asked the Minister for Agriculture if compensation for tuberculosis and brucellosis will be substantially increased throughout the country to compensate for the enormous losses incurred.

All aspects of our existing bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication schemes, including the level of reactor grants, are currently being reviewed in the context of the EEC proposals for extension of the accelerated disease eradication programmes which were agreed recently in the Council of Ministers.

Is it correct that at a meeting in Portumna on Monday night, the Minister for Agriculture stated that he proposed to increase reactor compensation from £130 to £250?

That is incorrect.

Will the Minister then indicate to the House exactly what he did say in regard to the increase in reactor compensation?

I issued a very full statement yesterday that sets out the position. I might as well read some of the salient points for the benefit of the House. The facts of the matter are that there is a revision of both the grants aspect and the administration of the disease eradication programme as a whole being undertaken at present in conjunction with the EEC. I have had recommendations from the Animal Health Council in regard to this matter. I referred to their recommendations and to the fact that this whole matter is currently under very active review.

Sir, would it be correct to say that questions started before the bells rang?

There was a slight problem in the House which your Whips would appreciate, that because of the fact that agreement had not yet been reached as to what would follow, we wanted to avoid confusion that might arise between Question Time bells and a bell for the division.

I do not wish to delay the House but I have a series of questions down and I do not know if they have been answered.

We are only on Question No. 1, Deputy.

Well, I did not know that.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I was waiting on the bells and when the bells went, I came in here but the question had been answered.

The question is being answered at present and supplementary questions are being taken on it.

Could the Minister repeat his reply for my benefit. I should like to hear his reply.

If the Chair might explain, the Chair is at the mercy of Deputies and their Whips. If, in deference to an agreement that has been worked out and having regard to the confusion that might be caused by a Question Time bell preceding a division bell, the bells were delayed a minute. I think Deputies will have to appreciate that one cannot cater for every individual Deputy in circumstances in which an effort is being made to cater for the wishes of the House. If the Minister is disposed to repeating his reply, I will be happy to call on him.

There is no difficulty. I shall repeat the reply which read as follows:

All aspects of our existing bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication schemes, including the level of reactor grants, are currently being reviewed in the context of the EEC proposals for extension of the accelerated disease eradication programmes which were agreed recently in the Council of Ministers.

Following the Minister's commitment given in Portumna no later than the other night, would he tell the House if he is prepared to honour the commitment of £5 million for disease eradication and reactor compensatory increases?

There is no question of a commitment. There is a question of a very active review that is proceeding at present, which is not particular news because we have already had a discussion at the Council of Ministers in regard to it. As I said in my reply, it is proposed to have an accelerated scheme, stepping up the whole programme of disease eradication. This will have two aspects, first a revision of the grants, and, second, a revision of the whole operation of the programme. I have had recommendations from the Animal Health Council and these are being considered as well in the course of this review. This matter was dealt with fully by me in a statement which I issued yesterday from which I have just quoted some of the salient factors before the Deputy came in. If the Deputy likes, I will read the statement out. It is a short statement and I quote:

The Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Brian Lenihan, T. D., today commented on press reports about increasing the grants for reactors slaughtered under the disease eradication schemes. The Minister said that the existing rates of reactor grants had been fixed in 1978 and he was fully aware of the difficulties being experienced by farmers in certain areas. The rates of grants were currently being reviewed in the context of the extension of our disease acceleration programme for a further two years. He had also received recommendations from the Animal Health Council about the revision of the grants which are very helpful and would be taken into account.

— and they will be taken into account. Then, a final sentence:

He expected that this review of the grants and of the disease eradication programme would be completed very shortly.

Might I ask the Minister if the recommendations he has received from the Animal Health Council are the same ones to which he referred last Monday night?

As far as the recommendations of the Animal Health Council are concerned, they are round about those figures. The Animal Health Council have made these recommendations. There is the accelerated disease eradication programme, of which the Deputy is well aware. All of these matters are being considered in a very active way at present; this is current business.

I asked the Minister if the recommendations he received from the Animal Health Council are the same as the ones to which he referred last Monday night?

I was only referring to the Animal Health Council recommendations. I was not referring to any commitment on my part in this matter; there was no commitment on my part.

Is the Minister saying that the recommendations which he received from the Animal Health Council on Monday night and which, on Monday night, he began by saying he accepted and subsequently denied, are they the recommendations he is now considering?

