Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1990 > Committee of Public Accounts > Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1988

AN COISTE UM CHUNTAIS POIBLÍ

(Committee of Public Accounts)

Déardaoin, 1 Marta, 1990

Thursday, 1 March, 1990

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Members Present:

DEPUTY G. MITCHELL in the chair

Mr. P. L. McDonnell (An tArd Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 33 — AGRICULTURE AND FOOD.

Mr. M. Dowling called and examined.

Chairman.—The Committee of Public Accounts is examining the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Michael Dowling, in his capacity as Accounting Officer for that Department on the audited accounts of 1988. Before we go into that, regarding the letter, Mr. Dowling, you were to sending to the EC Commission, you were to let the Committee have a copy of it and the up-to-date position regarding our special examination into irregularities in the meat industry. We have everything ready to finish that report except your up-to-date report on your findings. Perhaps you would tell the Committee what the current position is.

Mr. Dowling.—The current position is that we sent our report to the Commission towards the end of January. There has been one bilateral meeting in Brussels to consider the report. The Commission wishes to come back looking for some clarification of parts of it and we are awaiting the Commission’s letter on that. We will respond to that when we get it. After that we will be awaiting the Commissions view as to what the penalties or financial recovery should be. I do not know at this stage when that will be, but we hope the issue will be resolved over the next month or so. At this stage it is with the Commission and we cannot resolve the matter until it gets back to us.

Chairman.—But you have not reported your findings to the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Dowling.—We have reported our findings to the Commission, which is what we are obliged to do at this stage. The Commission would wish, before we would report anywhere else, to have a chance to review the report, come back to us and settle the penalties. I did send you a note giving an outline of the investigation. When our business with the Commission is completed, I will send you a further note outlining the result of the investigation, the extent to which irregularities were found and the extent to which penalties or financial recovery have been agreed with the Commission.

Chairman.—But in the meantime we are delaying our report to the Dáil. It is going on and on and we cannot complete our examinations until we know what is in that report. At this stage are we to expect the worst?

Mr. Dowling.—I am not clear what you mean by the worst, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman.—Many allegations have been made about fraud and we are not able to clear these up while this indecision and indefinite position continues. The Committee are anxious to finish that report and get it out of the way so that these allegations do not remain hanging in mid-air.

Mr. Dowling.—We have no problem in giving information on what has been the outcome of the investigation, but we are not in a position to give information on what the financial result will be because, as I say, in this we are in the hands of the Commission.

Chairman.—Tell us what the outcome of the examination has been.

Mr. Dowling.—I explained that at the last meeting. The outcome of the examination was that a relatively small percentage of the meat by weight was discovered to be incorrectly wrapped and a smaller percentage by weight was discovered to be trimmings.

Chairman.—You said that the final liability would be less than £10 million but you are not in a position to tell the Committee at this stage what the actual figure is?

Mr. Dowling.—What I said the last day was that in my view the financial recovery or penalties combined would be in single figures. That remains my view. I cannot go beyond that until such time as we hear from the Commission.

Chairman.—As soon as you do, would you notify the Committee? We will have to recall you on this issue. It is delaying the report. We have completed all the examinations and it is unsatisfactory that it should delay the report.

Mr. Dowling.—Obviously, I have no problem about coming back to the Committee as soon as we hear from the Commission. I repeat that the report is with the Commission. It was a highly extensive investigation. The report has been with the Commission from very shortly after I appeared before the Committee the last time. The Commission has asked for time to consider it. It has said it would probably require some clarification of some of the points. It has promised to let us have, very shortly, the clarifications it requires. When we get those we will reply immediately. Beyond that, we cannot force the process.

Chairman.—But in the meantime the Dáil is still not getting a report on the issue. One way or the other, would you let the Committee know what the current state of play is at the end of this month?

Mr. Dowling.—Yes, that is no problem.

Chairman.—Would you try to have it resolved by that time? It is only causing unnecessary speculation. It would be better if the facts were out and the matter was dealt with once and for all.

Mr. Dowling.—I will certainly let you know the position before the end of this month. We are not trying to stop the issue being resolved. We would much prefer it to be resolved quickly, as well. There is uncertainty, for everybody including the firms concerned. We would wish that in both cases the uncertainty was resolved. We will do our best to have it resolved with the Commission, but it may take a little longer than a month for the Commission to finalise its view. We are certainly pressing it to come back to us with the clarification it requires and after that to have it resolved definitively.

Chairman.—Paragraph 46 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Subhead C.2 — Bovine Tuberculosis and Brucellosis Eradication

The schemes for the eradication of bovine diseases i.e. Tuberculosis and Brucellosis began in 1954 and 1964, respectively. Following a review of the effectiveness of these schemes by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Government, in March 1988, approved new measures to accelerate the eradication programme which included the setting up of ERAD, an Executive Office headed by a National Director to administer the schemes under a Management Board representative of the Department, farming and veterinary interests.

Expenditure arising from the exercise of its functions by ERAD is charged directly to Subhead C.2 of the Vote and levies collected from herdowners continue to be brought to account as Appropriations-in-Aid. In addition, salaries of professional, technical and administrative departmental staff engaged on the eradication programme and office overheads and laboratory expenses are charged to the relevant Vote subheads. The Department of Finance has given delegated sanction to the Department of Agriculture and Food to incur such necessary expenditure as would enable the Director of ERAD to exercise his functions more effectively.

In practice, subject to adhering to normal public tendering requirements and to monetary limits set by the Department of Finance, ERAD has authority to pay grants for reactor removal, to purchase supplies and equipment and to carry out research and special projects. However, the Accounting Officer retains overall responsibility for expenditure under the programme.

