Mr. Martin O'Halloran:

Thank you, Chairman. There were some overlapping questions. I assure members that we will take all of their questions and observations on board and we will reflect on them and consider what changes in direction or finessing of direction we can develop based on today's meeting.

I will start with Deputy Ó Cuív's question relating to reporting. The level of accident reporting in agriculture is very low. That is a common characteristic across all European member states, and EUROSTAT has some compensatory methods. We agree with the Deputy's observation that an understanding of the near misses of the situations that could have given rise to very serious or fatal accidents helps general understanding. Teagasc has conducted research on that and we talk to a group in Manchester, THOR, which collects information on respiratory and other illnesses from the medical world. That gives us a limited level of data. We also get some data from the State Claims Agency and the Central Statistics Office, but we do not have a complete dataset. We try to get as much information as we can as we believe it helps in the understanding.

However, I wish to make an observation in that regard. We believe that through the discussion groups or the knowledge transfer groups, farmers are willing to share their experiences in what I might characterise a safe environment. It is an environment where a farmer might say to another farmer, for example, "I had a very close call on Monday". We envisage that this sharing of experiences through the knowledge transfer groups will help the culture shift.

The next item was the resources. Every State organisation has experienced resource diminution and ours is no different. Notwithstanding that, due to the priority we have allocated to agriculture we have 22 people involved in it, which amounts to 13 full-time equivalents. It is a high priority area for the authority.

As regards mechanisms the Deputy mentioned such as self audit, we welcome that. We believe it is essential. Like a number of the members, I grew up on a small farm and I am acquainted with the traditional concept of the meitheal whereby people helped out. The modern concept of the meitheal could be to do an exchange audit, where a farmer would conduct a small audit. To get technical, we believe cognitive dissonance sets in. We see the danger on everybody's farm but not on our own because we are on it every day. We believe in that approach and actively encourage it. We will continue to encourage it.

With regard to the insurance discount, we have engaged with the insurance industry in the past and asked it to consider it, but it advised us that its model is different. It is not the model it operates. However, based on today's discussion, we are happy to re-open that dialogue with the insurance industry and to ask it to reconsider. While that is not the model adopted by the insurance industry, the insurance industry in the farming sector has been supportive and works with the Health and Safety Authority and the partners. I must acknowledge that positive interaction.

As regards the analysis of farm type and intensity, as Deputies Fitzmaurice and Ó Cuív said, the machinery and the animals have got bigger. The animals have certainly become more flighty. Animal husbandry practices have changed. The days of feeding a calf from a bucket and walking the cows home are certainly in the historical annals of husbandry practices on farms. Yes, they are more accustomed to the jeep.

I will ask my colleagues, Brian Higgisson and Pat Griffin, to elaborate because there is a significant differentiation in the risk profiling within agricultural sub-sectors. Pat Griffin can give some context on that.