asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will outline his Department's proposals to eliminate bovine tuberculosis.

The present strategy for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis is based on an annual round of testing of herds. Reactor herds are subjected to repeated tests and herds contiguous to them are specially tested as a precautionary measure. Programmes of special check tests are carried out in badly-infected areas. These measures are supplemented by a requirement that cattle over six weeks of age must have passed a TB test in the previous 30 days before movement out of a herd.

I will be reviewing this strategy and the overall operation of the scheme in the light of the progress achieved at the end of the present round of testing which is due to finish early in the new year.

This scheme, which is in its twenty-ninth year, has cost in excess of £117.6 million.

Has the Deputy a question?

Is the Minister satisfied with the situation having regard to the fact that in 20 out of the 26 countries last year there was an increase in the incidence of TB?

I am not satisfied that the rate of progress in the eradication of TB is satisfactory, though the progress in the eradication of brucellosis is satisfactory. It has been very successful but we are not content at all with the manner in which the disease eradication programme has progressed. The incidence of TB amongst herds is 2.25 per cent. For the round test for 1981-82, when the last full round took place, the incidence was 2.76 per cent. The 1980-81 round test indicated herd incidence of 2.11 per cent which is just less than the current figure.

County Kerry was granted special status for TB testing and I should like to know if the Minister is satisfied with the testing carried out in that county by the young vets sent out by the Department? I recommended to the Minister that he get local vets to do the testing. Is the Minister aware that the testing carried out by Department vets was unsatisfactory and had to be carried out a second time?

We are thoroughly dissatisfied with the problem that has arisen in Kerry. We designated Kerry as a special status zone last June but it never worked because of a number of difficulties. There has not been agreement between my Department and the two veterinary unions concerned. I intend to have a look at the matter to see if I can resolve the problem. It is unsatisfactory.

I suggest that there would be better results if the two tests were carried out by local vets who do all tests rather than by the Department vets who have been carrying out the second test.

I will examine that suggestion. We discussed the matter privately and I had hoped that we could come to some arrangement that would be satisfactory to veterinary surgeon interests and everybody concerned.

Has the Minister identified the cause of the failure of the scheme and if so what does he intend to do about it?

On a point of information, I should like to know if the Minister is confining his reply to Question No. 17?

Yes.

Deputy Byrne's question does not arise because it was not mentioned in question No. 17. There are a lot of theories as to the reason for the incidence of TB.

Will the Minister expound on some of the theories?

I will not expound on something not mentioned in the question.

The question was about the eradication of TB in cattle.

I will answer the question if the Deputy puts one down.

Does the Minister know the answer?

Of course I know the answer?

Would the vet strike have had anything to do with it?

What vet strike?

What about former Deputy Mark Clinton? The Minister has a short memory.

That is history.

What disciplinary action does the Minister intend to take against Deputy Kenny for making such inflammatory statements against our meat industry?

That question is not in order.

Deputy Kenny is not the Minister for Agriculture.

The way things are going on the Government side one would not know whether he is or not.

If we had more Deputies over there of the calibre of Deputy Kenny the House would be a better place. He did not do any damage.

The Minister said that the test must be carried out prior to movement from a herd and I should like him to give information to the House on whether a number of herds have not had a test carried out on the entire herd. In other words, the test was carried out on only those likely to be moved with the result that some of the herd was not tested. Has the Minister any evidence of that?

I do not have any evidence of that.

Is the Minister satisfied with the serum used for the testing process? My experience is that some cattle sent to the factory as reactors were found on examination not to have any lesions. There is something radically wrong with the testing process and the Minister should carry out a full scale inquiry into the testing procedure.

Has the Deputy something to offer?

I have. I have more experience in that field than the Minister.

I am asking the Deputy a serious question.

The Minister has been in office for 12 months and he has not done anything about this problem.

I asked the Deputy if he had something to offer because I have not been told that there is an alternative serum.