The net cost of the disease eradication programme, excluding the salaries of the Department’s administrative, professional and technical staff, office overheads and laboratory expenses, amounted to £269.3 million at 31 December, 1988, summarised as follows:

Mr. McDonnell.—Members of the Committee will be familiar with the subject matter of paragraph 46, because I usually include a paragraph on disease eradication costs. You can see that the accumulated cost to the State at the end of 1988 was £421 million, that is in historical cost terms. The other thing I refer to there is the setting up of ERAD during 1988 as an executive office. They have as their main objective, as I understand, the halving of TB levels by 1992 and the elimination of the residual pockets of brucellosis. But the paragraph is for the information of the Committee and to update them on this particular subject matter.

Chairman.—According to the last section of this paragraph, Mr. Dowling, the Department’s estimate of administration costs attributable to the programmes is £152 million, including £14.5 million for 1988. The total net cost of the programme on a historical cost basis is, therefore, estimated at £421 million to the end of 1988. If you were to do that on an actual basis, what would the figure run to? £421 million is the historical expenditure. If the pound were the same value as the pound in 1988 or 1989, would we be talking about a billion?

Mr. Dowling.—I do not know what the basis calculated in that way is. The figures there are the figures that we have for the actual expenditure over the years. I have not got to hand a figure which would cover what all of the expenditure in previous years, if it were expressed in 1988 terms, would be.

Chairman.—I would have thought it would be a very interesting figure to look at from your point of view, since there has been much adverse comment down through the years about the whole expenditure in this area. Are we coming to terms with this problem, or are we continuing to spend money on a scheme which really is not being effective?

Mr. Dowling.—We believe we are coming to terms with it. The setting up of ERAD was a new departure. The board have a programme of halving the levels of disease over four years. The first phase of that is the much more effective method of taking out reactors. That appears to be paying off in that there was a substantial increase in the number of reactors taken out in 1989, which was effectively the first full year of operation of ERAD. The second phase of the programme will begin this year and will involve both a continuation of the improved reactor extraction rate and the removal of residual sources of infection. If we do both of those, then we believe that it is reasonable to expect that over the four-year period ERAD would meet the target of halving the levels. If they do that, then the exercise will have been successful.

Deputy Cullimore.—What is the total cost per annum of the setting up of ERAD?

Mr. Dowling.—The total cost in 1988 was expenditure of £28.5 million, which was partly offset by farmer levies of £22.75 million, giving a net cost of £5.8 million, leaving aside administrative costs which are about £14.5 million. That is a total of £20.3 million.

Deputy Cullimore.—There was quite an extensive advertising campaign launched last year. What was the cost of that?

Mr. Dowling.—I am told it was £300,000.

Deputy Cullimore.—Since the setting up of ERAD, has there been an appreciable improvement in the eradication of the diseases?

Mr. Dowling.—It depends on what you mean by improvement. There has not been an improvement if you judge it in terms of the number of reactors taken out because the first phase of the plan is to improve the extraction of reactors. By definition, that would appear to give a higher incidence of TB than you would have when you were taking out fewer reactors. ERAD believe that you cannot come to terms with the disease unless you remove all reactors. One of the problems with the efforts made over the years was that we did not appear to remove all reactors. If you leave reactors in the herd, obviously it spreads disease. The first phase must inevitably lead to an apparent increase in the incidence of TB, because if you take out more reactors and if that is the way you measure the incidence, then the incidence will increase. The strategy is based on a programme of, first of all, taking out all reactors. We would hope that in 1989 and 1990 that will have been achieved — and secondly removing the residual sources of infection, both leading to a substantial drop in the incidence of the disease. It is a four-year programme and it can only be judged either at the end of the four-year programme or towards the end of the four-year programme, when we will see whether or not that strategy has worked.

Deputy Connor.—In relation to the problem of reactors, do we have figures for the incidence of reactors per 1,000 animals tested in recent years? I know we are looking at 1988 here, but let us take 1988 and 1989. Many sources are not at all satisfied that the new drive by ERAD is producing the results that you seem to suggest.

Mr. Dowling.—The position is that the incidence of reactors removed per 1,000 was 3.5 at the end of 1989.

Deputy Connor.—What was it in 1988?

Mr. Dowling.—About two-thirds of that. It was a much lower figure in 1988.

Deputy Connor.—Are you attributing, then, the increase in the number of reactors detected to a better form of tuberculin testing or to an increase in the incidence of TB in the national herd? There are two interpretations that can be put on that.

Mr. Dowling.—In the first year, we are attributing the increase to more efficient testing. Over a number of years prior to the setting up of ERAD, on average about 30,000 reactors per year were being removed. That went up to about 40,000 reactors per year, at least in the first year. We believe that is a result of (a) a full round and (b) more efficient testing. We would expect the numbers to be taken out in 1990 to be reasonably high as well. But if ERAD are successful in going beyond that in eliminating the residual sources of infection — and one of the big residual sources of infection would appear to be that not all reactors were taken out in previous years — a fall in the incidence should begin to become evident in 1991 and 1992. Until all reactors are moved efficiently every year, there cannot be a drop in the incidence.

Deputy Connor.—In regard to this matter that all reactors were not removed in certain years, was that because they were not detected, or because of a lax policy in the Department, if the Department is to leave certain reactors in herds?

