Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind Members, witnesses and persons in the Public Gallery to turn off their mobile phones.

The purpose of today's meeting is to undertake an examination of the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, TB. The committee will hear from various representatives from agricultural and farmers' organisations.

All those present in the committee room are asked to exercise personal responsibility in order to protect themselves and others from the risk of contracting Covid-19.

I wish to bring to the attention of witnesses who are to give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. That means they have a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at the committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as does a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses, outside the proceedings held by the committee, of any matter arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of Members participating in this committee meeting online when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurances in respect of participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts. Members should be mindful of this when contributing.

The committee will hear from Ms Amanda Mooney, animal health vice-chair, Mr. Tomás Bourke, senior policy executive and Ms Anna Daly, policy executive, of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA; Ms Fionnuala Tyrell and Mr. Tom Stephenson, of the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA; Dr. Liam Hanrahan, national chairperson of the agricultural affairs committee, Ms Caroline O'Keeffe, national chairperson, and Mr. Derrie Dillon, deputy CEO, of Macra na Feirme; Mr. Pat McCormack, president, Mr. Des Morrison, livestock committee, and Mr. Paul Smyth, executive secretary of the dairy committee of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA; and Mr. Eddie Punch, general secretary, and Mr. Hugh Farrell, animal health and welfare chair, of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA.

We are taking the opening statements as read. We will give each organisation five minutes to put forward their point of view and unlike the last evening they were here, I will enforce the clock. I suggest that we start with the IFA and it will be followed by the remaining farming organisations. I invite Ms Mooney from the IFA to commence.

Ms Amanda Mooney:

I thank the Chairperson and committee members for inviting the IFA to address them today. I am the vice-chairperson of the animal health committee. I am accompanied by Mr. Tomás Bourke, senior policy executive, and Ms Anna Daly.

I am acutely aware of the impact of TB outbreaks as I represent farmers from across the country. I hail from County Wicklow, which is a county that has a very big problem with TB and I have had the misfortune of dealing with TB directly on my own farm. Dealing with TB controls poses enormous challenges to farmers from both a financial and emotional point of view.

The TB eradication programme was implemented in Ireland and remains the single largest animal health cost for farmers each year at a combined and indirect cost of over €55 million a year. In addition, despite 4% of the herds breaking down with the disease annually, the fear of a TB outbreak continues to be identified by farmers as one of the largest stress factors associated with farming and as a result has a severe impact on normal farm practices and associated losses.

Irish farmers contribute in excess of €55 million to the TB programme, over €27 million in annual TB testing costs, approximately €8 million in disease levies and a conservative €20 million in labour when facilitating the testing of the 9 million animals a year.

For the €55 million investment, farmers receive just over €26 million, based on the figures for 2021, for compensation for animal and production loss and maintenance costs associated with the TB programme. Eradication of the disease within the shortest feasible timeframe must be the objective for all of us. It will not be achieved by the simplistic approach of tightening controls on farms while ignoring the impact this has on farmers and the associated losses to our farms and businesses.

On TB strategy, hard decisions have been taken by the TB working groups by farmers in terms of controls on farms and the financing of the programme. The Minister, Deputy McConalogue, and his officials must now play their part. Payment for the EU animal health law, AHL, requirement of a 30 day pre- or post-movement test and resourcing of an effective wildlife control programme are critical components which the Department must finance. On financial supports for restricted farms, while the objective must be eradication of TB from the national herd within the shortest feasible timeframe, we cannot lose sight of the impact TB controls and measures have on farmers, their families and their business. Regardless of how effective new or enhanced controls will be in reducing the levels of TB and ultimately achieving eradication, we must remember this is a long-term process throughout which farmers will incur financial losses through animal removals and trade restrictions. The impact of these issues must be offset in support schemes. Discussions on these matters are advancing and have been detailed in our submission, which l look forward to discussing in more detail with members of the committee. The increased rates proposed in these schemes by the Department carry a requirement for additional farmers' contributions if there is increased expenditure in the three schemes. We are prepared to discuss this in detail but there are some critical areas, as outlined, where the Department must come forward with increased funding if discussions are to progress.

Concerning eradication policy, to achieve TB eradication, the main driver of the disease must be tackled. The simplistic and one-dimensional approach of controls on farms or on farmers in how they go about their daily business will not deliver results. While a multifaceted approach will be necessary, the main driver has been and always will be wildlife. The effective implementation of a wildlife control programme is critical. The main limiting factor is the lack of human resources available to implement the programme effectively and efficiently to impact positively on the levels of TB. Additional funding has been provided, with further increases proposed. We must now see this translated into boots on the ground to carry out surveying and capturing. It is infuriating for farmers when, despite the additional financial resources provided, the wildlife programme remains grossly understaffed. If we are serious about eradicating TB, we must have effective and efficient implementation of the wildlife programme with a primary focus on density reduction of badgers when found associated with TB outbreaks. To provide this, staff resources must be allocated to the programme as urgently as possible.

The Minister has announced the re-establishment of the deer management group and has put a chairman in place. This group must address both the TB risk associated with deer, which is becoming more prevalent, and the broader impact these deer have-----

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are out of time.

Ms Amanda Mooney:

The IFA is acutely aware of the importance of maintaining the hard-won high health status of our national livestock herd as a major exporter of agricultural produce. Farmers have and continue to support the efforts of the Department in eradicating TB from the national herd at an enormous direct and indirect cost. The IFA is demanding the eradication of TB from the national herd in the shortest feasible timeframe. We must have an effective wildlife programme that is fully resourced; we must address the deer issue before it starts to contribute to disease spread to the same extent as badgers; farmers must be fairly compensated for the impact of the controls and animal losses on their farms; and the funding model must recognise the full value of farmers' contributions to the programme. We are prepared to play our part in funding the financial supports but there is a red line issue where we are not prepared to pay for additional testing, including the 30-day pre- or post-movement test, which must be funded by the Department.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

I will take it that the committee has read our submission. I will hit some of the high points in order not to run out of time. I thank the committee on my behalf and on behalf of Des Morrison, our livestock chairman, and Paul Smyth, our policy officer, for the opportunity to discuss the TB issue. If you were born when the TB eradication programme started, you would be a 70-year-old today. You would be retired. There are many people who made a livelihood from the TB programme. It is hard to be enthusiastic when you have given 11 or 12 years of that 70-year period coming to the Oireachtas to discuss TB.

Figures deteriorated between 2016 and 2020, which is disappointing to say the least. In the past 12 months alone, our organisation has been involved in up to 30 strategic meetings regarding the eradication of TB. There is a scientific working group, a financial working group and an implementation group. Significant resources are required within that, be they from the Department or the farming organisations. As a farmer on the ground, it is questionable whether we are seeing the results of that. We need to reduce the spread from cattle to cattle.

A new target-based policy proposed by the Department will specifically address the risk of recurrence in herds and target herds experiencing restrictions significantly more than the average, as well as targeting inconclusive animals and increasing the emphasis on biosecurity. The EU changed the goalposts with its €4 million contribution where it requires a pre- or post-movement test on animals that are either from a herd or have not been tested within the past six months. That is going to be a huge additional cost on top of the figures already mentioned today for farm families. It makes the day-to-day running of the trade of livestock significantly complex. The ICMSA view is very clear; there needs to be a pre-movement test only. We need to reduce the risk of spreading TB rather than affording it the opportunity. All animals in the ring have a similar status. Targeting the inconclusives with blood tests is significant. We have long argued in favour of the removal of all inconclusive animals, with appropriate compensation for that.

From a biosecurity perspective, there should be a more targeted approach to biosecurity whereby once a TB reactor is identified in an area, farmers and the Department get to the root of it, if we are to eradicate it. Tackling badgers is another factor, and the vaccination programme needs further enhancement. The removal of badgers where necessary should also happen. We must also address the new reality in rural Ireland that deer play a role in spreading TB. I echo the sentiments of Ms Mooney from County Wicklow. It is a huge issue in that county. There are other counties on the west coast with significant deer issues. The Department must recognise the role of deer in TB transmission. A wildlife management plan should be drawn up in relation to each outbreak. There is huge frustration among farmers that the wildlife issue is not being addressed significantly. There is additional funding for the wildlife unit but, as already mentioned, some of those roles are vacant. We need resources as well as funding. Those positions need to be filled.

Communication is a major issue for farm families suffering from TB outbreaks. The lack of continuity in the persons they speak to is an issue and has been over the past decade and beyond. There is approximately €55 million to €57 million in the area, but there is €35 million from farmers while the EU funding equates to €4 million.

