Mr. Tomás Bourke:

The Deputy asked three or four questions. I will deal with the question on the controlled finishing units first. From our perspective, we are firmly of the view that they were vital and have proved to be such for beef farmers to be able to continue to function because of our TB programme. As anybody in agriculture knows, once a farmer has a TB reactor or even a suspected TB reactor, for example, in the form of a lesion spotted in the factory, the farmer's herd is restricted in terms of purchasing in and selling out. Most finishing farms and beef farmers with 50 to 60 cattle only buy in and sell out to the factory. Unfortunately, when a lesion shows up, it takes eight to ten weeks to establish its status and the farmer is prohibited from trading and from purchasing in, which is the lifeblood of that farm. All those beef finishing farmers who do not have breeding animals on their farm have been forced down the years to become registered as controlled finishing units in order to be allowed to continue to do their business. They undergo two herd tests a year and that removes from them from the 60-day testing, the factory lesions process and the prohibition on purchasing in. It has been crucial for those farmers. It is important we distinguish between those and what the Deputy referenced in the context of processor-owned large units. The vast majority of ordinary finishing beef farmers because of the TB programme have had no choice down the years but to become registered as controlled finished units in order to be able to continue to do their business.

There has been a second major benefit in that regard from the point of view of farmers restricted with TB in their herds. There are a number of components to the way the TB programme impacts on farms. The main one is the restriction because it is a low prevalence disease. The restriction prohibits the farmer from selling his animals on the open market. As the Deputy would know, suckler farmers depend at the end of the year on selling their weanlings, as they do not have the feed or housing to hold those animals. Amendments to the TB programme dating back 15 or more years provided that trade from restricted farms to controlled finishing units, or feedlots as they were called then, was facilitated. Any farmer who is restricted because of TB in his herd, who has culled cows and who has store cattle and weanlings that he must sell but for which he does not have the feed or the housing can sell them into a controlled finishing unit. Those are not unique to Ireland. They are facilitated in other EU member states. It is important we distinguish between the two, namely, the impact with respect to potentially large processor owned units and with respect to those who are called the same thing but are stand-alone ordinary farmers doing their daily grind and trying to avoid the impact of the TB programme on them doing their business while at the same time offering a major service to other farmers restricted because of TB.

On the question of whether departmental funding is being used as efficiently as it could be, I would say it most certainly is not. Everything would have to be reviewed in a funding model for the future. I will give the Deputy an example. Despite all the reports and technology we have on mart prices, and anybody can pick up a phone and get a mart price anywhere in the country, the Department, in compiling the summary weekly prices for the live valuations scheme, persists in sending agricultural officers out to sit in marts to record prices. In this day and age and with the technology available, that is certainly a waste of taxpayers’ money and of funding for the TB programme. That is one small example of it.

Clearly, we will have to agree a funding model for the future but that will only commence when there is full transparency on all the costings, including the cost the Department put forward and claimed for its contribution. It will also require a correct appraisal of the cost what we, as farmers, have put in. At present, the Department claims its labour is worth almost four times farmers’ labour in carrying out the TB programme in a year. A Grant Thornton report estimates all we are worth is €8 million to facilitate the testing of 9 million animals on our farms, including the time it takes to do that. Yet the departmental staff's contribution to that same programme is worth €27.5 million. There is certainly a need for an in-depth review of it and full transparency on every line of it. It cuts both ways.

On the question on whether TB can be eradicated without vaccination, unfortunately, it will have to be eradicated without vaccination. While the purposes of the TB programme originally were different its main function currently is to enable us to continue to access export markets for our produce. Unfortunately, the criteria set out in all the trade regulations, EU trade directives and international trade arrangements we have require TB freedom. Even if the marker vaccine on which work is currently being done, in which the Department is involved, can be developed - this is probably be eight to ten years down the road - a fundamental change to the trading rules with member states and all our trading partners would be required. I am not sure they would be overly flexible given that they do not want TB. There are seasons when it is not predominant. It is not as simple as saying we could vaccinate a herd. When the prevalence of the disease is reduced in the badger population, the vaccine used in that population may play a role, but it will not remove the need to manage the population and keep the density at a level where the disease is not spread among them, which is what we have in the deer population.

To finish on the Deputy's substantive point, he rightly identified there is a fundamental issue with the compensation levels. The ask to compensate farmers fairly through the various schemes has been costed. It would cost only an additional €7 million to offset all the financial impact of the TB programme on farmers. That is costed by the Department to provide full income loss for every animal removed from the date it is identified on the farm. We do not believe that is a major ask for the 4,000 farmers who are losing their animals in the TB programme considering what we, as farmers, put into it year in, year out in order to recognise the impact it is having on farmers' livelihoods. This has been costed. It is not figure that is off the radar. The methodology by which we arrived at the €110 per month for a dairy cow and €56 for a suckler cow was based on the national farm survey over a three-year average because we will get peaks and troughs.

Obviously, when an animal is removed from the farm, some costs are no longer incurred but other fixed costs remain and these have been costed on to the production of the animal. Other variables have also been taken into account. Seven or eight years ago, we used a methodology whereby we took the three-year period of the national farm survey and we repeated that process three years ago. We took three years as a rolling average and the figures did not change much. If we were to run them today, they would increase.

We are seeking to have this methodology, which removes all ambiguity, used. Let us use a three-year rolling average and be fair to every farmer. If an animal is being taken from a farm in the national interest and for the greater good, the farmer should not be out of pocket because TB is not a farmer-caused problem. The main driver of TB is a protected species of wildlife over which we have no control.