Mr. Dowling.—It is not our policy to leave reactors in herds. Part of the reason that they were not detected — as well as the fact that testing may not always have been as efficient as it should have been — was that there were a number of years when we did not do full rounds. Full rounds were not done because there was not guaranteed financing. There were some years when we simply did not have the money to carry out the rounds. One of the guarantees given to ERAD on its establishment was that the finance would be guaranteed over a four year period and that it would be possible to do full rounds in each of the four years. Certain other things as well were guaranteed, such as research and tackling particular black spots.

It obviously remains to be shown whether the ERAD programme over the four years will be successful. But we believe that this is the only way in which the disease can be eradicated. There is a clear programme of full rounds over four years, the other rounds are tackled and we provide the finance to allow the programme to continue without interruption. If the planning is correct between us and ERAD then that should achieve a substantial reduction in incidence.

Deputy Connor.—Is the national herd in Ireland any more affected, infested or infected with TB than the national herds in countries within the EC with whom we trade and to whom the state of health of our national herd, in terms of trading with them, is very important?

Mr. Dowling.—The Irish national herd is free of most of the major animal diseases which periodically afflict the herds in all other Community countries, other than the United Kingdom which except for TB has a roughly similar health status to us. The incidence of TB in Ireland is higher than that in the UK or that in most of the member states on the Continent.

Deputy Connor.—To a worrying degree, would you say?

Mr. Dowling.—Yes, the continued existence of a disease like TB is worrying. It is worrying in itself and one of the reasons why the four-year programme for ERAD is in place is that it could be even more worrying after 1992. That is because there is a possibility that there could be restrictions imposed if we are not in a position to show that we have significantly improved in regard to the incidence of TB.

Deputy Connor.—Could I, with the permission of the Chair, move to brucellosis testing and the eradication of that disease? There have been some worrying outbreaks of brucellosis in the national dairy herds recently. Could you bring us up-to-date on that, Mr. Dowling?

Mr. Dowling.—Yes, the position on brucellosis is that on 31 December 1989, 424 herds were restricted with the disease. Of these, eight were actively infected. One hundred and thirty six herds were depopulated over the whole of 1989, and about 10,000 animals were removed as reactors, including in-contact animals, which would not necessarily have been reactors.

Chairman.—There are a number of Deputies offering.

Deputy Connor.—This is a position which comes from a status of being cleared or officially being cleared of brucellosis?

Mr. Dowling.—On those figures, we would still be easily officially cleared. Eight infected herds is a small number. There are a couple of areas in the country where there would appear to be some residual level of brucellosis. In order, hopefully, to eliminate it completely, ERAD has decided that, for this year, there will be a full round of brucellosis testing. In the last few years brucellosis testing has been done on the basis of a milk ring test on dairy cattle and a full blood test on beef cows. ERAD believes that, in order to consolidate the progress made — and the progress on brucellosis has been very substantial and it is eliminated now to a very large extent — they should this year do a full round of testing and that will be done.

Deputy M. Ahern.—I notice that the costs of the programme to date is estimated at £421 million up to the end of 1988. We are all well aware of the problem TB has caused in the cow herd throughout the years. There have been some animals that have been causing concern in different areas in the country and I believe that some pilot projects are being carried out, with regard to badgers specifically. Could you tell us whether the projects that are being carried out have shown any reduction in the incidence of TB in the areas from which the badger has been removed.

Mr. Dowling.—One of the residual sources of TB infection appears to be wildlife and in particular the badger. That is not to say that it is the only source, or indeed the major source. I do not think that anybody would claim that it is either of those. The ESRI did a project for ERAD, the conclusion from which was that in some areas of the country it may not be possible to eliminate TB unless the badger population is controlled and the disease in the badger dealt with. Equally, they agreed that dealing with the badger problem would not of itself solve the TB problem in any area. There is evidence from the United Kingdom, also of a clear link between the badger and the existence of TB in certain areas. ERAD had done a couple of pilot projects, most notably in east Offaly where badgers, on a sample basis, have been trapped and shot and examined for TB. A TB incidence has been found which ranges from 5 or 10 per cent to almost 50 per cent. In parts of the area where this existed and where TB breakdowns cannot be explained in other ways, there has been a programme of the elimination of badgers in a restricted area. Where that has taken place TB incidence in cattle has fallen quite dramatically. That would seem to bear out the contention that it is a residual source of infection and that it is difficult to foresee TB being completely eliminated unless the badger problem is dealt with. It is not a problem that exists everywhere in the country, nor is it a solution to all the problems of TB, but it does appear that some more intensive dealing with the badger problem in some parts of the country may be necessary if the problem is to be completely tackled.

Deputy M. Ahern.—There are the badgers and there is the unauthorised movement of animals. Unauthorised movement of animals is a big problem in the area. A combination of the control of movement and testing of animals and the control of the animals and wildlife infected with TB will control the spread of TB. That would be the answer in the long term to the problem and you will have to have everybody working together, which does not seem to have happened over the past 30 years.

Chairman.—On the question of the badger specifically, Mr. Dowling, what was the date of the report to which you referred in answer to Deputy Ahern?

Mr. Dowling.—The ESRI report?

Chairman.—Yes.

Mr. Dowling.—It was received last year, I think.

Chairman.—Because in previous sessions of this Committee, your predecessors gave evidence that at that stage there was no evidence necessarily to link the badger with TB. There is one theory, for instance, that the badger actually gets the TB from urine from cattle in the first place. What does the report say about that?

Mr. Dowling.—The report, as far as I remember, does not say that the badger did not initially get TB from bovines, but that is not provable one way or the other. What it does say is that there is evidence that the badger now constitutes in itself a source of infection for bovines. The report is relatively recent, but it is not a confidential report, so if the Committee would like to have a copy of it there is no problem in getting it.

