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.