The Deputy must be well aware, because he was present, that when I spoke on this matter on Monday night I made it quite plain that any increase in this area would have to be in the overall budgetary context and that I would certainly keep under review recommendations from bodies like the Animal Health Council, decisions taken within the Council of Ministers as to what help we could get from the EEC in regard to stepping up the programme. All of these aspects are under very active review at present. That is all I am saying, no more and no less that that.

A Cheann Comhairle——

We have already had six supplementaries on this question.

The Minister is evading the question.

I am not.

Is the Minister not aware that on Monday night last there were 400 to 500 people who clearly understood him to say that he accepted the recommendations of the Animal Health Council? Might I ask him further if he does not remember that his Minister of State, Deputy Cowen, at the end of the meeting went so far as to congratulate the Minister on having given the commitment he gave? Is the Minister not aware, following that, that there is a great deal of expectation that he might now change his mind again, having changed it once on Monday night?

I did not make the statement that the Deputy has just said.

The Minister of State did.

I said that every consideration would be given to them.

The Minister of State joined Senator Ferris in expressing the fact that he was very glad that the Minister had given this commitment. I am asking the Minister if those commitments related to the specific recommendations of the Animal Health Council and if those recommendations are the same ones to which he referred on Monday night?

This is a very serious matter.

Just one last supplementary on that.

I am allowing Deputy O'Keeffe a final supplementary.

Does the Minister for Agriculture realise that his name is now a joke in East Galway as a result of the way he carried on in Portumna last Monday night?

That will be decided next Tuesday.

Deputy O'Keeffe is now entering into the area of argument. Would the Deputy please ask a final supplementary question.

Could the Minister now indicate to the House clearly and unequivocally — if it is possible for him to speak in that manner — what increases he proposes to give by way of payment for reactors?

I have answered that on several occasions, that this whole matter is being examined by me in conjunction with the Animal Health Council——

(Cavan-Monaghan): Under active current consideration.

——in conjunction with the European Commission, with the Council of Ministers. Agreement in principle has been reached within the Council of Ministers to have what they call this accelerated programme for which we can get some help from the Commission. All of these matters are being actively considered at this moment.

So there is no increase in the pipeline.

A Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together.

A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order——

Deputy, if this is not a point of order, I will declare you disorderly and you will be suspended from the House. So it had better be a point of order.

That is a bit unfair.

Deputy, if you are questioning me, I will tell you there has been abuse of this——

I asked to come in on a number of supplementaries——

I am not responsible if a number of the Deputy's colleagues travel the question for him. You are not entitled to a certain number of supplementaries. If I feel the question has been adequately answered I will proceed to the next question. I would prefer if the Deputy would not pursue that now. I am moving to the next question. The Deputy is holding up the business of the House.

The Chair cannot be intimidating again.

I am not satisfied with this situation, and it is not the first time it has happened. I propose to raise the subject matter of the discussion on the Adjournment.

The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.

2.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis in full in Ireland is an attainable objective; and, if not, the level of disease incidence which would be considered sufficiently low by him to enable him to say that the eradication programme for brucellosis and tuberculosis had been successful.

3.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if there is any estimate in his Department of the date by which bovine tuberculosis and bovine brucellosis will be eradicated in Ireland; and, if no estimate has been made of the date of likely eradication, if he is satisfied that there is a sufficiently precise target available against which to measure the success of the Department's programme for the eradication of these diseases.

4.

asked the Minister for Agriculture the arrangements that will be made to redeploy staff, both technical and general, now engaged in the eradication of bovine brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis, when the eradication programme has been completed.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, together.

Bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis have been fully eradicated in many other countries and I see no reason why the eradication campaigns here should not also prove successful. Having regard to the present rate of progress it is estimated that brucellosis is likely to be eradicated within the next five years, and that the incidence of bovine tuberculosis can also be reduced significantly by the end of that period. Complete eradication of the latter disease may, however, take somewhat longer.

The possibilities for redeployment of staff will be kept under review in the light of progress towards completion of the eradication programme.

Will any staff be available for redeployment in five year's time when, as the Minister expects, brucellosis will have been eradicated?

Yes, that obviously makes sense. The whole disease eradication programme is part of the same division within the Department, and some such redeployment as the Deputy has suggested would be the logical thing to do in the ordinary administrative process.