Chairman.—I think it would be interesting to see, given the amount of money that has been spent on this area.

Deputy Rabbitte.—Just on that point, why is the badger in Northern Ireland not a carrier of TB and a source of infection in the same way? Is there something about the badger across the Border that makes him different?

Mr. Dowling.—No, but there appears to be evidence that the badger on this side of the Border is more infected with TB than in Nortern Ireland. Even in Northern Ireland, they would not say that the badger is not a problem. The argument would be that it does not appear to be as significant a problem as it is here. In Britain also there is evidence from a number of studies that the badger is a problem but again not as big a problem as it appears to be here.

Deputy Rabbitte.—I do not want to labour the point, but the fact that he is seen to be a greater problem in the Republic than in either Northern Ireland or Britain would seem to suggest that this has some connection with the fact that the herd is more infected than in either Britain or Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dowling.—Certainly, I am not arguing that the badger is the principal cause, or even a cause all over the country, but there does appear to be evidence that you cannot overlook that in certain parts of the country there is a problem of a very high incidence of TB in badgers and that does seem to be a factor in maintaining high levels, or continuing breakdowns of TB in bovines. It is not the only or even the principal cause of the problem, but it is some cause of the problem. One of the things that ERAD will have to look at is whether there is a more effective way of dealing with it in the future than we have been dealing with it in the past.

Deputy Rabbitte.—Would you say, Mr. Dowling, that the vets are a bigger cause of the problem than badgers in their performance? It is more than 30 years since we started the tuberculosis eradication scheme. How many years is it?

Mr. Dowling.—It began in the mid-fifties. I would not say that the vets are a major cause of TB. It is clear that over the years the testing has not always been as effective as it might be, but one cannot say that that is the major cause of the difficulty in eliminating TB.

You have to look at the fact that in no country has it been easy to eliminate TB. Eradication programmes have gone for decades in virtually all countries that had a TB problem and have gone on for decades here. There are particular factors in the Irish cattle economy which are almost unique in that animals move three, four and five times before slaughter. That in itself clearly makes it much more difficult to eradicate the disease than in countries where animals to a very large extent are reared to the point of slaughter on one or two farms. I would agree with the point made earlier that one of the problems that we have is the question of movement and controlling it better. Again, that is one of the issues that ERAD are now taking up — whether it is possible to control the movement of cattle better, whether the testing arrangements whereby we allow movement of animals after a 120 day test is not far too loose. There are many other ways in which the problem has to be tackled. Certainly, I would not wish to give the impression that the badger is either the main or a major problem. It is a problem. That is all that I am saying.

Deputy Rabbitte.—I agree with Mr. Dowling. I think the badger is a side issue. Can we come back to the vets for a second? Almost £1,000 million — the Comptroller and Auditor General gave us the figure in historical cost terms — has been spent on this programme and by comparison with any country that I am aware of, our performance is deplorable. Why is it that there is an expectation that the present ERAD programme will be any more successful than the botched job that we made over the last 30 years in previous programmes?

Mr. Dowling.—First of all, the figure spent was £400 million. Obviously, you can do it on a current cost basis, but that is the actual money which has been spent on the schemes. Secondly, there are quite a number of reasons that have made it difficult to eradicate TB here. A big part of it is the degree to which cattle move in Ireland and that is not true of virtually any other country that I am aware of, not just in these islands but anywhere. That makes it far more difficult to eradicate a disease which is transmittable from one animal to another. One of the other reasons is that the attempt to deal with it has not been consistent. There have been periods when not enough money was provided to allow full rounds for instance. The result of there not being full rounds is that reactors which should have been taken out of the herds were left in the herds thereby spreading disease.

One of the reasons why ERAD could be expected to be more successful is that the programme should be consistently carried out over four years. There should be full rounds every year, tackling the areas where the problem has been persistent and where there had been repeated breakdowns. The objective should be the elimination of residual sources of infection over four years. Logically, if that is done the problem should be, if not eliminated over the four years, at least well on the way to being eliminated. It remains to be seen whether in practice that approach will be successful or not.

The indications, from the experience to date, are that the first phase of the scheme at least is operating to the extent of taking out the significantly higher number of reactors that would have been expected by a consistent full round of testing. That will happen again this year. We would hope that some further improvement would be made towards removing the residual sources of infection at the beginning of this year and that in the remaining two years you would begin to see the effects of that.

Deputy Rabbitte.—Can I ask you, Mr. Dowling, why do we persist in requiring or agreeing that veterinary surgeons must carry out the tests? Why cannot the tests be carried out — tests that you have admitted and that we all know have been carried out ineffectively on occasion and on location in the past — by technicians at cheaper cost to the taxpayer?

Mr. Dowling.—They are not in fact being carried out by technicians. The programme has been worked from the beginning with the use of veterinary surgeons. I am not sure that anyone is arguing that it would be desirable to transfer that type of work to technicians. The argument about technicians was much more in relation to brucellosis than in regard to TB.

Deputy Rabbitte.—It is all part of the cost. Very clear arguments have been advanced and it is done elsewhere by technicians rather than by veterinary surgeons.

Mr. Dowling.—I am not aware that it is done in many other places by way of technicians. Certainly, the experience in these islands has always been that it has been done by veterinary surgeons and that is the case in most countries as well. I do not think that the question of employing or not employing technicians is the problem.

Deputy Rabbitte.—For example I know for a fact that brucellosis is done in Northern Ireland by technicians.

