Eileen Lynch (Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister. I welcome his commitment to try to maintain ring-fenced funding through CAP. It is important that the funding is just for CAP. There are proposed measures that would include environment funding and we need to be strongly against that. I welcome the Minister's commitment in that regard.

I will speak about TB, which I appreciate has been mentioned by many other speakers. It is a massive threat and is of concern to our agricultural industry at the moment. It has been somewhat ignored or left to the side by previous Ministers for agriculture. I commend the Minister for taking it on. His five-point plan is incredibly ambitious. There will be tough measures in it and it is important we make the right tough decisions as opposed to the wrong ones. I have some queries and concerns.

On pre-movement testing, I feel 30 days is cumbersome for farmers. They will be driven to send their cows to the factory rather than the mart. We must ensure a positive pre-movement plan for farmers. I completely accept that the current 12-month requirement is far too long but a 30-day pre-movement test is probably too short a timeframe. To the best of my knowledge, culled cows are included in that requirement for a 30-day pre-movement test. I do not see why they should be when, in general, culled cows are being bought at a mart and sold to a factory or sent to a feedlot. There is no further movement with them in the vast majority of cases.

The proposal for special sales in respect of animals that are locked up is welcome. I am concerned that a monopoly is being allowed because of the lack of feedlot herd numbers. Will there be a mechanism in place to increase and encourage the issuance of feedlot herd numbers?

We should have more licensed agents working to purchase cattle in marts over dealer numbers. With the risk of the inter-farm transfer of TB, it is important that animals go from the mart directly to where they are meant to go.

There is a proposed two- to three-year restriction on herds after a clear test. That is incredibly restrictive and burdensome for farmers. It shows a distrust of our testing system to date. I have several concerns linked to derogation. I will take the two issues together. Under the current derogation, if you are in derogation but are also locked up, so derogation due to force majeure, essentially, you get your exemption. In that case, if you have your two clear tests and your derogation exemption, because you have a high-risk herd you are restricted for a further two or three years, or whatever the proposal is. During that period, do you still have your derogation exemption? Does that exemption apply if you are restricted for a further two or three years after your clear tests?

For farmers who are in derogation and locked up, their stocking rates may go down. When they subsequently try to rebuild their herd again, have they the ability to go back into derogation if they have gone out of it because their stocking number reduced while they were locked up?

I do not know if a figure is available because I have not seen it, but obviously the predominance of TB is in dairy herds. The dairy animal is under a lot more stress than those that are organically farmed or those sucklers, cows for beef farming, culled cows, etc. Do we know how many of the farmers who are locked up are in derogation? I appreciate we have a breakdown in terms of dairy, beef, etc., but in terms of those who are locked up, how many are in derogation or do we have a percentage for that?