Will the Minister not consider that in order to give a degree of seriousness to the Government's intention to eradicate both these diseases in the first instance plans should be drawn up now for the redeployment of staff, even for five years hence, on the basis that that will show that the Government are seriously intent on dealing with this matter? Is the Minister happy that there is not any precise target in regard to the eradication of tuberculosis?

In regard to the latter part of the Deputy's question I should like to state that when replying to the last question I was referring to the updated acceleration programme with the help of the EEC. We have made a start this year from our own resources by initiating blitz programmes in certain areas of high incidence with a view to tackling the high incidence rates that have survived over the years. I will take on board the Deputy's suggestion about the urgent redeployment of staff from one disease eradication programme which is reaching finality to one where there are difficulties. I will have it investigated.

Will the Minister agree in regard to the continued high incidence, particularly of tuberculosis, and the expenditure this year of £24 ½ million on tuberculosis and brucellosis, that the manner in which these moneys have been expended, particularly in the area of brucellosis in the last 12 years, is a source of serious scandal and a gross abuse of Exchequer moneys? It was spent in appallingly bad efforts to eliminate these two serious diseases.

I should like to put the record right. We have been fairly successful in regard to brucellosis ——

I accept that.

—— and one can see finality there, but the other one is presenting difficulties. At present we are experimenting with this blitz idea — I will take Deputy Bruton's suggestion aboard with regard to the redeployment of staff — and we want other matters, such as EEC aid to step up the scheme considered. We also want to review grants. All those aspects are currently under examination.

Will the Minister not agree that £68 million net has been spent in the past 12 years in an effort to eradicate brucellosis and we still have a relatively high incidence — I accept that it is declining at long last? Will the Minister agree that we have spent £125 million net over the period of eradication of tuberculosis? The way these moneys were expended, even the way those moneys are being expended today — leaving aside elements of compensation — in any other country would result in a public judicial inquiry as to the way politicians directed the money and the way the money was handled. Will the Minister in all conscience agree that the situation has been appalling?

Of course the situation has not been as successful in regard to bovine T.B. as we would wish, but the expenditure on brucellosis eradication was fully justified because that has been a successful campaign. Spending the money is important in regard to a disease of this kind.

£70 million? It could have been done for £20 million, and the Minister is aware of that.

Is there any connection whatever between the growth in the incidence of human tuberculosis and the continued high levels of bovine tuberculosis?

That is a separate question and it is an area in which no conclusions have been reached, even by medical people.

Will the Minister agree that there has been a disquieting increase in human tuberculosis?

I would not like to comment on that.

5.

asked the Minister for Agriculture the total cost to the Exchequer of the schemes to eradicate brucellosis and tuberculosis in the national herd since these schemes were initiated.

The net cost to the Exchequer of the bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication schemes, exclusive of administration costs, to 31 December 1981 was £170.4 million.

What is the figure inclusive of administration costs?

I do not have the figure for administration costs but I can get it for the Deputy.

I asked the Minister for the total cost. I did not exclude administration. The Minister should have that information available.

I can give the Deputy that figure, it is £240.5 million, the total net cost being £170.4 million.

Given that the Minister has indicated that he expects to eradicate brucellosis over the next five years and that very substantial progress in regard to tuberculosis has been made in the same period, although it will not be eradicated, will the Minister indicate what he expects to be the further cost to the Exchequer between now and the date of the eradication?

That is precisely what we are doing in regard to the acceleration programme I mentioned. We are drawing up new costings and a new scheme to operate over the next two years. We will be looking at the reactor compensation grants and so on. I will be in a better position to give the Deputy a definitive answer on that in about two months time.

Will the Minister have the projected costs?

Yes.

In regard to the £240 million which the Minister mentioned — an incredible figure — I should like to know how much money was spent on fees to the profession involved during that period?

I do not have a breakdown.

Will the Minister agree that the amount of money concerned, relative to the number of animals and personnel involved, is a very striking one and that it should be on the public record?

I will be glad to put it on the public record.

It is known; I had a written reply about it.

I am talking about today.

We must move on to the next question.

In the light of the figures disclosed by the Minister he should give the figure I have requested.

The Deputy should ask for it in the proper manner, like Deputy Bruton did.

I have asked the Minister for the information.

We must move to question No. 6.