Mr. Dowling.—I said that brucellosis is a separate question. The argument about the use of technicians has almost always related to the taking of blood samples for brucellosis. The comparison is made that the taking of blood samples of humans it not necessarly always done by doctors and therefore, the taking of blood samples in cattle should not necessarily always have to be done by the equivalent of doctors either. Brucellosis is not the principal issue. It is not a major source of cost any more in any event. The major source of cost is TB, and I do not think that moving from veterinary surgeons to technicians would be a better way of dealing with the TB problem.

Deputy Rabbitte.—What comment or what credence do you give to the remarks recently by a prominent member of the veterinary profession that the ERAD scheme is as doomed to failure as what we have had heretofore?

Mr. Dowling.—No particular credence. I think that remark was probably made in specific circumstances and the person was speaking from a certain interest. I do not think there is any credence to be put to that remark.

Deputy Rabbitte.—You do accept that, apart from the damage and a threat to the industry, people who are funding the programme notwithstanding levies to the farming community are beginning to feel that it is about time that we begin to register some progress in this area and remarks like that by somebody who claims to know is deeply disconcerting because many times since the 1950s spokespersons have made similar claims that the schemes then operable would lead to the eradication of tuberculosis.

Mr. Dowling.—I accept that people are entitled to expect that if the taxpayers’ money is being put up there would be return for the money. It is the case now, however, unlike in the past, that a very significant proportion of the cost is borne by farmers. That should not mean that you should not get a result. Whether it is farmers’ money or taxpayers’ money or — as applies now — a combination of both then you should have a result. All I am saying is that the advice available to me is that the ERAD programme will, if it runs its course as set out, lead to a significant reduction in the level of tuberculosis in cattle. It is the first time, certainly, for a decade or more that there has been a consistent programme over a number of years to tackle the problem. I think it deserves the chance to see whether it is successful or not. The evidence so far is that it has started well. The result expected in the first year or so of its operation has been achieved and in the second half of the four year programme a marked improvement is expected.

Chairman.—Before I call Deputy Dennehy, Deputy Ahern, who was in already, has just one particular question on the same lines.

Deputy Ahern.—Maybe you could clarify, Mr. Dowling, the position when a herd breaks down. The tests are done by private vets and then, as far as I understand, before the herd can be cleared again, the Departmental vets have to give the clearance. So, the responsibility is basically gone from the private vet who did the original test. Are there any plans to put the responsibility on to the vets who actually do the testing to certify the clearance of the herd rather than leaving it all in the hands of the officials of the veterinary staff of the Department?

Mr. Dowling.—As I understand it, it is not intended to change that operation of the scheme. It is intended that the Department veterinarian will have a more active part in monitoring the test results over the whole country. That would be part of the second phase of the operation. So there would be as a result of that, we would hope, a more consistent approach to testing throughout the country.

Deputy Ahern.—I think that is important, because where you have the private arrangement there are times where you have a doubtful animal. The decisions might not be purely objective.

Mr. Dennehy.—On that final point, Chairman, it would appear that there are 500 or 600 private vets practising and you would probably have 50 or 60 working with the Department. It does appear to be slightly ridiculous, really, and could I say there appears to be a level of cynicism with the nonrural Deputies. Luckily, I have a 37 per cent rural area so I have some understanding. But I could expect a certain cynicism, particularly when the taxpayer was totally responsible. It does appear to be a bit of a contradiction that the private practitioner is responsible up to the point where the herd breaks down and would appear to be able to walk away from a situation. They are supposed to control a situation up to a given point and then if a herd is found to react they can walk away from it.

I would have thought that this would, perhaps, have been one of the areas where ERAD would have got some kind of co-ordinated effort from the Department and the practitioner. I find that surprising. If it is not intended to do that, it is something that should be looked at. I certainly would not like to attack any particular group of practitioners but I want to put into perspective the fact that total grants for reactors in 1988, the year we are examining, came to £7.6 million. The fees of veterinary surgeons were £14.4 million, which will give us some idea of the involvement and the scale. Because of that, we have to question exactly how we are moving. I would have hoped that there would be a totally new look at all the practices up to now. The various items that up to now have been put down as being the main source should each be dealt with as we go along.

The badger has been mentioned. I would like to say that in that area there seems to be a level of contradiction in that some people find it totally acceptable that cattle found to have TB should be pulled in and slaughtered and that the badger may not be slaughtered. There is certainly a level of contradiction there, but there is just this acceptance over the years of the killing of cattle. We should look at that. Certainly more investigation is needed. It would appear to people outside that there is very obvious involvement of the badger in this area. Wherever the badger picked up TB originally, it certainly is a source of contamination. That is accepted by almost everybody, but we are trying to produce arguments as to why the badger should not be dealt with.

I would like to know if there are going to be changes in a number of other areas. Deputy Ahern mentioned the movement of cattle, but is the sale of calves, for instance, controlled? Are the calves involved in a herd controlled? Can they be sold on? On the tagging of animals, those of us who live mainly in the city have found it difficult to understand how so many animals can lose their tags and how they can get mixed up, and so on. I do not want to appear to be cynical on this point but I would ask if there are going to be new controls in that particular area, because the inserted tag seems to work in other countries. The electronic tag would appear to be a very easy answer to this problem and I wonder if there are any proposals to introduce that here. That would be an implant at the birth of the calf. We have much testing and checking and it should be possible to use that for all milk delivery.