We need a proper level of compensation for farm families because when there is an outbreak of TB, the impact is more than just financial. Emotional and historic value is associated with these animals and major personal trauma affects families as well as the herds. It is fair to say that, at times, the value of the animal is not a reflection of the true financial cost. There are huge consequential losses in the years following an outbreak of TB and that needs to be borne in mind. There are many stresses including the stress from the perspective of a dairy farmer, of having to maintain calves on the farm after an outbreak.

Ms Caroline O'Keeffe:

I thank the Chair and committee members for the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss the eradication of bovine TB. I acknowledge the continued support of the Chair and this committee of Macra na Feirme, and recognise that significant changes are needed in order to address the challenges that currently exist within the sector. I am the national chairperson of Macra na Feirme. I am joined this evening by our agricultural affairs chair, Dr. Liam Hanrahan, and the deputy CEO of Macra, Mr. Derrie Dillon.

The key principles of the eradication programme are outlined in our opening statement along with the TB Forum's further strategy measures covering 2023-25. The TB Forum has for some time called for the establishment of a deer management forum and in recent months the deer management strategy group was established by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Macra is adamant that a critical piece of work for the group must be to establish a robust framework for dealing with deer populations at a local and regional level. With the support of research and science it is crucial that concrete actions are agreed and implemented to ensure that deer populations are managed and controlled in order that the TB eradication programme is not undermined.

One of the most significant changes relates to the EU animal health law requirement for a pre- and post-movement test for all cows and male cattle over-36 months that have not been tested in the past 6 months and are moving from herds that have not been tested in the past 6 months. The outstanding issue for Macra is the payment for the test which is required, as outlined, by the EU animal health law change. Since the beginning of discussions about this additional testing requirement, Macra has been clear that farmers should not have to pay for this test. It has been agreed with the Government and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine that farmers will only pay for one herd-test a year and at no shorter interval than ten months. Any other legally required test must be paid for by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

Macra has consistently highlighted the need for a fully resourced, fully funded wildlife control programme. Wildlife, and particularly badgers, have been identified as the main vectors of disease transmission. However, the resources necessary to implement the wildlife programme in a more effective manner must be provided. Mapping setts does not address the TB issue. The timely application of the capture and removal programme addresses TB. The implementation of an effective wildlife control programme is fundamental to achieving the objective of TB eradication. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has proposed to invest more than €3 million of additional funding in the programme which will include the provision of an additional 26 Farm Relief Service, FRS, operatives. However, these new positions need to be filled alongside existing vacancies. They must also be targeted at areas where the incidence rate is highest and where herd breakdowns are occurring most frequently and at large scales.

Macra welcomes the investment in the vaccination programme to date but notes that costs per unit have increased by 14% while vaccination levels have not increased. Greater investment is needed as the transmission rate of unvaccinated badgers is 1.2 compared to 0.5 in vaccinated badgers. Macra would like to see further investment in vaccination application but also in research on the long-term effectiveness of the vaccine.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has put forward proposals for higher rates in the income supplement and depopulation grant schemes, with eligibility commencing on the date of restriction and paid for partial months restricted. The proposal also includes a maximum payment for 200 animals in the scheme and for a maximum period of 12 months where the herd has been allowed to purchase animals. These rates must be based on an agreed methodology that establishes the actual level of loss incurred and the limits proposed must be reconsidered. It is proposed that farmers will fund this through greater contributions in the levies. Macra has agreed to discuss the proposal with our members on the basis that all additional levies are secured for the payment of supports directly to farmers; the Department pays for the pre- and post-movement tests required under the EU animal health law; the funding for levies is retrospective so that only what is spent in 2021 will be collected in 2022; that the wildlife programme is fully funded and resourced; and enhanced funding and investment is provided for whole-genome sequencing technology and its roll-out.

The promise offered by a large scale roll-out of whole-genome sequencing technology offers a substantial opportunity for the success of the eradication programme. If we build a conclusive map of setts and relationships between breakdowns, it will offer greater understanding. It will also afford the ability to identify risk patterns, risk-mitigation strategies and the transmissions rate in certain areas and of certain strains. Macra would like to see enhanced investment and support. The database for storage and capture must also be established and real time data provided to the farmer.

Macra’s submission outlines the importance of a comprehensive and fully resourced wildlife control and vaccination programme, coupled with the new opportunity that whole-genome sequencing presents and a robust framework for dealing with deer populations at local and regional level under a new deer management forum. The further strategy measures for 2023–25 recommended by the TB Forum are set out in our written submission, but funding remains a critical element to the successful execution of any programme. Macra has outlined where financial commitment is required by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to achieve the objective of the TB Forum, namely, to eradicate TB.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

I thank the Chair for giving the ICSA the opportunity to express its views on the eradication of TB.

As members will be aware, four years have passed since we started the TB Forum and the challenge has been to try to find solutions to a problem that has persisted for almost 70 years. The ICSA operates on the principle that farmers must be treated fairly and that the burden of TB eradication should be spread evenly and not dealt with only by the farming community. Since our last meeting with this committee, we have seen some progress. A lot of work is now being done at sub-committee level rather than at the TB Forum itself. There were some interruptions with staff changes in the Department and due to Covid-19 that have delayed the process this year. As a general comment, we are frustrated by the demand of the Department for more concessions on the farmer side while there has been much resistance to ensuring that the programme is fair to farmers on the compensation side.

As we outlined in our submission, it is true that costs of the programme have increased but that is inevitable against a background of dairy expansion. It is also affected by inflation in staff and other costs. EU funding is being wound down so a difficult debate on how to fund it going forward is taking place. The key issue is that we are making progress in defeating TB as we can see from the slow drop. If we look at the data on the number of reactors, we see a drop between October 2021 and October 2022 to 21,183 and a marginal decrease of 4,324 herds restricted. On the expenditure side, there is also a marginal decrease for the first three quarters of 2022. It is true that the on-farm market valuation is about 3% higher but when you consider the significant increase in livestock values in 2022, it could be argued that it is not relevant given the increase we are seeing in market sales.

In recent months, the dominant issue has been the additional testing burden that is being pushed under the EU animal health law. As it stands, the Department's position is that from next February cattle over 36 months must be from a herd that was tested in the previous six months before they are traded in a mart or they will have to be either pre- or post-movement tested. This lacks a lot of clarity for buyers. At the moment we consider it a fundamental principle that this extra testing burden should be paid for by the Department. We have repeatedly insisted at the TB financial working group that we cannot agree to anything until we get a resolution of this issue that is delaying the process. It is unfortunate that the Department is taking an intransigent position on this. The Department states on the one hand that it will affect very low numbers of stock and on the other hand, that the cost would be too much for the Department.

Those two statements cannot both be true, they are not making up. The ICSA, has not taken an unreasonable view on this. It is a fundamental principle that farmers would only pay for one herd test a year, which has been the basis on which the whole programme was changed many years ago. Prior to that, farmers did not pay for the herd test at all as stated by others in this room.

There is also a significant discussion in relation to the compensation schemes on farms. We have had some progress. A lot of negotiations have taken place regarding the critical role of independent valuers and the need to ensure that valuers are not deterred by the Department from giving a proper valuation for all stock. Our view was that if the Department and the farmer is happy, it is working for both parties. Regarding on-farm market valuation, I have been very determined to achieve fair play for breeders of top-quality livestock, particularly pedigrees. This is down to first-hand experience in dealing with tuberculosis, TB, outbreaks and I have seen a lot of farmers lose in excess of €10,000 on top of the ceiling price where there were pedigree herds breaking down. It is devastating to see the €3,000 ceiling, which is not practical, and €5,000 for a bull. We have been offered €5,000 for pedigree cows but this is not adequate and we need it for bulls because if three or maybe more bulls in a farm go down, all animals are affected.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay Mr. Farrell.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

On the compensation schemes, the hardship grant and depopulation income supplement, we are moving towards agreement on them with other farm organisations that there will be levies but we need to deliver on that.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay Mr. Farrell.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

I thank the Chair.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I invite the INHFA representatives to make their opening remarks.

