as the information is verified using the technique of remote sensing via satellite, in other words mapping areas via satellite.

The rate of inspections for cross-compliance is 1% of applicants to whom the statutory management requirements, SMRs, and good agricultural condition, GAEC, apply. However, 3% of farmers must be inspected under the bovine identification and registration requirements while 3% of sheep farmers must be inspected covering 5% of the flock.

In 2010, in an effort to minimise duplication of farm inspections between the two Departments, my Department agreed to carry out 1,600 nitrates inspections under the GAP regulations on behalf of the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government. This arrangement was retained in 2011 and 2102 and is working well.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

The value of these schemes to Irish farmers is €1.8 billion annually. It is therefore incumbent on my Department to ensure the regulatory control environment is comprehensively implemented to protect these payments and to avoid significant EU disallowances.

The data sought by the Deputy are supplied separately in respect of the 2009 and 2010 schemes. The data in respect of the 2011 schemes will be made available when it they are finalised later in the year. I regret the delay in responding to the Deputy. The information requested by the Deputy was significant and involved compilation of data from across a range of areas within my Department.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to get the full information, which was originally requested through a written parliamentary question, Question No. 584 on 21 February. The Minister said in his reply that the full information would be provided but I had to wait nine weeks, until 1 May, to get an initial response. It was stated then that the rest of the material would be sent to me.

The Deputy has it now.

If it is available, I welcome that very much. That was an unduly long time to wait for the full information. If there was proper management of payments, all of this would automatically be available in the local offices and could be forwarded to the central office within a reasonable time. In addition, it would give the Minister a good overview of what is happening in different parts of the country. It would be possible to monitor if there were variations in the implementation of the schemes across the country.

If I had had a chance to finish my reply, the last sentence is that I regret the delay in responding to the Deputy's detailed query. However, the Deputy sought a great deal of information and it took time to put it together. It involved gathering information from every county. The written reply contains a very detailed and comprehensive set of data in response to all the questions the Deputy asked. I will not read it out but I have looked through it and I hope the Deputy will not see any inconsistencies between different counties and that the number of inspections are as they should be in terms of the minimum number we are required to undertake.

We are talking about payments of approximately €1.8 billion per year. With that level of payment, which is predominantly from EU funds, there is an obligation on us to play by the rules with regard to the number of inspections laid down in the regulations that states are required to implement to draw down funds. If we do not do this, disallowances will be applied to Ireland. That is where the EU Commission asks for its money back. Every state must give a certain amount of money back each year on disallowances because after the EU audits how the schemes are monitored and the funds are distributed, it asks for its money back in many cases. In most years there is some level of disallowance payments to be paid back and sometimes these involve huge sums of money. It is not by choice, therefore, that we have this level of inspections. We are required to do it to draw down the level of funding we distribute among farmers.

Most of the complaints and representations I have received are about land eligibility. If there is an incorrect declaration, a 100% penalty is applied. That is very harsh. There must be some flexibility, as it involves marginal cases as well. These people are huge contributors to the economy and they participate actively in farming. There must be a flexible system in place, as is the case with commonage ground where recalibration is allowed. Perhaps the Minister would make allowances for these farmers as well.

The Deputy is right. There are genuine cases where genuine mistakes are made. There is an appeals mechanism for people who feel they have been treated harshly. However, we must also ensure that people play by the rules. If there is no consequence for people who do not play by the rules, there will be breaches everywhere. It is important to make the distinction between people who make a genuine mistake and those who are trying to play the system. The vast majority of people here play by the rules. They fill out the forms, or work with advisers to do so, and draw down their payments as they should. If people believe they have been harshly treated, there is an appeals mechanism and they should use it.