I would like further information on the movement permit system. I am not going to attack the Accounting Officer’s comments on the people who are involved in purchasing the computer equipment. It is to be used to control the movement permit system. This has been mentioned previously, but I would like to know exactly what we intend to do because this juggling around has been scandalous. We can understand it happening at the Border, but it is certainly much more difficult to understand it happening throughout the rest of the country. I would like to ask for some information on what I will call the control of residue. I have actually seen a situation in Cork, fairly close to the city, where blood has been spread on land. I found this incredible to accept but it seems that it is quite all right and there is no control over it, or over offal, for instance. I would like to ask if there are any proposals to deal with these areas. It is too expensive an exercise to allow these side effects to undermine the good work that is being done. There are three or four questions there to which I would like to have specific replies.

Looking at the information given, why have we such a high incidence of TB but not of other diseases in our herds? Is this pure luck or is it good practice? Have we been dealing with other areas that would control the situation? I know that we have quarantine, for instance, which would be beneficial to us, being an island, but are there any other steps being taken that make for good practice? Again, as somebody not involved in the farming area — and a question was asked by Deputy Connor about this — I would like to know, just to try to quantify it for somebody not involved, how many animals will actually have to be taken out? At this point how many animals do we envisage being taken out over the next three or four years if we are to control the situation?

Finally, after the 50 per cent — which I am assuming is a four-year target for this programme — what level do we hope to get it down to? I believe that you cannot fully eradicate the disease and I would like to know if there is a long-term target — which there should be as well as the short-term target — as the final objective. There are quite a few questions there, but it would certainly be of benefit to me, as a city person, if I could get some answers.

Mr. Dowling.—On the first question about private vets as against Department vets, the present arrangements involve some degree of checks and balances and the reason that the Department vets come in in the pre-clearance area is to ensure that there is a check and a balance is the system. I should say that ERAD are, as everybody knows, an executive office so they have a very big degree of flexibility and discretion about how they operate. In their operational functions they are entitled, subject to ministerial approval for certain things, to a certain degree of discretion. My understanding is that ERAD do not envisage changing the present arrangements that apply between private vets and Department vets, except to the extent that there will be a much more consistent monitoring by Department vets, from this year onwards, of the testing by the other veterinarians. That is an additional check and balance in the system which, in the view of ERAD, will improve the quality of testing, which is one of the issues about which there has been a perennial argument over the years.

As to whether there are other changes envisaged in operational practices, except for movement permits — an issue to which I will come back — I am not aware of immediate operational changes envisaged but ERAD, virtually on a monthly basis, review the way in which the scheme is going and make periodic changes in the methods of operation. The Deputy may take it that there will be further changes but I cannot at this stage indicate what they are because I do not know. There is a continuous monitoring of the programme and there are relatively continuous changes in the methods of operation. In regard to calves, there is a system of calf tagging which is necessary prior to movement of calves out of herds. Again, the question of tagging generally is something which has been looked at repeatedly over the years and ERAD are continuing to investigate ways in which the tagging arrangements might be made more secure. My understanding is that that is not anything like the problem now that there used to be, but they continue to look at the ways in which animals are to be tagged and the type of tags to be used.

In regard to the movement permit system, one of the problems clearly is that there is too much movement of animals within our national herd. That makes it very difficult to control the disease. That cannot be changed in the short term because that is a function of the structure of the industry, but what can be changed is to make it more secure for people who are buying animals, to ensure that they are buying animals which are not infected with TB. The present system operates on the basis that there has to be a clear test within 120 days of movement. One of the issues that ERAD are currently looking at, as an interim measure, is reducing that 120 days. In the longer term, part of the solution to the system will be the computerisation of movement permits, but that is farther away than 1990 and perhaps even beyond 1991.

In the immediate term we can improve the controls on movement by reducing the 120 days to something less, either 60 or 30, practices which were adopted in the past. I think ERAD are very likely to move to one or other of those figures. That would help to give greater security to people who are buying in animals that the animals have been tested and are clear of TB. In regard to the control of the spreading of effluent on land, my understanding is that it is not permissible to spread effluent on grassland. Also I am assured that there is no damage or no risk in spreading effluent on land which has been used for arable farming and that it is the only practice which is common.

There are controls on how offals can be used. Some traditionally and with safety and, in the main, offals go into the food chain. The large volume of offals which cannot or do not normally go into the food chain are mostly used by renderers after heat treatment for the manufacture of meat and bone meal and, in some cases, of fertiliser. The main reason we are free of the other diseases is because of effective controls against the importation of the disease from outside of the country. We are, of course helped very much by the fact that we are an island. As we have not had the diseases concerned, or at least not had them in many cases for a long time the problem falls down to preventing their importation from outside the island. Some of these diseases are also easier to handle though very expensive if you get them. For instance, on the occasions in this century when we got foot and mouth disease, perhaps the biggest scourge in the international cattle herd, we had a policy of isolation of the farms concerned and the slaughter of all the animals. That does eliminate foot and mouth disease; so, the only problem after that is, if you are an island, to prevent it coming in. We have been successful through good controls and perhaps a little bit of luck, because you can get it even with the best controls. We have not had that disease since the 1940s.

The major diseases are easier to control and the policy which we operate is largely one of slaughter for the principal diseases that can be controlled. The countries which have land frontiers with other countries do not find it as easy to control. They have tended to control the diseases with vaccination, which tends to mask the existence of the disease and, therefore, does not eradicate it.

On the number of TB reactors likely to be removed the expectation this year is for at least another 40,000. If the other parts of the programme including tackling the residual sources of infection, is successful, then we would expect the number of reactors to decline over the period after 1991. The short term objective is to have the instances of the disease under control within the four year period. The long term objective would be to eliminate the disease and the measures in place at the moment are designed, in the first instance to achieve the short to medium term objective. If that is achieved it will be a very substantial improvement. I think we would then be looking through ERAD at how we might meet a longer term objective of bringing the disease down either to zero levels or to levels which are inconsequential. But the first task is to get the disease halved.