Ms Fionnuala Tyrell:

I thank the Chair. We take our submission to the committee as read. A lot of the points we made have been touched on here but we would like to quickly summarise the feelings of our members. As has already been stated, bovine TB eradication has been with us for almost 70 years. We are not making the progress that has been made in other countries. The feelings of a lot of our members who live in areas which would be considered hill farms and are close to forestry and to national park areas is that the problem of the contribution of wild deer to the spread of bovine TB is not being taken seriously enough. Most of the emphasis seems to be on the badger. I come from a hill farm in west Wicklow and have been through what any family goes through when TB hits, and hits repeatedly, on their farm. You would not wish it on your worst enemy. It causes so much upset. As has already been touched on, the compensation available does not really compensate. Yes, you will get the price on the day for your animal; that is the guaranteed valuation. That animal goes to the factory and you get a paltry sum back. Factories get away with paying a paltry sum because they know that the taxpayer, the Exchequer, will pick up the tab for the rest of the valuation. That valuation does not take into account the young cow you have lost and what her potential earnings for the farm would have been. It does not take into account that farming is a business and you must have a cash flow and that everybody's cash flow and breeding programmes are put out of sync. We are appealing to every organisation that has anything to do with TB eradication, and any State body, that we get together and everybody works together for the good of all. We need to get this disease gone.

The wild deer herd needs to be managed by properly trained and experienced gamekeepers. This will spread. In 2003 in Donegal there was an escape of deer from Glenveagh National Park. I have spoken to some of our members in Donegal and areas around there and over the 19 years since then, the deer have spread right down. There are now reports of them in County Leitrim, they are in County Sligo and I heard about a stag that was seen in Ballaghaderreen recently, which is not where they would usually be. I know that in the area we live in, in west Wicklow, deer were only seen in the distance 20 years ago and on certain roads you might have needed to be careful at night. Now you can turn a corner in the middle of the day now and meet 20 deer. This is spreading. They are in Kildare now and as they are moving throughout the country, what is a problem at the moment for hill farmers and those in the areas that have forestry will spread to other areas of the country. We have fenced out the deer in my farm and it has solved our problem. But it is not solving the problem for everybody else. If we all put up fences it will just pass the problem further down the line. We need to fence these animals into sanctuaries, into areas, and they will not be as diseased if they are properly managed. The highlands of Scotland have gamekeepers and the weak and sick deer that will spread the disease are taken out.

We blame the badger. In most farms one cannot allow cattle to drink out of streams. One puts troughs up at a high enough point that the badger cannot touch it but the deer can. It is not fast-flowing water in a trough and they leave spores, which are passed on. All these things have to be looked at, we have to be serious and for every farmer who has a concern about whatever type of wildlife is in his or her area, the matter must be explored properly and everybody must work together. Nobody wants to point the finger but the deer herd needs to be managed. Fencing them out of farms is one solution but it is not the whole solution. I thank the Chair.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for outlining the issues with TB. Before I go to the committee members I want to be the devil's advocate here. The Committee of Public Accounts has focused on the cost of TB to the Exchequer. It is 20 years since there was an agreement that farmers would pay for their annual herd test and there was a reduction of levies at that stage. My understanding of that agreement at that time was that the cost of TB would be spread 50:50 between farmers and the Department. As costs are now escalating, how do the witnesses see funding for TB being acquired going forward? When we said we would pay for our own herd test, it was a clear agreement that the costs would be evenly shared. Thankfully the price of livestock is increasing which obviously drives up the price of reactors and of compensation and rightly so. Income supplements and everything else also need to be increased to reflect the increasing price of the produce that animals would be producing and the costs that are being borne on farms. On the issue of the eradication of TB and I think wildlife is a huge issue, before I go to the other members, I would like the witnesses to focus on how they see the costs of the proposals that are coming, the cost of the reactors and the cost of the control of wildlife activity being met.

Mr. Tom?s Bourke:

I thank the Chair and that is the substantive point because clearly, an equitable funding model has to be agreed going forward. It is a significant time since testing was privatised. The Chair referenced the appraisal by the Committee of Public Accounts of the costs. It is important that we establish the true costs of the TB programme in the first instance and it is very interesting that in our nearest neighbours, namely, Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, the enormous labour contribution that farmers make to implementing the TB programme is recognised and costed as the farmers' contribution to the programme, with the state picking up all other additional costs. Farmers in those jurisdictions only contribute their labour in facilitating TB testing and as farmers, we know that is a huge commitment. Until very recently our labour contribution was not recognised as a cost in the programme and is still not counted as an overall cost. The Grant Thornton report quantified it as being in the region of €8 million. To put it in context, as farmers we facilitate 9 million animal tests per year on a population of 6.67 million animals. Obviously, there is some re-testing. As all present know, a TB test is not just for the few hours the vet is carrying out or reading the test. There is a day organising it, a day disinfecting and a day clearing. On some farms, there could be up to four days of a contribution and in some larger farms, testing is not even completed in one attempt. We conservatively estimate that a farmer's labour contribution to this programme is in excess of €20 million. If we look at the costings carried out in other jurisdictions it is in that same ballpark based on the number of animals concerned.

Coincidentally, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine's staff cost for implementing the TB programme is €27 million. We do not believe it is exorbitant or unreasonable that, as farmers, we have our time, labour and commitment to carrying out TB test costed at the minimum wage. In establishing a fair funding model, first and foremost we must understand the true cost. We must then quantify the contributions. If we are to have our labour recognised, in addition to the €8 million we are putting forward in levies and the private TB testing which is now reaching a cost of €28 million, it brings us to more than €55 million in direct contributions to a programme that would then be costing approximately €110 million to €120 million. We are not very far off the original 50:50 split that was intended to be the breakdown when testing was privatised.

Subsequently, we have had the Grant Thornton report that came up with various figures on public-private benefits. The fundamental issue from a farmer's perspective is that farmers and the State are the only direct contributors to the TB programme but, as we all know, there are many beneficiaries. It is broader than just the agri-sector. All of the agri-sector benefits from the TB eradication programme by way of the status we have attained for our animals in being able to access all of these key high-value markets. This access to these markets means processors and live exporters are all benefiting from the agri-sector, including the broader national economy. In this regard we feel we are very closely aligned to the 50:50 breakdown. We believe this is largely unfair and disproportionate in the context of the level of cost farmers alone are left to carry in this regard.

How and ever, proposals are being put forward to advance an agreed funding model. As the committee may be aware, there is uniformity of agreement around the table from the farm organisations on where we will go and where we should go on this. The ball effectively now rests with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine and the Minister as to whether we can advance the issues of improved income supports for farmers, an improved hardship grant, enhancements to the live valuation scheme and the facilitation to farm. We have agreed we are prepared to discuss increasing our contribution towards the direct financial support for farmers on the basis the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and by extension the Minister, agrees to provide the resources necessary for the wildlife programme to be carried out effectively. The only thing that will stop the increase in the levels of TB and bring us back to when we had a significant reduction in numbers in the early 2000s, of which the Chair is well aware, is an effective wildlife control programme. It remains the one proven means to reduce TB levels. We have to resource this programme fully.

There is much talk about the pre-movement test required by the EU. As the Chair has rightly outlined, as far as we are concerned, we have an agreement that is non-negotiable. It is incumbent on the State to cover it. The Department and the Minister have suggested they may fund the wildlife programme but we need to see the bodies and the boots on the ground to deliver it and cover the minimal cost now associated with the proposals on the pre-movement test. Potentially, out of the 2.6 million animals that would be traded, fewer than 170,000 would be liable for the test. We are prepared to play our part in supporting farmers.

Mr. Paul Smyth:

I will cover the question on the 50:50 split. For the past three years we have sat on a forum, and prior to that it was very much the Department coming in saying what needed to be done. The forum was of the mindset that there must be collaboration with everybody and that what funding goes forward needs to be agreed on both sides. Very much with regard to finance, there will be no agreement until everybody is in agreement. This is why the farming organisations have put so many resources into the number of monthly meetings we attend. It is to get agreement so we will have a better future with regard to TB.

With regard to the actual testing pre and post movement, we have always been of the opinion that short-term pain for the Department will lead to a long-term gain. The funding for testing pre and post movement will reduce the amount of compensation that will need to be paid in the long term. The Department states it wants a 50:50 split. We could end up paying more in the long run, even if it pays for the pre- and post-movement testing. This is something we believe is pertinent. As the proposals stand on income supplement, depopulation and hardship, any increase in the rates will be funded in full by farmers. This is the way it stands. If that were to be agreed, we would be taking a big risk if TB were to go in the wrong direction. We are putting our heads on the block in terms of compensation and increased funding of this programme. The forum is the vehicle that agreement will come through. We are putting our time into it and I hope the Department will be as sincere with its time.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have to suspend the meeting because there is a vote in the Dáil.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does anyone else wish to comment on the Exchequer aspect?