Disadvantaged Areas Scheme

Ceisteanna (4)

Michael Moynihan

Ceist:

4Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine the status of changes to the disadvantaged areas scheme; the communication he has had with the EU Commission on this issue; the number of farmers affected; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28712/12]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (7 píosaí cainte)

This question is about the disadvantaged areas scheme, DAS, about which there has been some confusion. It is important to point out that the changes relating to eligibility that we are applying to the disadvantaged areas scheme in order to make savings have not changed since budget day. We have debated some of these matters in the House previously. There appears to be a view that we have suddenly changed a number of things in the last few weeks. We have not. What I said on budget day last year is what we are trying to implement.

What I was trying to avoid was cutting the rates or the areas under which farmers could apply for a disadvantaged area payment. I did not want to reduce the income of people who are farming at reasonable stocking rates and keeping their stock for a reasonable amount of time during the year. I was anxious to make a distinction between farmers whose farms are fully in disadvantaged areas and those whose farms were only partly in disadvantaged areas, that is, farmers whose primary holding is outside a disadvantaged area but who are leasing or buying land in a disadvantaged area and drawing down funds. They are not in the same category as farmers whose full holding is in a disadvantaged area. In other words, we are trying to change the eligibility to make savings in as intelligent a way as possible in order to protect real and active farmers.

If some people are losing payments unfairly as a result of those changes, I am anxious to hear about it. We will put an appeals mechanism in place and I have been given assurances that it will be a swift mechanism that will give people a quick decision. I hope people will use it. We are trying to make a distinction by using last year as a reference year for trying to make a measurement of reasonable stocking rates in disadvantaged areas in respect of sheep, suckler herds and so forth. I spoke to farming organisations before making those decisions to get their reaction. I am not saying the farming organisations are responsible for the decisions, because they are not. I am responsible. However, I am anxious to outline the motivation for the decisions we took.

Finally, in the past when Ministers and previous Governments have had to make savings in the DAS, they simply reduced the area farmers could apply for or reduced the rate of payment. We wanted to do things in a more targeted way and change the scheme in a way that would protect farmers who are relying on and need DAS payments, and to try to make the distinction from other farmers who are in a different category. That was the motivation for what we are trying to do and that policy has been consistent since budget day last year.

The Minister said there was some confusion but that the position remains the same as was stated in the budget. The Minister applied to the European Commission for its agreement to do what he proposed on budget day, particularly in respect of the retrospective basis on which he is increasing the stocking rate. Everywhere one receives very detailed cases forforce majeure, based on hardship, illness, death and so forth, and there would be difficulties with that. We have been in contact with the Department to seek an appeal mechanism. This must be clarified. We understand what the Minister said in December and that there is a difficulty with getting approval from the EU Commission. It has a huge difficulty with the retrospective basis on which the Minister applied the increase in the livestock units and, indeed, in respect of the 80 km, about which I am not particularly concerned. However, with regard to the increase in the livestock unit to 0.3 and its retrospective basis, the information from the farming media and other people is that the European Commission has flatly refused to give its permission.

First, the Deputy should not believe everything he reads in the media. Second, when one makes a change to the criteria of any scheme, one must make an application to get approval for those changes because the funding comes through the European Commission. My Department is going through that process at present, which is perfectly normal. While letters are going back and forth to clarify questions and so on, it would not be true to state anyone has a huge problem with this proposal. From the correspondence I have seen to date, this is the kind of correspondence that happens when one makes changes to criteria within a scheme, whereby one makes a proposal, the Commission reverts with questions and one responds by answering those questions. This is the process through which the Department is going at present and there is nothing extraordinary about it.

Is there not a huge difficulty with putting in place a retrospective basis for this scheme by using 2011 stocking densities to qualify for a 2012 scheme? As for productive farmers, I acknowledge at the outset that farming production must be increased and so on. However, people are living in great difficulty in respect of land constraint, peripheral regions, quality of land and so forth. They have lost the rural environment protection scheme, REPS. Moreover, the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, is not being reopened this year and the disadvantaged areas scheme is coupled with that. These schemes were not just about farming but also provided environmental benefits.

