asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will increase the compensation paid for brucellosis reactors, in line with the compensation paid for TB reactors.

Compensation paid for reactors slaughtered under the brucellosis eradication scheme in the free and clearance areas is already the same as that paid for reactors slaughtered under the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme.

If however the Deputy has in mind the rates of grant payable under the pre-intensive brucellosis scheme operated in the southern counties I would like to point out that, as this is a voluntary scheme with much less rigid conditions, it would not be appropriate to bring theses rates into line with those applicable under the compulsory eradication schemes.

Does the Minister not consider that in regard to brucellosis in the pre-intensive areas it is essential to decrease the incidence of disease in that particular area before he goes on with the other scheme? Can the Minister tell us the number of tested animals that are being held in the area as a result of poor compensation?

I do not believe that the withholding of cattle tested under the pre-intensive scheme is extensive because it is a voluntary scheme. The scheme operates for the advantage of people who want to prepare themselves for the time when their area becomes a clearance area. There is no real comparison between the pre-intensive area and the clearance area. It is in the herd owner's own interest and for his benefit that this voluntary pre-intensive scheme is operated. People do not participate unless they find the terms acceptable. It should be obvious to every herd owner in the pre-intensive area that the sooner they get at the business of tackling the brucellosis infection in their herds the sooner they will be clear and the sooner the country will be clear.

Have the Minister's Department a figure for the number of animals held in the herds that are tested? Is it not in the interests of the Department in the pre-intensive areas that the people would get rid of those brucellosis animals rather than retain them?

That is the eventual purpose of the pre-intensive identification of reactor cattle. There is no obligation, as there is in the case of the intensive eradication area, to make an immediate elimination of the cattle identified as reactors. Deputy D'Arcy was looking for the number of cattle which were withheld. That is not the question he asked. If he puts down a question of that kind I imagine it will be difficult to arrive at an answer with any kind of precision. If he cares to put down that question, which has no direct relationship to the question before the House, I will be glad to answer it.

Is the Minister aware that because it is difficult to get as good a price for TB reactors as it is for brucellosis reactors, because of the marketing restrictions which exist in relation to TB reactors, there is a case for giving a higher rate of compensation equivalent to about 10p a pound for TB reactors as against brucellosis reactors? Would he consider increasing the rate of compensation in view of that? Will he state if he has any plans to accelerate in any way the pre-intensive brucellosis eradication?

The Deputy will be aware that there has been a marked acceleration in the progress of the disease eradication scheme, as is borne witness to by the most recent figures from the Department of Agriculture. He will also be aware that the compensation rates for reactors taken out under both the brucellosis and TB schemes was increased substantially on 16 January last. The Deputy must be further aware that the utter reliance on the Department of Agriculture for the elimination of either brucellosis or TB cannot be supported any longer, that there must be active participation by herd owners. I am sure we are getting it.

Would the Minister not agree that the figures he referred to relate to the clearance areas and not the intensive areas in that he did not give any information in reply to the question he was asked. Would he answer the question I asked in relation to the lesser salvage value of TB reactors and the justification for a higher rate of compensation for them?

No, I do not accept that there are grounds of which I am aware for a differentiation in the rate of compensation for reactors under the brucellosis scheme as against the TB scheme. The two diseases are quite separate. It is more unusual to get a severe outbreak of TB reactors in a herd than it is to get a severe outbreak of brucellosis reactors in a herd. The Deputy will be aware of the consequences of a brucellosis storm that can go right through a herd. It does also happen in TB cases where there has been severe neglect, introduction of new animals and so on or, in another way, possibly people becoming unwitting victims of malpractices within the disease eradication scheme itself. It is by no means simple. I do not accept the point made by Deputy Bruton and Deputy D'Arcy that there are grounds for a differentiation in the compensation paid in the pre-intensive scheme.

You cannot export TB reactors or brucellosis reactors. Therefore, the value is not as good.

I am aware of that, but they can be exported in certain forms.

It makes a difference to the price.

The sooner we stop codding ourselves about the eradication of disease and stop quibbling about the differentiation in compensation, the better. That will not get rid of disease.

The Minister may be codding himself but he is not codding anybody else.

There was almost a doubling of reactor herds in the last three-and-a-half or four years in this country by the sheer abandonment of disease eradication. I do not feel disposed to accept the advice of people who caused that abandonment.

Arising from what the Minister has said and from the optimism he is endeavouring to create because of the results of early testing——

The preamble is unnecessary.

Is the Minister aware of the fact that the same picture emerged in the early testing in 1977 and that that deteriorated substantially before the end of that year, that we may be creating false optimism by saying there is this wonderful improvement we all want to see?

I warned in the public statement I put out about the most recent figures of disease eradication that there are no grounds at all for undue optimism. I would expect also that, with the intensification of eradication measures, the up-take of reactors would increase. I hope it does, and that will be the most effective way to deal with disease eradication. It is my intention to get some real movement into this scene which has been inactive for too long; it has been inactive for a decade.

Once again I call Question No. 18.