Mr. Liam Hanrahan:

Regarding future funding, we want there to be realistic funding costed to eradicate TB. This is what is required for the benefit of the country as a whole. As we said in our opening statement, any new measures we are seeking should be completely funded by the Department. Equally, any new measures arising in future as a result of actions taken now should also be funded directly by the Department. We are in favour of increasing the levy only when this money is passed back, via compensation, to the farmers whose herds are impacted by TB.

In reality, the true costs of the programme are currently approximately €80 million annually. To eradicate TB, we are talking about an expenditure of more than €1 billion. We have seen how this disease has been eradicated in Australia and New Zealand, and the costs of those eradication programmes increased in their later years. The costs each year for a programme like this will, therefore, definitely increase here as well. The true costs of this programme also include, as already mentioned, aspects such as farmers' time. Biosecurity costs are also a factor. Included in these are the implementation of quarantine measures for stock that are bought in, stock-proof fencing for farmers' own cattle and badger- and deer-proof fencing, as well as a possible requirement for targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, grants for this element as it has a significant cost. Macra na Feirme is very much willing to work with any future measures implemented that are effective in the removal of TB.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Hanrahan.

Mr. Eddie Punch:

Regarding the Committee of Public Accounts critique in this regard, if we have a programme cost then we must understand that some of this is based on estimates. For example, the farmers' contribution to testing is an estimate. It is not a real figure. It is costed at €4.50 per head by the Department, which uses the same value for testing that the Department uses for itself. When we look at what farmers pay, though, many are paying more than €4.50 per head for their TB tests. There is also a VAT element in this context, which is money that is actually returning to the Exchequer. While in theory, therefore, the Department is stating that farmers are spending about €28 million on the private testing programme, this is a guesstimate. We think the figure would probably be greater than €30 million, if it was properly costed. There is also a VAT element in this context which goes back to the State.

It was interesting as well that the point was made by some of our colleagues concerning the important question of farmers contributing in kind, in respect of the work they put into testing. No figure is provided for this aspect. The work done by farmers in this way is represented by a zero. Grant Thornton was asked to try to come up with a way of estimating this value. We were deeply dissatisfied with the process it went through. It came up with a figure equal to the minimum wage rate to cost farmers' time, which was farcical in our view. We agree, therefore, that farmers actual contribution in respect of labour is closer to €20 million.

On the other side of the equation, the Department does a generous job in costing its labour contribution. This is not a precise science, but the Department's administration costs of about €28 million or €29 million are, essentially, counting any staff who might contribute in some way and at some time to the TB programme in the context of their much broader roles. If there was no TB tomorrow morning, for example, would this €28 million cost disappear? It is very hard to say. Many of these staff would still be employed by the Department. A major question mark, therefore, hangs over this aspect of the costing.

To look at it this way, the Department's own estimation is that the staff cost for the administration of the TB programme amounts to around €28 million. This means that the cost for administrators is greater than the cost of testing the entire national herd by the private veterinary practitioners. Let us think about this point for a minute. We have 6 million or 7 million head of cattle and all these animals must be tested annually. This is hard work, as anyone who has ever tested cattle will know, and the hours involved are long. Some 96% of these herds will not have TB. The 4% that might have TB represent approximately 4,000 herds, out of a total of more than 100,000 such herds overall yet the Department's administration predominantly deals with this 4% of herds. Letters do go out to all farmers to tell them their TB tests are due to be done, and in that regard some administration required for the 96% of herds that are TB free, but the Department's predominant effort is expended in dealing with the 4% or 5% of herds that have TB present. Our TB testing programme encompasses 100% of herds yet the Department's administration costs, in respect of sending a few emails and banging out a few letters for a lot of herds, ends up costing more than putting the 6 million or 7 million cattle through a crush, putting them through again on a second day and again reading the results.

There is something about those figures that we do not accept as being fully accurate. If you add in the farmers’ contribution of €20 million in free labour - this has not been included in the figures - and consider that we are agreeable to looking at the levies if the money is paid back to the farmers, you can see that this has been completely over-egged. The Committee of Public Accounts has not quite understood what has been put in front of it in this regard. You also have to look at the fact that the wildlife programme, at €4 million or €5 million, is a tiny fraction of the expenditure. We would question how the money is allocated. Our agrifood exports increased from €11.5 billion in 2015 to €15.4 billion in 2021. That expansion in productivity comes at a cost in the context of TB. It is delusional to think that there could be a massive benefit to the State and the Exchequer from increased exports without some extra costs with regard to the TB programme.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Stephenson want to comment?

Mr. Tom Stephenson:

Yes. I am here more or less to see if we can come up with some solutions. Everybody else is talking about the finance end of it, but we may need to stop and start again. We have to figure out where this all started from. People are talking here about getting finance. The Department of Defence, Coillte and the National Parks and Wildlife Service will have to be brought before the committee in order that they can offer their tuppence or shilling's worth. The original problem with forestry started in those three particular areas. In the Glen of Imaal in my part of the country, there is an army shouting range. You could not possibly go in there with a gun to shoot a deer because it is military land. The deer are let run free on that land the whole time. The Department of Agriculture, along with the Department of Defence, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, will have to come in. The money is there to eradicate the problem without trying to get more money from farmers. That is my little bit for the moment.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests again, particularly those we have seen several times over the past few weeks, for making the effort to be here.

I better disclose that I am a member of the Committee of Public Accounts. To analyse the report of that committee, you have to assess how it approaches these things. It does not deal with policy; it deals very much with expenditure and value for money. Ultimately, the committee's net point stands. We are spending more money each year on a TB eradication programme but the number of infected animals is not decreasing. We are getting less money on an annual basis to such a point that in a couple of years we will be getting zero from the European Union. That is because the European Commission has decided that our TB eradication programme is not doing what it says on the tin; it is not eradicating the disease.

Be that as it may, this committee is where the nuances of policy and the detail of policy responses are dealt with. We have evidence from various organisations outlining different things that could or should be done or that possibly have been done in the past and are not being done now. I have a number of questions. Some of them were touched upon in the opening statements but it would be useful to get some elaboration.

My first question relates to the badger vaccination programme. Can we get a view from the organisations present as to whether they see it as working and whether it is an effective way of dealing with the spread of TB from that source?

Everyone who made an opening statement mentioned deer. Unfortunately, there are no departmental officials here this evening. I presume they are coming at a later date. Is there a sense on the part of our guests that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine recognises the role of deer in this matter? I heard a man on the radio last week saying that the only way to deal with expanding deer populations is by introducing wolves. I have heard others saying-----

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can only report what I heard. Is there a mechanism or some form of international experience the witnesses can point to whereby a deer population has been successfully managed through state agencies in conjunction, I presume, with game clubs and others that would need to be involved?

Is there are view that we can reach a point where TB can be eradicated? Obviously, we hope that there will at some stage be a vaccine that we can give to cattle. If money was not an object and if the State had as much money as was required and was willing to implement the type of measures that have been outlined, is there a view on the part of the witnesses that we could bring the 4% figure down to zero?

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have two very brief questions. What meetings have the farming organisations had with the National Parks and Wildlife Service since their last appearance before the committee? I have been in contact with Coillte regarding fencing of its land where it borders farmers' land. That issue was raised on the previous occasion. Has the situation improved? Coillte said it was looking into the matter and that it was a priority for it. Can the witnesses comment on that?

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will do the rounds again. We will take Deputy Carthy's and Kehoe's questions together. We will go in the same order again, starting with the IFA.

Mr. Tom?s Bourke:

I thank the Acting Chair. I will cover off two or three of those and our vice chair, Ms Mooney will, take the others.

The first question asked by Deputy Carty related to the effectiveness or otherwise of the badger vaccination programme. From our perspective, we do not believe it is an effective front-line tool to reduce the levels of TB. We first had concerns about its effectiveness when we saw what happened in Monaghan a number of years ago. Monaghan had one of the lowest incidences of TB when a vaccination programme was introduced in part of the county. Coincidentally, there was a strong correlation between that part of the county and where the most severe TB outbreaks occurred. Subsequently, there have been outbreaks in neighbouring counties.

The original field-scale trials that took place in the north Kilkenny area show that we are one of the worst areas in the country for TB, as is evident from the published TB updates from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is clear that the vaccination of badgers has a role to play where density has been reduced, but it is critical that the population is also managed. We see all too frequently that where the density of badgers has increased in the vaccination areas, the level of TB is increasing and we are having far too many outbreaks among cattle.

