Mr. Martin O'Halloran:

I will deal with Deputy Ferris's questions and make some observations. With regard to education, we are involved at primary level and run a number of initiatives. We helped develop a free online module for all primary schools. I have written to all 3,500 primary schools advising them that it is available free of charge online. It is linked to the social, personal and health education, SPHE, curriculum and it includes elements of farm safety.

In 2013 we ran a farm safety campaign with all schools through our collaboration with Kilkenny Education Centre. We ran an art and writing for children competition in the 21 education centres nationally. We had 10,500 children participating and from that we produced a booklet on farm safety, essentially authored by the children, entitled Only a Giant Can Lift a Bull. It was distributed to every school and library in the country and made available as a resource, so that continues.

At primary level we run a Be Safe campaign where we collaborate with other agencies on water safety, road safety and mountain safety. We bring that around to a number of schools each year, although obviously the number of schools we can bring it to is somewhat limited.

We have an intervention at second level through the transition year modules. Disappointingly, and this is an area we continue to seek to change, the leaving certificate syllabus on agriculture has not changed in 40 years. We are striving to have that changed to ensure it reflects, as Deputies Penrose and Ó Cuív identified, modern farming practices, the scale of machinery, the different animal husbandry practices and the different breeds of livestock. We have been corresponding with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and will continue to seek to have that curriculum revised to reflect the changing world.

We have a close working relationship with Teagasc. In terms of all the programmes it runs, and I understand it has trained more than 35,000 farmers in recent years, we believe the level of training and compliance by what I might call the younger more modern farmers is very high. However, the high-risk group of children and elderly farmers have not received that training.

For undergraduates doing agricultural science in University College Dublin there is a mandatory safety module. We have succeeded in getting very positive engagement with education in all sectors, and we see that as part of the mechanism to achieve cultural change.

With regard to research and monitoring best practice, that is done through a number of channels. My colleague, Pat Griffin, is a member of the European network - he is probably one of its leading people - and he has regular dialogue with counterparts in the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark to exchange best practices. He has brought some of those people to speak at conferences here, so we do have international networks.

The resources question was raised also. Every state organisation has been through a difficult period, as have those in Ireland. We would all welcome resources but, notwithstanding that, our commitment is undiminished and we will continue to allocate a very high priority to resourcing.

As regards agricultural holdings, various estimates put the figure at approximately 130,000 holdings, but in practice the estimates we get is that there are probably 80,000 farmers whose primary source of income comes from farming activities. There are also a number of farming endeavours from which there is off-farm income as well. Those are the numbers at which we are looking.

The level of penetration, to use that term, we would achieve with inspections is fairly limited but in terms of the benefit, when an inspector goes in it becomes known in the farming community that he or she is in the area. It is that experience we are hoping to build on with the knowledge transfer groups so rather than have one farm safety visit interacting with one farm, there will be an interaction with a number of farms. That will facilitate the transfer of knowledge from an inspector. It will have what I call a theoretical dimension to it with a dialogue to allow people exchange their experiences.

We could not disagree with Deputy Fitzmaurice's observations. Many activities are high risk both in terms of large machinery, and obviously we cannot dictate to farmers, but there are many activities that would probably be better done by contractors. When there is big machinery involved, contractors, if they are doing the work professionally, will be able to commit better time to that.

We could not argue with the Deputy's observation about going back to go forward. Also, the observation about insurance is true. We also agree with the Deputy's observations on the age profile of farmers, but the high risk group is children and elderly farmers, and they are very disproportionately represented in those statistics. In 2014, the figure for children was five and the figure for farmers aged 65 or over was 12 or 13, so they are disproportionately represented.

With regard to getting people with credibility and authority to speak, we believe that is fundamentally important. That is why we have again asked a number of farmers to share their very difficult experiences at events we have run, and they have been generous and brave in giving of their time. At the ploughing championships last autumn, one farmer was willing to show his amputation, as have been a number of other people.

We also believe that one of the key successes of discussion groups and the knowledge transfer groups is that they are people who have authority in the eyes of their peer group relating their experiences. We have to be realistic. We are a regulator. While we have certain personal experiences, we have to recognise that the farming community will see us as a regulator. There is a perception that a regulator will say what a regulator will say. We recognise that, and that is why we strive to have people with a level of credibility and authority engaging with farmers.

Regarding Deputy Heydon's observations, it is devastating and we see the tragedy and the trauma. The experience from talking to farmers is that these experiences transcend generations. They are incredibly traumatic, and we recognise that.

In terms of why 2014 was such a bad year, it is very difficult to say, but the key observations were that the number of children and elderly farmers killed was incredibly high. If they were taken out, we are probably closer to the norms of other years, but I do not know that we have an easy answer to that particular question.

The question was raised about children on tractors. The first comment to make is that there is no change in regulation. Our philosophy always is to simplify.

We do not approach the community with, to use Deputy Penrose's expression, legalese because we are trained in it and we know that it is an immediate turn-off and negative in discussion. That is why the code of practice, to which my colleague, Mr. Higgisson, alluded, is written in accessible language. The BeSMART tool that we propose to launch later this year will be in accessible language. It is online and is step by step. At the end, it will help produce the farm safety statement.

As regards the specific question of why we are taking that view about children on tractors, I will ask Mr. Pat Griffin to respond.