Mr. John Keane:

I thank the Senator for the question. I will touch on a few elements. We talked about the biosecurity measures that are ongoing at farm level and the Senator mentioned disinfection and its use at farm level. The wider context for that is the boundary fencing for farmers and the reduction of spread. There are gaps within that, however. With regard to the funding streams available for the security of farmyards, for example to protect from wildlife entering farmyards, there are no funding streams for that under TAMS. To take Wicklow and the reservoir of Mycobacterium bovis in the deer population there, under TAMS there is no funding available to farmers for effective deer fencing or other supports to prevent deer from entering their land and engaging with their livestock enterprises. Control of the sources of infection is as important as the on-farm practices that farmers are carrying out. While work can be done to improve engagement and education, the sources that occur in farmyards and through deer populations must also be addressed through funding.

The Senator mentioned the perceived rights of individuals travelling on farmland. There is a bigger discussion to be had around the impact that has, not only on the transmission of disease at farm level but also its implications for the legal rights of landowners. The full expression of the legal rights of landowners must be looked at as well. As has been highlighted around the country in recent months, we see cases of walkers taking dogs that are not under effective control out on land and these dogs end up worrying sheep. There are a number of issues that must be addressed in the spread of disease from foreign bodies. I refer to people entering into or trespassing on farms in that regard and to the impact their role has in dog worrying or sources of infection.

The Senator's last point was on display and mart boards and so forth. It has been mentioned that equivalents to the TB forum have been done in other regions where eradication has been achieved or partially achieved. It is important to note, and this has been highlighted in the TB forum as well, that the make-up of the mart sector in the Irish context is greatly different from the make-up of the sales arenas in other sectors. In particular, it differs from those in overseas regions where there are tens or hundreds of animals in different lots. In Ireland, animals are sold in individual lots of ones or twos. A simple copycat of the measures introduced in other countries and jurisdictions to allow that will not work here or provide a fair and transparent market return for farmers.

It is Macra na Feirme's view, which is shared by many, that this market disturbance will further negatively impact farmers who are suffering from a TB breakdown. We have already touched on the impact on them from the effect of the TB, whether that be the hardship support grant or others which members will see in our submission, and the implications in costs incurred by the farmer as a result of the disease. Thereafter, for a protracted period, perhaps three, four or five years, the farmer is in a negative market trading position. The farmer suffers for three, four or five years as a result of a breakdown that may not be his or her fault and could also receive a lower return from the market as a result. The science tells us that one third of farms that become infected with TB will have a reoccurrence of infection within the following two or three years. There will be a cycle of continued impact on that farmer as a result of that. The financial impact that will have on farmers needs to be given much greater thought and it needs to be established that it will work for farmers. We should not think only of the effect it will have on the market.