If we go back to the concerns that the Committee of Public Accounts, rightly, had about the overall cost of the TB programme, farmers also have huge concerns about the cost to us of the programme. We believe that there needs to be significant upward investment in the tools that have been proven to reduce TB, which is effectively a reduction in the number of badgers in infected areas. Such a programme was carried out reasonably effectively from 2000 up to 2010 or 2011 and resulted in a reduction from 44,000 reactors to approximately 13,000. Unfortunately, the eye was taken off the ball. We do not need to reinvent the wheel here. The key to reducing the overall cost of TB and achieving its eradication, as has been evidenced in all jurisdictions where that has been achieved, is to deal with it in wildlife. The areas that have been most successful in the shortest timeframe are parts of the world that did not have a problem with the disease in wildlife. Scotland is the nearest example. When we engaged with Scottish farmers, we were told that was the key driver. We got presentations from experts in Australia, New Zealand and America. Everybody has the same issue. We will not address TB in the bovine population until we address it in the wildlife population. An effective wildlife programme based on density reduction is the key. It is the case that when we have the disease under control there is a potential role for vaccination, but it must coincide with a management tool for the population. Badgers, no different to deer, do not have a natural predator in this country.

In the context of us being unable to control the dogs that are supposed to be licensed here and to manage the atrocities that they are responsible for in sheep farms, I would not like to see where we would end up with wolves.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Carthy said that tongue and cheek.

Mr. Tom?s Bourke:

I get that. A question was asked by Deputy Carthy on whether the Department recognises that deer play a role in TB. Until very recently the answer to that was unequivocally "No". We have started to see a significant change in the mindset. The studies carried out in Wicklow five to six years ago found 16% prevalence in the deer that were examined. It was subsequently found that the strain was the very same as the one in cattle. Finally, the Department has accepted that deer have a role to play. The sequencing of the TB outbreaks referred to by earlier speakers has also found that it is the exact same strain of TB that is circulating in the badger, deer and cattle populations. The science is unequivocal. There is no hiding place from the perspective of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is no coincidence that the deer strategy group has been re-established. It has a significant job of work to do; the solution being simply to reduce the number of deer. As we already heard from the national media, we have broader issues with deer in terms of road safety.

On whether we can eradicate TB, that is the objective. As I alluded to earlier, if we are serious about eradicating it, we must resolve the issue in wildlife. We will not eradicate TB while we continue to have an under-resourced wildlife control programme. The question for the Department is whether it is prepared to put the necessary resources into the wildlife control programme to achieve the outcomes we all want and to save not only the national Exchequer but farmers millions of euro every year. The solutions are before us. The tools are there, and they have been proven to be effective. They are just not being implemented effectively on the ground.

Deputy Kehoe asked two questions about the specifics of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Coillte. Ms Mooney, who has direct experience of those bodies and is from Wicklow, will comment on that.

Ms Amanda Mooney:

The IFA in Wicklow has met with the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Coillte and we are looking at taking a co-ordinated approach. Deer do not respect the boundaries of farmland, forestry, parks and uplands. I welcome the establishment of the deer management group. We need to give it time to come together with all the interested bodies to devise a plan. Deer numbers have exploded, not only in Wicklow but across the country. Deer are found in every county. It has been established that there is a link with the strain of TB carried by deer and badgers. It is a triangle. In effect, the only animal in the triangle that we are taking out at the moment is the one on our farms. We need to widen the net.

As Mr. Smyth has suggested, it needs to be a co-ordinated approach because it must cover all of the land areas. In our area, we are talking with the National Parks and Wildlife Service and with Coillte. I expect that when the deer management group gets up and running, we will co-ordinate the approach across the country. I look forward to that. Nobody in this room wants another 70 years of the emotional and financial cost on farms and to the taxpayer. We must get this problem sorted out and as Mr. Bourke has indicated, we must address the wildlife aspect of TB.

Mr. Des Morrison:

I will answer Deputy Carthy's questions as best I can. The first point he made is that more funding is going into this area and he mentioned the Committee of Public Accounts, yet there is no reduction in TB. We have seen that is the case in recent years. While more money has been spent in some years, that depends on the number of reactors in any given year and the situation is always fluid. Any farmer knows that if a herd test goes wrong, unfortunately there are reactors. More money may be going in, including for farmers who are paid levies, but there are more hidden costs involved as well, and consequential loss for herd owners. The 4.5% of herd owners who have an outbreak on the farm put enormous effort and time into controlling TB on their farms. If personnel from the Department come out to a farm, the herd owner or keeper must give an enormous amount of time, including paperwork done in the office or at the table, to notify everyone. The Department will go through that with the herd owner. They also then have to look for the source of the infection - the wildlife or wherever the outbreak is coming from. A significant number of hours are required, which is a hidden cost to the restricted herd owner that gives rise to a consequential loss that is never mentioned or acknowledged by anybody.

The badger vaccination programme is going on in many areas and it must be welcomed, as must anything that will control the spread of TB. It is important to note that the badgers that are captured are all tested for TB to see if they are positive or negative. The positive ones are culled and the negative ones vaccinated and released. That approach must be stringently adhered to, as it is a very important issue in the control of TB. If we learned anything from Covid, it was how to reduce the rate of infection. How we reduced infection was to reduce contacts. It is not much different in wildlife. If we do not have a proper wildlife control programme for either deer or badgers, we will have more contact with animals. The contact can be from wildlife to cattle and cattle to wildlife. We must be able to control the contact and the only way to do so is to have a proper wildlife control programme, especially the removal of badgers that test positive for TB when they are captured.

The other point is vaccination for cattle. It has to be remembered and it ought to be borne in mind that we are an exporting nation that exports, give or take, 90% of our produce. Vaccinating our animals would put live exports in great jeopardy and they would stop going to some markets. For the reason of exports alone, it is a non-runner in this country. Live exports are an important element of the trade and they put real competition into the marketplace. We cannot do anything to jeopardise that.

Can we see the country being TB free? No farmer on this side of the table would be sitting here if we did not believe that but I have to put a few caveats on that. We have to find better ways to do this because if we do not do something different, unfortunately, people will be here again in seven years times talking about the same issue. We have to find different ways of controlling the infection and we must do so properly and scientifically. Science is one way that we can do this and it is a way we can prove that we are reducing it. Until we do that we will not be TB free. Our effort has to go into reducing the rate of infection and once we do that the infection will start falling and falling. It has to be properly funded and targeted to achieve a controlled rate of infection, regardless of where it is coming from or what kind of wildlife it is coming from. That is the key to being TB free. I will leave the other questions to my colleagues.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

I will add to a few of those points. Mr. Morrison finished up by speaking about whether we believe we can eradicate TB. Five or five and a half years ago the industry was brought together with a view to eradicating TB by 2030. At the time the departmental officials that headed and led that for three or four years were a Mr. Forde and a Mr. Ryan. They were committed to the cause but, unfortunately, with career progression, etc., within the Department goes, they were not afforded the opportunity to see out the period to 2030 to deliver on their vision. The turnover of senior personnel in the Department is critical and, it is probably fair to say, is damaging the eradication of TB. I agree 100% with Mr. Morrison on exports and we are dependent on keeping that status.

On deer management, whether the Department recognises it or not, as Mr. Bourke said, the Road Safety Authority recognises it. We acknowledge that we have advice from the deer management group but there were deer management groups in the past and hopefully this one will be more fruitful. Deputy Kehoe asked about wildlife, Coillte and fencing and there is a huge issue out there for farmers adjacent to forestry land. Those fences have not been cured overnight and the problem has not gone away. I spoke with my own vet about this matter yesterday to see what the view is and while it is a significant issue in County Wicklow and parts of the west, there is forestry in every county and there are deer on every plot of forestry. It was mentioned earlier that this could become a widespread issue if it is not grasped. We would like to see personnel appointed for a period who could see out a defined vision period similar to the target that was there for 2030.

Mr. Liam Hanrahan:

I will cover off Deputy Carthy's points and Mr. Dillon will cover Deputy Kehoe's points. Deputy Carthy asked about badger vaccination and whether it is working. The only thing that will answer that question is definite research and scientific evidence. There is a requirement for increased funding for research, and an adequately funded programme will give us those answers because badger vaccination must be effective and justifiable. The north Kilkenny example where there was significant badger vaccination in recent years has been mentioned. There are large TB outbreaks and major breakdowns there at the moment, which we would prefer not to be the case. I spoke with one of our members recently who experienced a particularly TB bad breakdown. This member has had badgers tested from their farm, which happened to be positive with TB and which happened to be vaccinated previously as well. That is not a positive outcome. If a 100% vaccination programme could be implemented, it would be great but like our Covid vaccines, it does not always work.