The Minister does not have anything to offer.

If the Minister wants advice he should contact the officials of his Department about the serum.

Has the Deputy something to suggest?

Yes.

The Deputy should resume his seat and the Minister should answer the next question.

18.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if, in view of the enormous cost to taxpayers, the great hardship to farmers and the health hazard to humans caused by the failure of the campaign to eliminate TB in cattle, he will now review the whole campaign and specify a date when TB will be finally eradicated.

I do not accept that the campaign to eliminate TB in cattle has been a failure although it may have been unsatisfactory in many aspects. Since the scheme was introduced in 1954 significant progress has been achieved. Incidence of TB in cattle has been reduced from 17 per cent to 0.2 per cent. It is important that we do not get confused about the number of cattle affected and the number of herds affected. The incidence of herds affected is more than 2 per cent but the incidence of cattle affected is 0.2 per cent. The Exchequer costs of the scheme must be related to this progress which guarantees for our cattle continued access to British, European and many other markets. In addition the risks to human health from bovine TB have been greatly reduced.

In line with the experience in other countries which have carried out eradication programmes, the elimination of the final residues of TB infection is proving difficult. Therefore, with a view to speeding up the eradication process I have already made arrangements to review all aspects of the bovine tuberculosis scheme when the current round of testing ends early in the new year.

I should like to commend the Minister for taking the positive step of reviewing the scheme. I should like to know what the Minister views as failures. The scheme set out to eradicate bovine TB but it has not been eradicated after almost 30 years. Surely the Minister will agree that that amounts to a failure. Is the Minister aware the Exchequer costs, updated to 1983 figures, would amount to £1,000 million? Does the Minister consider that such expenditure was worthwhile as far as farmers, taxpayers and consumers are concerned, the losers in all this? Is there a racket in the whole scheme and whose racket is it?

I will not deny my own suspicion that there is a certain amount of sharp practice, but it is unfair to lump everybody involved into that accusation. Virtually all farmers are anxious to have the disease eradicated and the majority of vets are of the same view. They mean to do a good job. However, there have been abuses of this scheme and a television programme on the subject about six months ago indicated some of the obvious sources of abuse. I will be looking at that in the course of my review. I should like to tell the Deputy that I am not competent to give an up-to-date cost. The figure given by the Deputy is an estimate. The determination of the cost in today's financial terms is better left to the Minister for Finance. I do not think it could be said that the scheme was a failure although I accept it has not been as satisfactory as it should have been. The statistics quoted at the outset qualify that statement. In 1954 the incidence of TB in cattle was 17 per cent and today it is 0.2 per cent. That was a considerable reduction.

Will the Minister tell the House what significance we should attach to the fact that the allocation in the Estimates for the scheme has been reduced by 11 per cent? Does that amount to a lowering of the commitment or the priority of the scheme.

I would not say that. We expect to do the same work in a more efficient manner.

(Limerick West): I agree that reasonable progress has been made under the scheme.

Very good progress.

(Limerick West): If the Deputy wishes to make a speech I will give way to him.

If he makes a speech it will be his first.

No more than Deputy Byrne who has been like a parrot for the last 12 months.

(Limerick West): Is the Minister aware that in certain pockets there has been a severe outbreak of the disease? Have the Department carried out any investigation to determine the cause with a view to eliminating it?

We are constantly doing that.

(Limerick West): Is there any reason for it?

We are constantly looking at the problem but total eradication is not easy. We are particularly worried about people who are suffering severe hardship as a result of outbreaks and we have included an extra £1 million in the 1984 Estimates to cater for such people.

Has the Minister considered the effects of wild animals, foxes, badgers and so on?

We have.

Question Time for today is concluded. As this is the last day for questions before we adjourn for Christmas, written replies will be given to the remaining questions. If any Deputy wishes to have his questions placed on the Order Paper for oral answers after the recess he should notify the General Office before 5 p.m. today.