That is the reason I am trying to protect the payments.

Does the European Commission have a difficulty with the retrospective basis on which the Minister is applying this scheme?

First, it is important to be accurate in this Chamber. As I have stated clearly to the Deputy previously, I am hopeful a limited AEOS scheme will be opened in September. I acknowledge it will be limited and it primarily will be focused on Natura areas and on those farmers who farm in commonage areas. In respect of the disadvantaged areas scheme, DAS, the entire point of what the Department is trying to do is to try to protect the incomes of those to whom the Deputy has just referred, because people in disadvantaged areas need that income. They are limited in respect of the return they can get from the marketplace because of the limitations on productivity on their land, their soil or whatever. This is the reason I sought to try to protect the income of people who are farming in disadvantaged areas by changing the eligibility in such a way that people who are not farming fully in disadvantaged areas would not receive the same level of payment as those who are. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and I revert to the entire point of what I was trying to do. Unlike the previous Government, which simply applied cuts to everyone, I tried to differentiate between those who need the money most and those who do not and now I am being criticised for it. If people are getting a raw deal because of the payment or because of the change in eligibility I have made, I want them to use an appeals process and my Department will try to look at that in as generous a way as it can.

On the retrospective payment issue, people tell me all the time in respect of the 2014 reference year for the CAP, for example, that if one intends to set a reference year, one must set it in the past and not in the future because otherwise, everyone simply would change behaviour in the future. This is the reason I picked the most recent year in the past, 2011, to be the reference year. This is not about retrospective change but is about setting a reference year to distinguish between people who should be getting a full DAS payment and those who should not. Were one simply to change it for this year, everyone would simply have increased their stocking rate to have the bare minimum necessary to draw down a payment. The Department was trying to save money and to distinguish between those who should be getting a full payment and those who should not. If we have made mistakes in certain case studies and for certain people, they should use the appeals mechanism to enable the Department to look after them.

Bovine Disease Controls

Ceisteanna (5)

Brian Stanley

Ceist:

5Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine the restrictions that are in place on farmers whose farms are adjoining a farm testing positive for TB; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28864/12]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)

The bovine TB eradication programme includes a comprehensive range of measures aimed at eradicating TB from the cattle population in Ireland through testing and the control of cattle movements in order to prevent the spread of disease. More specifically, the programme provides for the mandatory annual testing of all cattle in the national herd, the implementation of a range of supplementary tests and the restriction of herds where TB is disclosed or suspected.

With regard to restrictions on holdings which adjoin a holding containing a herd which has disclosed TB, my Department has implemented what is known as a contiguous testing programme for the past 30 years. Under this programme, herdowners whose herds are adjoining a holding where a high-risk TB breakdown has been disclosed, usually involving more than one reactor, are required to have their herd tested if it has not been tested within the preceding four months. Herdowners whose holding adjoins a holding experiencing a low-risk breakdown, usually involving a single reactor, are informed of the breakdown in the neighbouring herd and are advised of the precautions to take but are not required to have their herd tested.

The eradication programme is reviewed on an ongoing basis by my Department in light of experience and research. Following a review conducted on the programme last year, my Department introduced a number of changes to ensure the programme addressed all potential sources of infection and to prevent the spread of disease from infected herds to clear herds. These changes, which were made following a number of consultation meetings with the farming organisations, are in the first instance based on research demonstrating there are increased risks attached to the movement of certain animals and second, are designed to protect clear herds from buying in high-risk animals. For example, research has shown the TB risk relating to animals that move out of herds which have been identified as contiguous to a herd experiencing an active high-risk TB breakdown is almost three times greater than the risk in the case of herds tested on a round test.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

The only change which my Department has made to the arrangements relating to the testing of neighbouring or contiguous herds is that herds adjoining a high-risk breakdown are now being trade-restricted, except to slaughter, pending a TB test. They will, however, be permitted to buy in cattle for a short period while awaiting a test. Previously, such herds were permitted to sell cattle on the open market prior to carrying out the test and research had shown that this posed a risk to clear herds. The objective of the restriction is to protect clear herds from buying in infected animals from these herds and thereby avoid the clear herd being restricted for four months and the associated additional testing.

