Sir, - I refer to your editorial (January 17th) on "Minister and vets". This editorial contains the quite extraordinary statement that the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Yates, has shown his political mettle by devising proposals which drive a wedge between farmers and vets. As it happens this is not true. The reservations which the Irish Veterinary Union have expressed about the Minister's proposals are shared in whole or part by the ICMSA, Macra na Feirme, the Irish Cattle and Stock Breeders Association and significant sections of the Irish Farmer's Association whose animal health chairman was driven to resignation over the proposals. Indeed a letter appearing in The Irish Times on the day following your editorial from a livestock farmer reinforced the fact that there are substantial misgivings about the Minister's proposals among farmers.
In any event it is rather odd that The Irish Times would regard it as any sort of positive political indicator that a Minister should drive a wedge between two parties whose co operation is essential to the success of the TB Eradication Scheme.
Secondly, you also say that the sheer scale of public money that the scheme has absorbed is indefensible. If I could refer you to an article which appeared in The Irish Times on January 13th the following statement appears: "The Scheme has cost an estimated £1.5 billion which one recent report adjudged good value for money from a trading and public health view point." Rather than being indefensible the investment in this industry (which generates sales of an estimated £2 billion) is entirely defensible. When talking about the scale of this industry the cost of being caught in the wash of the British BSE scare is estimated to have been £40 million in Germany alone. So in assessing what you describe as cost efficient alternatives, there is a very serious danger that one could end up being penny wise pound foolish here.
The savings to farmers as a consequence of the reduction in levies (which have been grossly overestimated by the IFA and the Minister) will count for absolutely nothing if serious damage were to be done to, the high health status of Ireland's national herd as a result of any increase in disease levels in this country.
Many people are also seriously concerned that the Minister's optimistic reliance on individualism in this project will in fact only lead to an increase in disease levels. Extraordinarily, even when the editorial agrees with our criticism (and that of the organisations listed above) about the abolition of the pre movement test you dismiss this as a matter which could be "refined" in the course of the TB Forum which the Minister has convened. I'm afraid to say that experience of previous for a would suggest otherwise. The abolition of the pre movement test and its contribution to disease is precisely assessible and predictable now. The Minister's faith in market forces and voluntary testing is simply not a credible position.
The issue here is not whether or not the TB Scheme should be reformed. There is no one who disagrees with this view. However, you should not confuse reform of the payment system with reform of the scheme. Your editorial seems to believe that movement is more important than direction. One really has to wonder whether The Irish Times either understands or is seriously concerned about the future of the TB Scheme.
Finally, this editorial and an article which appeared in your paper on January 13th have struck a most unhelpful and unfair toned of confrontation about the TB Scheme. Reform of the TB Scheme is desirable and possible. However, it can only achieved by involving all those who have a contribution to make as equal partners in the scheme. The Minister's track record of public hostility to veterinary practitioners since his elevation to office and his exclusion of them from discussions on the TB Scheme are indefensible. The IVU is entitled to exactly the same input to the formation of proposals which it will be expected to implement as any other interested party. The Minister's current policy has two effects. It is angering and alienating veterinary practitioners from his policies and more importantly it is denying him the specialist veterinary and scientific knowledge vital to the success of any TB eradication or control strategy. - Yours, etc.,
General Secretary,
Irish Veterinary Union,
IVU House
Kenilworth Square, Dublin 6.