Mr. Thomas Duffy:

I might address the points made by members in reverse.

On Deputy Kehoe's comment on deer density, it has been a long-standing issue. There has been a failure to address the question of the potential movement of TB from deer as a wildlife source. It is quite well established at this point that badgers can act as a reserve, and can spread TB through contaminated material or shared feeding and bodies. Certainly, this has been long stated. We welcome the fact that in the updated strategy there is an awareness of deer density in Wicklow in particular, where deer density would be at its highest, and a more concerted effort to align hunters who are licensed to remove stags and does at certain times of the year to relieve the pressure and the ingress into farmers' land. Overall, there is a bigger question to be addressed on the population of deer and the impact that is having on farmers alongside the effect of TB and, as the Deputy has said, the abnormal behaviour of veering out into roads.

The impact that the disease can have on young farmers was mentioned. The strain that it places on young farmers is astronomical. Without the reserves that are often built up over years of farming, although that is not always the case, it can be a massive negative. I know several young farmers who aimed to set up their businesses, and when they were hit with TB several times they abandoned them and decided to leave the industry. It is very devastating.

The common approach of all farming organisations is that the farmer must be at the centre of this. It speaks to Deputy Carthy's question about the new strategy. Again, the definition of madness is certainly repeating the same thing. It is very difficult for us to predict the future, but there are elements of the new strategy that we welcome, in respect of putting farmers front and centre.

On the question of wildlife, the mapping of TB and the use of local knowledge, which we addressed in our opening statement, in the investigation ahead of the report being published it was found that unfortunately, TB is essentially viewed by some farmers as simply being something that happens to them and they are passive in the chain. Unfortunately, this has been fostered by a lack of engagement, active management and encouragement by farmers to address these issues directly and the financial supports that are necessary for that.

On Deputy Carthy's reference to Scotland, we were most interested in exploring how a country with an almost identical climate, although at a slightly higher elevation, seems not to have this problem, especially given that the same wildlife factor is present. The answer that we were offered is that there seems to be a difference in Scottish badgers. I am not entirely sure why that might be, but it is established in the scientific literature. Again, unless we are going import some of those TB-resistant Sottish badgers, I am not sure how much more can be learned.

On the question of letters, certainly there was a lack of communication around that entire process. One of the issues that came up from our membership, which is deeply concerning, is that the categorisation was based on the number of years since a TB-free test. If a farm has just been established, a farmer will not have any TB-free years. Therefore, young farmers were being placed under the C1 category, and other low C categories, with only an asterisk to indicate that no TB test has been taken into account. We engaged with the Department on this issue, and sought to make it more plain and clear, potentially working on where the animals might have been tested previously.

I am open to any further questions on the matter. It certainly would be our hope that as long as the strategy follows through on its stated ambition of putting farmers front and centre in this, using their local knowledge and their own intuitive ability to understand their farms better than anyone, the strategy might become successful and overcome the declining trends we have seen.