There is a deer management forum in place and the objective would be to tackle the problem head on. We require sensible solutions to do this and controlling the deer population will be part of this. It is not only required from a TB perspective but from a public safety point of view as well and that should not be understated.

On eradicating TB totally from the country, we would back that concept 100%. From speaking with our members and from personal experience, there is no greater stress on farmers than a bad TB breakdown. One might say there are lots of risks and stresses on farms such as bad weather, shortage of feed and things like that but it is winter time and we are getting extremely bad weather but that is normal; we know the spring will come around. If a farmer has a bad TB breakdown, he or she does not know when it will finish and that is the hardest part about it. He or she does not know when it will end and that brings emotional and mental stress to the farmer, which should not be understated. We would back a properly funded eradication programme and we will work with that 100%.

Mr. Derrie Dillon:

I will address Deputy Kehoe's question on meetings with the NPWS. The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage has just engaged a public consultation process for the development of the first three-year statement of strategy for the NPWS. This is a new development and the NPWS has a number of directives that it has responsibility for, including wildlife enforcement, nature protection, parks and nature reserves. We look forward to the opportunity of engaging in that process and outlining issues of deer management etc. around that. It is the first opportunity for the NPWS to engage in a strategy statement so that is a new departure and that has to be welcomed.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

I will respond to Deputy Carthy's questions on the badger vaccination. It is something we brought up on numerous occasions at the TB Forum. It was not mentioned here but I want to make it known that we brought it up at an earlier stage in the TB programme. We questioned the number of counties that were being done and the way it was being extended throughout the country. At the time we were told it was done prior to the TB Forum being set up, that we had no say in the matter and that this was going to take place without being proven.

I refer to badgers and the testing of badgers. There are different opinions around the room. We have seen the "RTÉ Investigates" programme, which detailed how there was no testing of the badgers, and we have seen that there was a time when there were no test facilities or equipment for testing. A lot of this has gone on in the past with badgers and the testing was being determined on a visual test. If a test is so accurate within hours of a badger being caught and vaccinated, why are we putting in cattle twice and so on? I question it big time. We should not be put through so much. The feedback we have from a lot of places on the wildlife and vaccination has been to ask whether outbreaks are happening in the middle of vaccination programmes or after. We would look to County Clare, where it was reduced by half when there was a cull in the Burren and in other areas. Maybe we have to get more realistic on what we need to achieve in that. That is where we would be looking on the badger end of it.

With regard to the control of deer and the control of same, this is something the Department was burying its head in the sand on all the time and did not want to take ownership. Officials told us to contact the relevant bodies and to take them out and bring them at our own cost to the labs or whatever.

That is not the way of working or how to control the system. I do not care what we call deer; they are wildlife. There is talk about tagging them in the future. Deer should be treated the same as any other bovine. The wildlife parks were always there. We have Phoenix Park, Glenveagh Park, County Donegal or wherever they are. They are controlled areas. There is no such thing as controlled because they are not affecting them financially. We are taking the burden of that in our TB breakdowns. The pressure must come from this committee that a cull must take place. There has to be proper control put in place nationally for deer at all times.

The numbers in County Wicklow and so forth were mentioned here. When we bring it up at the TB forum, people say there are no deer; it is only in Wicklow that they are showing a high prevalence. There is no test to show the readings. We have nothing to work off. As the Deputy mentioned about something else, a lot of figures are put out that do not stand up to basic statements. This is where deer and bovine have to be treated. No other bovine would be let roam on the land. Between the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Office of Public Works and Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, especially the section of the Department with responsibility for disease, someone has to take responsibility for this. That is something I would like to see going forward.

All we want to see is eradication going forward. We have been in this programme for the past four years, and in the last 12 or 16 months, all we have heard at any meeting is that so much stock is missing from the wild and that we cannot control the wildlife. There are technical agricultural officers, TAOs, missing or they cannot take on farm-leased staff due to the shortage of staff. Consider the Border areas of counties Cavan, Louth, Meath and Monaghan, for instance, which is a big red spot. Five staff are missing from there on the wildlife end. Who is suffering? The farmers. They are the ones who are taking the whole risk. They are the ones who go down with TB. The other ones then are on the outer side of the farm gate. The Department has failed them by not putting in place the proper eradication programme. This what we are hitting across the country. We are short of multiple staff. Therefore, how can we talk about increasing costs or share in expenditure when we are doing everything inside the farm gate? On the other hand, nothing is being done to match it. This needs to be directed and must be done. Therefore, we are calling here for the Department to take full responsibility with immediate effect. That is what we will be looking forward to.

Deputy Kehoe asked a question about the National Parks and Wildlife Service. We are looking forward to working with it and trying to develop what is going forward in further meetings. As far as Coillte goes, we had a meeting with the head of the organisation. As far as we were concerned, Coillte showed very little interest in what we are doing. Furthermore, as people in the room know because they have sat on the TB forum, I brought this up at the forum on a few occasions and the reply Coillte gave us was that there is no proof that wildlife is the problem with TB. Coillte said it is not responsible, and its representatives wiped their hands clean of it. That is not acceptable. It is Coillte's property. It should take defensive interest. I do not know if Mr. Punch wants to follow on from that.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I call Ms Tyrell.

Ms Fionnuala Tyrell:

First of all, I agree with much of what has been said by other speakers. Basically, we are all singing off the same hymn sheet. In my personal experience, the biggest problem with regard to deer is that nobody is willing to step up and take responsibility. We were having a big issue with deer. The local wildlife ranger came out and his comment over the damage they were doing was that it was nobody's fault; they are wild animals and no-one is responsible for them. If nobody is willing to take responsibility, this is where the issue lies. No-one will count them and no-one is going to herd them in. As I said previously, fencing them out is a localised solution and will do for each farmer. There needs to be proper control. Up to now, the Department has not taken any control. It has tended to take the line that it is only the badger. It did not want to listen to farmers on the ground who see deer in their area and know what is going on in their own particular region. The Department has refused to listen. It has to listen now because enough reports are coming through, but will action be taken?

I live in an area in which there are many Coillte forestries. New forestries are being planted and there is no sign of deer fencing going up around them to keep the deer in. Coillte will put tubes on the trees and plant broad leaf plants at the edge of the new plantations but it does not wish to put up fencing. These deer have spread. They are everywhere around the country. Somebody needs to be willing. There is no point saying there will be meetings or this and that. They are continuously breeding and spreading. They need new land. They are wild animals. Wildlife is keeping this whole circle going. They need to be contained. This needs meetings now, not in ten years' time because in ten years' time, other counties will be suffering the same effects. A policy needs to be put in place. Some particular body needs to take responsibility for all of the wildlife, but especially the deer. Basically, that is all I have to say. Does Mr. Stephenson have anything to add to that?

Mr. Tom Stephenson:

I have a little bit to add. Coillte gets huge sums of money every year from various shooting companies that bring in groups of people from Spain, Portugal and Italy. They come into the forests maybe once, twice or three times per year at different times when the shooting season is on for the stags and then for the does. They take the prize deer out and leave the rest to grow bigger for the next year. The farmer feeds these people breakfast and Coillte provides beds. The deer do not stay in the forests. When they are shot in the woods, they come out onto the farmland and come across this lovely, tasty grass. They are not going to go back in to eat the sedge that is in the forest again. They keep coming back and go in and out, tearing down the fences on my land. My farm is half-fenced. The other half is down because it runs all along a mile of forestry. When the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine comes out and sees that my fence is not up, I lose my single farm payment. I have put of four rods of electric fencing around the place with the mains and it is pulled down by the stags that come out. It is pulled down. I am just waiting for the time when the Department comes out and reprimands me for not having proper fencing on my farm. Bullets drive the deer out into the fields and they are hungry. That is all I have to say about that.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Previous meetings and the content of these submissions will form the crux of our debate with the Department when it appears before the committee. Every time TB is mentioned, I cannot help but think about what Albert Einstein said whereby insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. We are at that phase now.