I have clarified the trade restriction only applies to those herds which are identified, following an epidemiological investigation by my Department, as being relevant to the breakdown herd and which have not been tested in the previous four months. Herdowners will be contacted by my Department prior to restriction and only those herds which, on a case-by-case consideration, are identified as genuinely relevant to the breakdown will be restricted. Those farmers whose herds are restricted can minimise any impact by arranging to have their herds tested as soon as possible. Any herd which tests clear will be immediately de-restricted.

I also wish to clarify the choice of four months as the benchmark period under this programme is not new and is part of the existing EU co-funded programme. The four-month period is related to the time interval from when an animal may be exposed to infection and the expectation that a test will give a positive result if the animal is infected. Finally, I believe the restriction on contiguous herds pending a test should have a very limited effect on trade in cattle. In effect, it is only those herds in which TB is disclosed that will be restricted for any significant period of time.

I thank the Minister for his reply. All Members are agreed this is an extremely important issue and it is essential that herds are kept free of disease and in particular of TB. However, the concern is there should not be overly severe restrictions on farmers whose farms are in proximity to farms on which there are infected herds. Once an acceptable level of disease control has been put in place, the farmer should be able to farm as normal and Sinn Féin has received some representations on this point. It also is important that no further additional costs be placed on the farmer due to the restrictions. Finally, I remind the Minister that I have spoken to him a number of times about one particular historical case. He might examine it again in the context of the effects on one particular farmer.

It is important to recognise this is a major concern to farmers. I have met individual farmers, farming organisations and collective groups of farmers on this issue in recent weeks. There is real concern that we should not overdo attempts to stamp out TB and thereby make life impossible for farmers. This applies in particular to contiguous herds because the only change my Department has made to the arrangements relating to the testing of neighbouring or contiguous herds is that herds adjoining a high-risk breakdown are now being trade-restricted, except for slaughter, pending a TB test. Consequently, there is an impact on farmers in this regard. On foot of my Department's discussions with farming organisations, we have made some changes because of the representations they have made. For example, it had been intended to have an automatic freezing of a herd if one happened to have a herd contiguous to a herd that contained a reactor or reactors. While there also were some communications problems that now have been ironed out, if, following communication with the farmer, a reasonable case can be made that there would be an extremely low risk of transmission of the disease between one herd and the other, an inspector or a vet can then make a judgment call as to whether that farmer should be trade-restricted. In other words, in a scenario in which a farmer has a field of barley between his or her herd and the contiguous herd or if there is a narrow buffer strip of forestry or whatever, it should be possible to apply a practical approach. We should not impose trade restrictions on farmers unless this is absolutely necessary.

There has been strong lobbying, asking us to review the four month period. Contiguous herds need to be tested and are restricted if they have not had a test within four months. Farming organisations would like us to extend that period to six months because that would ensure that in a worst case scenario there would not be a need for three tests in a year which would be very expensive and time consuming for farmers. I am looking at that but I must also take veterinary advice in this regard. We have less incidence of TB now than at any time since the 1950s. We are winning this fight and will eradicate TB in the not too distant future, which will be a fantastic achievement. I have to try to balance the concerns of farmers in respect of inconvenience with the advice I get from the vets in my Department. We will return to the farming organisations.

Will the Minister provide information in regard to the TB vaccination tests that are currently being carried out by the Department? I understand these are being carried out in counties Kilkenny and Longford, perhaps also in other counties.

I am not entirely sure what information the Deputy is seeking. Perhaps I can come back to him with a written answer. I do not wish to give him the wrong steer on the question.

Barr
Roinn