Mr. Thomas Burke:

I will answer on behalf of the IFA. There are a number of common themes in all the Deputies' questions, which started with Deputy Pa Daly. In terms of whether we have confidence in the new approach, let us bear in mind what that new approach is. There is a strategy set out with a framework for working through the proposals of the TB forum. We have had the implementation working group meeting this morning. We had a finance working group meeting last week but time will tell. There are objectives set out in that strategy. There are commitments given that there will be a farmer-centred approach but time will tell if that is delivered on because for too long we have had the issue of the top-down approach where measures were implemented but there was no cognisance of the direct impact on farmers and their livelihood or how they managed their farms. Deputy Daly is right. That moved then to a fire fighting action to try to resolve the issues caused on farms by poorly thought out programme proposals. That is what we would hope the implementation group structure will bring to the scientific advice and proposals from the TB forum in terms of how best they can be implemented to minimise the impact, but time will tell. It is a new approach. We have only had one meeting of each of those groups and success will be judged on how those groups perform and whether they function under the remit they were set up to do.

With regard to finances, the EU levels are reducing. Farmers are significant contributors to the programme, as is the State, but it is very interesting to look at the membership of the TB forum. Farmers are a low number of seat holders at the TB forum yet only farmers and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine contribute to the TB programme.

In establishing the TB forum, a large number of beneficiaries and interested parties have been identified by the State. It will be interesting to see now are they also identified by the State in terms of funding for the programme going forward. This is the substantive issue that must be addressed before we develop a programme because if we do not have the resources to implement the likes of the effective wildlife programme that is necessary then we are going to fail yet again, and it is back to Deputy Carthy's point that we need resources in place.

It has been asked what caused the deterioration in the levels of TB. We would not accept the fundamental principle that farmers are to blame because of herd expansion. There was clearly a reduction in the activity of the wildlife control programme for the last eight to ten years. There was less than effective wildlife control programmes being implemented throughout the country that allowed the badger population to increase and obviously spread disease in areas. In the last four to six months the Department has agreed to remap the areas. We have found a significant number of setts that were previously unidentified yet part of capture areas. That points to a very ineffective and inefficient wildlife control programme being implemented and has clearly contributed to the deterioration in the levels of TB.

There should be no ambiguity about the role played by deer. The Department has its own study from Wicklow in which we were actively involved and showed a 16% TB prevalence in the deer tested by the Department. Deer are a significant contributor to TB spread and ongoing TB outbreaks where their density is at a particular level. The TB strategy requires two components to deal with deer. One is a programme similar to the wildlife programme for badgers around TB outbreaks where the density of deer is reduced. Significantly, what we need is the re-establishment of the national deer management forum, which was set up a number of years ago to put in place a strategy to manage the density nationally before it became a problem in every other county like it currently is in Wicklow. That group needs to be re-established. The chairperson of that group stood down a number of years ago and the group has not convened since, so its output has been non-existent. As part of the preventive measures, which Senator Paul Daly has identified, this is critical. We cannot allow the deer population to continue to increase in every other county like it has in Wicklow and bring the TB problem with it. For the past ten years we have sent numerous submissions to the Department seeking preventive actions to be taken in advance of major infrastructural works and deforestation for all wildlife because it is clearly evident where the disturbance of wildlife takes place that TB follows shortly afterwards. It stands to reason that populations of wildlife that are susceptible to TB are being stressed and moved on so bring the disease with them. If we are serious about eradicating TB then we must stop new outbreaks and a proactive preventive approach is required in terms of wildlife.

On the compensation schemes, as Mr. McCabe has already said, our objective is that there would be no need for a compensation scheme because no farmer would have TB in his or her herd. Unfortunately, even with the best will in the world, we are going to have TB for a significant period going forward. There are going to be farmers who through no fault of their own, which must be borne in mind, have a TB restriction or breakdown that results in an enormous disturbance on farms for a minimum of six months. That is why the compensation schemes and the support structures must be aligned with the measures on-farm to treat farmers fairly.

Deputy Carthy raised the issue of Scotland and Deputy Kehoe asked about the different levels of support in the UK compared with what we have. It is important to put this in context. On the different levels of compensatory support, we have an additional income supplement depopulation or hardship grant compensation scheme that pays out €4 million a year for the extra €35 million a year we put into the programme compared with what our counterparts in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales contribute to their programmes. So for €35 million in direct funding we get back an additional €4 million. That has been a narrative that has been set continually, and grossly misrepresents the high level of funding that we put into the programme.

On the Scottish experience, and Deputy Carthy rightly raised it, we engaged directly with some senior veterinary practitioners and farm leaders in Scotland a number of years ago. We discussed the actual programmes and measures for cattle in this country obviously to identify what they did and what we could do to replicate eradication. A significant difference between us and Scotland is that TB did not get into the badger population. Therefore, the message that we clearly took from the engagement is that additional testing of cattle and tighter controls on farms will not eradicate TB. The source of TB is primarily in wildlife and until we address it in wildlife we are only imposing extra costs and hardship on farmers with additional tests and controls.