Everything is there in the submissions. Everything tallies from all the witnesses' submissions; they are all singing from the same hymn sheet. Perhaps they could give me a little bit of a feeling of how the forum works. Is it working? A forum to me is a collection of like-minded people who come together to come up with and achieve a solution. I get the impression from the submissions and from what I have heard today that the forum a bit of an us-and-them scenario, that is, the representative organisations and the Department. Is the Department as engaged in the forum as the witnesses all seem to be? Are they finding themselves in a position where rather than being facilitative and on the same page, they are having difficulty dragging the Department along kicking and squealing to where we should be as an industry and a business? It is the Department with responsibility for agriculture and, ultimately, the exports and income we are making from the agriculture sector, which is somewhat jeopardised by this. If we cannot get a handle on this, the day could come down the line when it will start affecting our ability to export. Basically, what I want to hear, other than the nuts and bolts of what goes on at this forum, is whether it is working. Is it actually working? Will it achieve what it is meant to achieve? Are both parties willing participants?

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. Those are very straightforward questions. Is the forum working? Is the Department participating fully in it? We will confine Mr. Bourke to two minutes on the answer.

Mr. Tom?s Bourke:

I thank Senator Daly for the question. The answer is straightforward in regard to whether the forum is working. The current forum and its structure are certainly a significant improvement on the forum that was imposed on farmers representatives and stakeholders in the initial phases, where, effectively, it was set up as a rubber-stamp committee where we would be lectured by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on the way forward, and that is the policy that would then be adopted. It culminated in the debacle that was the blacklisting of farmers with herd categorisation letters. Fortunately, since then, the newly established forum - which I will call it, even though, technically, it was not newly established but was revisited with regard to its structure - provides for far better direct engagement with farmers.

Where we are directly involved is in two groups, one of which deals with the implementation of policy. One of the positive outcomes of that has been an agreed application of the EU animal health law requirement and the pre- and post-movement test, which could have been extremely disruptive to farmers and to the trading of animals, and certainly anti-competitive. The discussions through the implementation group, IG, with the Department and the farm organisations reached a fairly reasonable compromise on how this could be implemented to minimise any impact on farmers.

In the context of the financial working group, which will always be the most contentious one, its effectiveness and how it is working or not rests very much on the reaction of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Minister in regard to the funding proposals for the programme going forward. Proposals have been put to the group and discussions have taken place. From our perspective, we are in agreement on progressing those discussions provided the good faith shown by farmers in agreeing to consider increasing potential contributions for direct supports to farmers is reciprocated by the Department putting in place the funding and resources necessary for the wildlife programme and to pay for this additional legislatively required EU test, which is for minimal exposure.

To conclude, there were certainly huge problems with the TB forum. We have a far better structure currently but let us see where it takes us over the coming weeks.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

I will lead out and Mr. Morrison will then come in as he sits on the forum. In response to the question from Deputy Carthy in the absence of the Chairman, I mentioned the fact that key Department personnel get moved on over a period of time. It is very difficult for any forum if some of the key personnel move every three to six years. It is not that long ago that there was a target of eradicating TB by 2030, but those Department personnel are now outside the TB remit. That has a huge effect.

Mr. Des Morrison:

To follow on from that, I am relatively new on the forum but I would have a fair background in TB eradication and I have been farming all my life. I am only in the forum about six months but even in that time, there has been a huge change in personnel. In order to carry out any programme, we need continuity of personnel.

To answer the question that was directly posed as to whether the forum is working, I would have been a bit sceptical in the beginning but I have to acknowledge that I was surprised by the amount of good work and good thought going on in it. Having said all of that, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The proof going forward will be whether there is going to be a genuine reduction in the number of TB reactors and whether we can hit our goal of having a TB-free country, which would enhance all our exports going forward.

The forum has three strands or three committees which are working relatively well, and the Department is working relatively well with the farming organisations. There is very good engagement, which is a plus. The caveat will remain as previously, namely, there is a 30% shortage of some field staff. How are we going to control the disease if the field officers are not there to do the jobs that the farming organisations need to be done with regard to having a proper control structure in place for wildlife? As I said earlier, just like Covid, we are not going to control any disease unless we can reduce contact, which in effect means reduce the contact of infected wildlife with cattle in the initial stage.

I have to say that the Department and the farming organisations are all well-intentioned and all with the same aim, but we need a more permanent structure, both in terms of staff in the Department and field staff, if at all possible. The farming organisations will be the ones who will be there to answer when the rest are all gone and moved on to different positions. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, but I would have to say it is working relatively well.

Mr. Liam Hanrahan:

I thank Senator Daly for the question. There is no doubt the engagement within the forum has improved and the Macra na Feirme president sits on the forum and gives huge time to it. With the time given, it is important that it is effective. As is the case with any group, implementation is required, and we see that is happening, in fairness, given the feedback we get.

There are a couple of things which are encouraging. One that I would encourage further is the increase in genome sequencing. Similar to a proper contact test and trace system, which works in other aspects of “one health” systems, there is probably a requirement for a doubling of the samples being tested at the moment to be able to contact test and trace where the sources of TB are coming from and going to around the country.

Another encouraging point which is ongoing in the forum is around the breeding of less susceptible artificial insemination, AI, bulls. I would like to encourage further progress around this in terms of disseminating the information on which bulls we should be using and how to protect our herds going forward in our breeding programmes.

Mr. Eddie Punch:

Senator Daly made a very pertinent point about the definition of insanity. A genuine effort is being made at this stage. There were, of course, staffing issues and staff changes, but life is life and people will move on, no matter what we do. The bigger issue is what happens if this does not work, and there should be some space for thinking about that. If, in 2030, we are still at the same spot we were at in 2020, what are we going to do then? That is not a popular thing to say but I think there should be some space where people are looking at this question of what we are trying to achieve.

There is a lot of talk. The Committee of Public Accounts is concerned about €1 billion being spent on this within a ten-year period. If €1 billion is spent on it and we get to where we want to go, that is great. However, I take the view that unless we can find an effective way of dealing with the deer, we may not succeed. There has been a burying of heads in the sand, certainly at the outset of this forum, about the TB role of deer. If we cannot find a way to control that, we will have to start thinking about what we will do in ten years' time.

Covid was interesting. Two years ago, we said we could have zero Covid, then we said we could have zero Covid with vaccination, and now we have moved the goalposts in terms of how we deal with Covid. I think we may eventually arrive at a scenario where we ask how do we make sure we have our live exports and what is the way of dealing with them, and then, for the rest of the herd, what is the purpose of all of this testing. That is something that someone should be reflecting on. However, we should certainly try to achieve all we can in the forum, as we are doing at the moment.

Mr. Tom Stephenson:

I was at one of those forum meetings. Unfortunately, the two of us are at a disadvantage. I have only been at one of those meetings. However, from what I saw on the first day I was there, everything was positive. There was good workmanship among everybody. Everybody wanted to get this sorted out. From what I have seen, I would be happy with what is going to take place here.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for coming in. It is interesting that the witnesses are all at one in being happy with the forum and what is going on. I have a few questions. I have my own interpretation of things. Are marts at a disadvantage or can farmers move their yearly herd tests? I have heard it said that they can do that when they are selling a stripper cow or whatever at the back end of the year. Generally, if they do not have their herd test within a year, their will get a big envelope and their herd will be restricted. Is it negotiated that people are allowed to delay their tests by five or six months? That is the first question.

On my second question, there seems to be a big problem with the price farmers can get for animals such as purebred bulls and purebred heifers. What is the position in that regard? The third question relates to farmers who have a job because many small farms around the country are not viable. If negotiations are going well, has this been sorted? Will a farmer who is working get what I call the hardship grant, although the witnesses may have a different name for it, in September, October or November?

I agree with the witnesses that Coillte and all such bodies need to come on board but there is one issue we have to face up to. Coillte surrounds its plantations with two or three rows of barbed wire. That is not worth a damn to deer. They will just jump over it. Are there any proposals in that regard? Ms Tyrell talked about fencing them out. They might have come down to County Leitrim. They are in every part of the country now. There is not one part of the country where there are no deer. Everywhere is poisoned with them. They are not the only cause. Not every deer has it. I am not saying that. Is there an agreement regarding the badger? As all the witnesses will know, generally, when a farmer has problems with TB, the hit squad will come out and look for setts. They will come out at the beginning but they have to follow up six months later and 12 months later. There is a recurring case near me. There is no follow-up to see if the problem has been extinguished. Do the witnesses have any views on that?

I was interested in Mr. Punch's comments. I would like to know what all the witnesses think about them. He talked about living with Covid and so on. Is there a case to be made for a different approach if plan A does not work? In the UK, tests are only carried out every four years in certain places. Everyone knows they are vaccinated against TB. We got the shot when we were going to school. What is the problem in vaccinating cattle if we are not getting on top of the problem? We are spending a lot of money and causing farmers an awful lot of hardship every year. What are the witnesses' thoughts on that?

