Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Professor More for this document, which as others have said is very detailed. It goes to the core of the problem. I was looking up a few things and I noticed a delegation from Animal Health New Zealand visited Ireland and Britain in 2008 to speak about how successful New Zealand had been in this area and the measures that could be taken. The paper mentions the possum that was the main spreader of tuberculosis in New Zealand in particular, and a vaccination programme seemed to work very well. The same vaccination programme had been tested in Ireland and found to be successful. Has that been licensed and will it be used here or have we developed something different?

There is the possibility of using a vaccine, particularly for badgers. As Deputy Penrose said, it seems we have to get over hurdles as they are a somewhat protected species. It is a different animal and a different country or environment so how successful could it be in reality if we are to trap and vaccinate the numbers of badgers that would make a difference? It would have to be done in other parts of the country at the same time and over a sustained period. Has a study been done on the costs involved in trying to get that to happen?

Around my area we have much forestry and many deer. When I was doing my research, I noted that the first time a badger was found to be infected with TB in Ireland was in 1974 and it took 20 years of study to determine that badgers were spreading the disease. We are now looking at deer and in some cases it is and in some cases it is not. It seems inconclusive. I hope we will not have to wait 20 years to come to a conclusion in that respect.

In different parts of the country there seems to be different strains of TB. If there are different strains, would it be one of the reasons this disease could be carried more by certain wildlife in some areas than others? What research has been done into this? The accuracy of testing, which has been mentioned, has always bothered me and many farmers around the country. The TB test could be positive but when the affected animal goes to the factory, there may be no lesions and the reading is found to have been a false positive. Nevertheless, the farmer's land is placed on lock-up, as it were, and he or she cannot sell animals or anything else. Professor More seemed to indicate that in many cases there are cases where a positive result is not indicated despite the presence of TB. In the countries where there were successful eradication programmes, is there a different or better method of testing? Is there a more conclusive test?

There was mention of movement of cattle and two clear tests. If there are two clear tests, a farmer may move cattle and begin to trade again. The witness has pointed out the possibility of false positives as a danger and that there should be a longer period involved. How much longer would that period be? There was mention of ten years, which is more than the lifetime of most of the animals. There must be something within reason so what kind of period would work? The risk to trade and movement is interesting as there are some closed farm systems with bovine fare that are kept, finished and sent to the factory but they cannot leave the farm. It is something I know that concerns farmers who are neighbours of those farms. Wildlife does not know what is a closed system and it will cross these farms. There are issues and we would like to get to the bottom of how suitable such systems are if we are serious about eradicating TB. Deputy Penrose alluded to this but there are many people in the farming community who do not believe we are serious about eradicating TB in the country. At this stage, we have had generations of people in the TB eradication industry. Large amounts of money are being paid in what was a containment policy up to now that was sold as being an eradication policy.

There was mention of Australia and New Zealand as success stories. What level of success can be seen in other European countries? I know Britain has major problems but other parts of Europe may have a similar climate and a similar type of wildlife problem, so how successful have those countries been in eradicating the disease?