asked the Minister for Agriculture the countries of origin of calf tags which qualify for the EEC calf subsidy; if he is aware how faulty these tags are; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

16.

asked the Minister for Agriculture the countries of origin of calf-tagging pliers which qualify for the EEC calf subsidy.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 16 together. The eartags are manufactured in the Netherlands and the tagging pliers in this country.

Reports received from the suppliers and the AI bodies who sell the tags and pliers to farmers indicate that the problem mentioned by the Deputy stems from incorrect use. Of two million tags supplied to AI bodies, only 40 were returned to the suppliers and all of these were found to have been applied incorrectly. Of 26,500 pliers supplied to date, 80 were returned and replaced. These figures do not suggest inferior quality products.

Each tagging pliers is accompanied by an instruction leaflet and, in addition, the AI bodies will demonstrate to farmers buying or renting the pliers how to operate them correctly.

I stand over my question fully and I refute the reply that only 40 tags were returned. These tags were a total failure. It was not possible to tag calves with them. Can the Minister say why the tags did not bear any indication of the country of origin?

I cannot answer that part of the Deputy's question relating to the country of origin. What he says is news to me. Regarding the first part of his question, the information I have from the Department of Agriculture is that only 40 of these tags were returned and that we have had only one official complaint on the matter.

I could produce more than 40 of these defective tags.

The Deputy must not bring them in here.

Is it not a disgrace that we should be importing both the pliers and the tags? Surely there is only low technology involved in the production of these commodities. Any of our small engineering works must be capable of producing pliers. Would the Minister agree that this sort of situation stems from a lack of co-operation between the various Departments? Should the Department of Agriculture mot be in contact with the IDA to ensure that such items as pliers are on their list for manufacture?

The Deputy may have misheard me. I said that the pliers being used for tagging are manufactured in this country while the ear tags are manufactured in the Netherlands. One Irish manufacturer supplied a sample ear tag to the Department of Agriculture but as this was found not to be tamper proof, it could not be used. I agree that every effort should be made to have the tags manufactured here.

Can the Minister say whether the tags being used are tamper proof and is he aware that a tamper proof tag was patented by an Irishman but that the Department showed no interest in the product?

The tag being used is tamper proof and, as I have said, the one sample provided by an Irish manufacturer was found not to be tamper proof.

Why is there no indication as to the country of origin on the tags being used?

We have had that question already.

In reply to the Deputy, I do not have the slightest idea but I will make inquiries in the matter.

Is the Minister not aware that a tamper proof tag was patented by an Irishman and offered to the Department? Is he aware also that the Irishman concerned is able to demonstrate clearly that the tag being used is not tamper proof?

As I have stated already, I am not so aware.

The Minister should consult with officials of the Department because it appears that somebody is leading somebody astray.

The brief I have before me was prepared by officials of the Department. I would be only too willing to consult with Deputy Byrne concerning the person whom the Deputy has manufactured a tamper-proof tag.