Deputy Taylor.—In the first place, I am one of those Deputies referred to by Deputy Dennehy as representing an urban constituency. Consequently, on behalf of my constituents, I feel a degree of intense irritation about the hundreds and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money which is being spent over the years and continues to be spent on this scheme, with no visible resulting effect. Is it a fact that some countries, even in the EC, have for practical purposes abandoned any realistic efforts to control TB and bovines?

Mr. Dowling.—No, my understanding is that within the Community generally the actual achievement in terms of the instances of TB is significantly lower than here. I do not think there are any countries that have abandoned the attempts to control it. In fact, in a lot of them the problem is no longer a significant one.

Deputy Taylor.—So you are saying in some of the countries it is not a significant problem. What is the position in France? I think you will recall that the French have not been over zealous in spending money in attempting to control it.

Mr. Dowling.—Again, my understanding is that the incidence in France is extremely low.

Deputy Taylor.—Was that always so?

Mr. Dowling.—I do not think there is any country in which TB did not exist. In some countries — the United States, for instance — it was a very substantial problem. But over a big number of years they eliminated it or brought it down to very low figures and that would be true of France also. The only country that I am aware of — and this is subject to correction — in which there has been a significant change in policy is New Zealand. There they moved for a policy of elimination of the disease to one of controlling the disease. New Zealand is a country in some ways like ours in terms of cattle movement. It is also a country that has a significant wildlife problem and the current New Zealand strategy is to control the disease rather than eliminate it. Again, the attempt to control it is at very low levels. I do not know of other countries who have significantly changed their policy in modern times in regard to dealing with the disease.

Deputy Taylor.—So you are saying then that France and the United States and other countries have been successful in their efforts to control it where we have failed?

Mr. Dowling.—That the degree to which the disease has been reduced here is not as good as the degree to which it has been reduced in other countries. On this I would make two points. Firstly, it did not happen overnight in the other countries. In some cases they started significantly earlier than we did. Secondly — and I do not want to keep repeating it — there are differences in the structure of the industry here compared to other countries which make it more difficult to eliminate the disease.

Deputy Taylor.—Would it not be fair to say that we have been at it for a fair good spell now, since the mid-1950s, and that is coming up to 40 years now? We have had a fair old crack at it and we have failed and it is time now to alter the approach and have a new approach — accept the fact that we have failed, that the money is being to a large extent thrown away, those hundreds and millions of pounds, and that something new is required here now. Is it that the powers that be are not able to face up to that fact?

Mr. Dowling.—First of all, as to whether we have failed remains to be seen in terms of the current programme; and we believe in the current programme that we will not fail. You have to look at what has happened over the years. The disease has not remained static since we started. I do not have the historical figures back to the 1950s, but incidences of the disease when we started were far greater than they are now. We have substantially reduced them and we have controlled the disease over the years. The problem is that we have controlled it at a level which is above the acceptable level and the policy issued for the moment is how we get down below that level.

When you say that we should have another look at it and start again, in a way the setting up of ERAD, the arrangements under which it was set up, the financial backing for it, was a new start. It has a separate office, it has a greater degree of flexibility in how it operates and a greater degree of discretion as well as agreed and consistent funding over a four year period in order to allow consistent round tests over all of that period. That is to some extent a new beginning and if it meets its target then it will very substantially have dealt with the problem. It will have got the incidence down by any standards to a relatively low level and the question after that will be how you can get to the point where you can say that the problem is completely eliminated. In fairness, that was a new beginning.

Deputy Taylor.—It may be a new beginning by your description, but is there anything that is proposed that is qualitatively different in the plan for ERAD? Is there any qualitative difference, as distinct from quantitative difference? Is it just a more intense application of what went before, in effect, or is there something quite new in techniques of approach? Is it more of the same, only more?

Mr. Dowling.—It is a question of definition. It is certainly a more intense operation of the methods which have been applied in the past, with the exception of the attempt to tackle the sources of infection which were not tackled in the past. With that exception then, it is a more intense application of methods which have been practised in the past.

Deputy Taylor.—But the same methods of testing?

Mr. Dowling.—Yes, the methods of testing. Tests have improved over the years. The methods of tagging animals have improved over the years, as well as intensification and improvement of the methods applied in the past, but I would suggest that the idea that you could have, for a period of years, a consisent application of the methods is a qualitative difference. That did not exist, at least for periods over the last decade or more.

Deputy Taylor.—But it did exist for various periods of years since the mid-fifties, did it not? There were times when you did have the same intensity and regularity of resources and it did not work then.

Mr. Dowling.—It did not work then to the extent that you eliminated the problem. It did work then to the extent that the disease incidence was reduced.

Deputy Taylor.—Could you tell me what happens to these animals, these reactors, when they are slaughtered? When slaughtered, are they used for food, discarded, or what happens to them?

Mr. Dowling.—My understanding is that reactors are slaughtered and are, in the main, used in the food chain.

Deputy Taylor.—For food, for human consumption?

Mr. Dowling.—Yes.

Deputy Taylor.—Animals that are found to be active with TB are slaughtered and are used for food for human consumption, is that the position?

Mr. Dowling.—Animals which are reactors go into the food chain. Animals, on slaughter, are subjected to a post-mortem examination and those which show clinical signs of the disease do not go into the food chain. The big proportion of reactor animals, on slaughter, do not show any post-mortem clinical evidence of infection and they go into the food chain.

Deputy Taylor.—Is that not a source of concern, that animals that are reactors, that obviously have the infection or have the disease at some level, are being used for human consumption? Is that not a source of concern?

Mr. Dowling.—I do not think it follows that an animal which reacts is necessarily clinically tubercular. Humans who are tested for TB react and in many cases do not have TB.

Deputy Taylor.—Let us hope that they are not slaughtered.

Chairman.—I think that we can conclude on the examination of this paragraph at this stage. Obviously, Mr. Dowling, this is a paragraph which will come up from time to time. The Committee did produce a special report in 1987 or 1988 on this whole scheme, so it is one about which the Committee are very definitely concerned and will continue to monitor. I am sorry, I did not realise that Deputy Flood was indicating.

Deputy Flood.—I just want to say a few brief things. First of all, I notice that the EC made some contributions in the past. Why is it that in 1988 they made no contribution? Was it that they just got fed up supporting a scheme that was not apparently working well?

Mr. Dowling.—No, the Community gave support in the past on an ad hoc basis. That was for a number of years and was for particular projects. Once these had been done, it did not do it any more. There is not a consistent Community policy of supporting disease eradication measures. Up to now a case was made, the Community accepted the case and supported it. They are in the process of putting in place, in Brussels, a veterinary fund. A proposal is coming before the Council to set up a veterinary fund which would be used to assist countries with disease eradication measures. Whether or not we will get further help from that for the TB scheme remains to be seen. The details have yet to be worked out but it is possible that the fund will support only the eradication of diseases where there have not been programmes in place up to now. Up to this, in any event, there has not been a Community policy of supporting, on a consistent basis, eradication programmes.

Deputy Flood.—In regard to the farmers’ contributions of £22.7 million, how is that money collected?

Mr. Dowling.—It is collected by levies on animals slaughtered, animals exported and deliveries of milk to creameries, or dairies.

Deputy Flood.—So there is never really a situation where outstanding contributions would be due?

Mr. Dowling.—No, I think that it could be up-to-date.

Deputy Flood.—As a matter of interest, I see that the net cost to the State for 1988 is £5.8 million. Since the farming community are benefiting by what we are doing here, why are the levies not computed in such a way as to, at least, clear the cost to the State?

Mr. Dowling.—The setting up of ERAD as well as being what we hope is a new departure in tackling the disease in terms of the way it operates and the way in which it is funded, was also a new departure in that it got the different interests involved in the campaign together on the one board, including people representing the farmer organisations, as well as representing the veterinary side and the Department. Part of the agreement in setting up ERAD was that the State would contribute a proportion of the costs. The farmers would contribute a substantial levy which has, in fact, been increased since the establishment of ERAD, but it was part of the agreement that the State would continue to contribute and that is the position.

Deputy Flood.—Did the farmers make a contribution prior to the setting up of ERAD?

Mr. Dowling.—Not from the beginning of the scheme but for a number of years they have been making a contribution. If you look at the figures in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report they show the 1988 figure contributed by farmers as being roughly £23 million and the total contributed by farmers over the period as being £90 million. The Levies Act was passed in 1979 so they have been contributing since 1980, but they were not contributing prior to that. The scale of contributions, as is obvious from those figures, is now substantially higher and has gone higher still since the establishment of ERAD.

Deputy Flood.—With regard to reactor prices, if an animal is found to be a reactor how is the price of that reactor arrived at — in other words, the grant that is going to be paid to the farmer?

Mr. Dowling.—The board of ERAD review reactor grants periodically and make recommendations to the Minister who fixes the rates of payment. The idea is that the reactor grant should compensate farmers for the difference between the value of the animal on slaughter and the cost of a replacement animal. That is done on an average basis so not necessarily every farmer would get the difference between the two, but on average, it should make up the difference.

Deputy Flood.—In relation to co-operation with Northern Ireland agriculture, is that a very essential part of the scheme and how is it working?

Mr. Dowling.—Co-operation on all animal health matters between us and Northern Ireland is probably closer than the co-operation in any other area. The veterinary authorities in my Department and the veterinary authorities in the Northern Ireland administration meet at least once a month and sometimes far more often than once a month. They meet to review how different policies are operating, to see whether there is anything unusual in regard to cross-Border movements. The information in regard to what happens in disease eradication programmes and other veterinary programmes are freely and regularly passed, both on a formal and informal basis between both sides.

Deputy Flood.—What is the position in Northern Ireland by comparison to the South with regard to infected herds?

Mr. Dowling.—I have not got the precise Northern Ireland figures but they are significantly less than ours.

Deputy Flood.—Why would that be? Do they do things differently there?

Mr. Dowling.—No, they have had much the same type of eradication system in the North as we have had but, again, there is the significant difference in animal movement in the Northern system compared to ours.

Chairman.—Just to conclude on this particular paragraph, we will, I am sure, be kept informed by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the situation and obviously there is ongoing concern about the level of expenditure. Hopefully, the programme will start to have success and we will continue to monitor it. As I said, we did a special report on this whole area.

It is now 12.35 p.m. and we have a long way to go in this examination. So, as agreed at the beginning, I propose to adjourn further consideration of Agriculture at this stage and to bring you back on one particular day completely on your own, Mr. Dowling. We shall try to finish the examination on a day when we do not have anybody else in or any other report to consider, because we will not get finished today since there is quite a lot of business remaining. In any event, a major Department such as Agriculture rarely gets away with one examination.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* Up to August 1976 reactors were purchased by the Department and disposed of to meat factories by contract sale. From that date herdowners themselves dispose of reactors and are paid grants from the Vote.