We are now testing animals over 36 months, so it is not as hard at the moment. A farmer will basically be going with a cow or bull in the herd that has gone wrong. Has a decision been made that no one has been told about that it will come back to cattle from 24 months or to all cattle? I find it hard to understand. Can a person buy the animal if he or she has had a herd test within the six months or does the person selling the animal have to have it? I just cannot get my head around that. Are the marts now at a disadvantage? If a farmer has a stripper cow, he can head off to the factory without having her tested, but he needs this test if going to the marts.

With regard to the forum, the witnesses talked about the farmer paying a certain amount. As the Chairman outlined, the farmer also has to pay for the test. Is the Department going to pay for all of these extra tests that will have to be done or will the farmers pay for them?

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was a comprehensive list of questions from the Deputy. I will give the organisations three minutes each to try to answer them.

Mr. Tom?s Bourke:

The Deputy's first and last questions relate to the pre-movement and post-movement testing requirements under EU animal health law. I agree that it is complex. I will take a little bit of time to go through that because it is important.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will give Mr. Bourke four minutes then.

Mr. Tom?s Bourke:

I thank the Chairman, although I have used up the first minute getting the extra one. From the outset, our association's position has been that this provision in EU animal health law is of no benefit in reducing the prevalence of TB. We have spent the past four or five years, when this was at drafting stage in the EU, rejecting it. We have raised the matter with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and have met with DG SANTE on it. Unfortunately, Ireland's was a lone voice in calling for an amendment as we are the only country in the EU that has an issue with TB. Our nearest neighbour also has an issue, but that is not relevant. The requirement under current EU animal health law is that any animal leaving a herd that was tested more than six months ago, which was tested more than six months ago itself, requires pre-movement testing or testing post movement on entry into the next herd. The issue relates to that herd maintaining its status and, therefore, it is an issue for the purchasing herd.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The animal will be younger than 36 months anyway.

Mr. Tom?s Bourke:

To be clear, the requirement under EU animal law applies to every animal over six weeks of age. However, through extensive discussions, a reasonable compromise has been reached. To put this in context, we trade approximately 2.6 million animals over six weeks of age every year whether from farm to farm or through the marts. Based on the Department's latest analysis, this is now focusing solely on all cows and males over 36 months. The purpose of that reference to males over 36 months is that it is effectively focusing on breeding animals. This brings the potential exposure down to only 170,000 animals or so. This will significantly reduce the impact on trade. Critically, on the Department's proposal as to how to implement this, the concept is that all of the cull cows the Deputy referred to will effectively be ruled out. In the case of any cull cow that myself, the Deputy or a dairy or suckler farm is selling on to a controlled finishing unit, nothing changes. The majority of those are purchased by-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does this apply to marts?

Mr. Tom?s Bourke:

Yes, there is no issue selling through a mart.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do they have to be tested?

Mr. Tom?s Bourke:

No. The objective is that cull cows being sold onwards will not become eligible for testing or require testing, because that is a waste of money. These animals are going into a factory shortly. The Department's proposal as to how this is to be structured is that, if such animals move into a controlled finishing unit, there is no post-movement test requirement.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is if they are a meat cow.

Mr. Tom?s Bourke:

What I am talking about is the controls. If a cull cow is being sold onwards to a controlled finishing unit, she will not be tested. If she goes into a farm that is not a controlled finishing unit but which is for finishing, there will be no major impact on that farm for 90 days, three months. It will be three months before herd testing is required.

If at any time during that 90-day period that animal is slaughtered or tested, you are back to normal. This is effectively focusing on breeding cows. Cows that a farmer would be buying to maintain the herd for breeding for a period of time will require a test, which could be done on the farm on which they arrive. However, the most likely scenario is that the market will react to this and farmers selling cows for breeding will have a pre-movement test. If we look at where TB reactors are likely to be found, this is the only reasonable place to apply this criterion because those cows account for more than 60% of our TB reactors.

While none of us like this, it is an example of some reasonable compromise being reached, through the implementation group, to effectively minimise the impact on trade and competition so that marts and farmers are not disenfranchised and, critically, the cull cow trade is not impacted. If I do not want to deal with the factory or feed on that cow for the last two or three months, I can sell her on in the mart, like I did this year, after February of the following year without any impediment. The stumbling block is who pays for it. The Deputy is aware of what we proposed in our submission and I hope the committee puts it to the Department.

The Deputy asked about the ceilings in the live valuation scheme. That issue is being dealt with through the technical working group. Those ceilings have to be increased. As to where that issue rests, no agreement has been reached but there has to be an increase in the ceilings. It is a live valuation scheme and the ceilings should reflect the open market. That is the starting position on it.

On the hardship grant, which the Deputy has correctly identified as a hardship grant, the off-farm income impediment is a key demand and I anticipate it will be provided for in the enhancements that are being discussed. This, along with the income supplement and depopulation grant, is where farmers are being asked to contribute if there is additional expenditure retrospectively. Given that farmers are being facilitated with purchasing into restricted farms and the likelihood that the majority of farmers, or a significant number of them, will replace their animals, there could be a reduced expenditure in those income supplement and hardship grant schemes.

The Deputy's final point was on deer and I will ask our vice chair, Ms Mooney, to comment on that from a Wicklow perspective and to address Coillte's proposals.

Ms Amanda Mooney:

On deer fencing, a co-ordinated approach needs to be taken to all of this. If I fence deer out of my farm, I am fencing them into someone else's farm. Fencing and reducing the population density of the deer have to go hand in hand. There have been calls for TAMS grant awards for fencing. On our farm we fenced the immediate farmyard to exclude deer and badgers and it is working 100% during the winter but in the summer they are back out grazing the field. There needs to be a co-ordinated approach. I am positive that we will get that in the deer management group.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

The first question the Deputy asked is whether marts are at a disadvantage. The mart may not be at a disadvantage but the seller may be at a disadvantage in the mart because opportune purchasers ringside may have to consider the consequences if the animal has not been tested in the previous six months. This is because a farmer would otherwise be confined to feed lots or short-term finishers. There are challenges associated with that; make no mistake about it. It is not just confined to animals at 36 months and over. If you have a freshly calved heifer aged 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 or 29 months and you bring her to the mart, the same criteria apply to her, whether she is a dairy or suckler breed, in that she has to be tested. It is another layer of bureaucracy and, as I said previously, farmers will find themselves inspected and penalised. It has become complex and an inspection should be made in one direction or another, not this notion of-----

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Mr. McCormack to explain that. Is it not a 36-month limit then? Can it come down?

Mr. Pat McCormack:

It can if the animal-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it is a breeding heifer.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

If she is a calved heifer. That moves the goalposts and people will get caught out. When things are overcomplicated there are opportunities for inspections.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If they are 24 months old they are going from one to the other always. Is that not true?

Mr. Pat McCormack:

It is a time for sale, either before or after calving.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What if they are pregnant?

Mr. Pat McCormack:

If they are under 36 months they are OK. There is a target among the Food Vision beef and sheep group that we should be calving them under 24 months. If a farmer's practice is to calve and sell, then this is another cost.

I refer to compensation for individual animals, particularly for pedigree herds and maybe for other herds. Farmers need to realise the sale value that is attainable for this stock. In particular, if you have a multiple outbreak where multiple valuable animals have gone down as reactors, then all of those animals should be compensated for.

The Deputy mentioned using three rolls of barbed wire but I do not know what would keep out a deer. We lobbied in this round of TAMS for funding for deer fencing, which is critical.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would it be of benefit if our committee agreed that we would get onto the forestry section of the Department or Coillte to ask that farmers planting new land get a grant for this? The dogs in the street know there will be deer in every bit of forestry at some point so let the proper fencing be done at the beginning.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

Without a doubt. It is 20 years since I saw a deer down the road from us and I told one man about it. I would say he has been laughing at me for 20 years about it but he collected his daughter in town one night a few weeks ago and he saw a deer crossing the road as well, and we are as far inland as you can get. They are everywhere but, thankfully, I was proven not to be insane because I did see that deer. It is a challenge and to fence them in would be critical.

The Deputy mentioned the vaccination of cattle as regards Covid and so on. We have a huge issue in this country in that we export 90% of our product. That delivers to rural Ireland and there is a huge issue with vaccinating for TB and exporting produce, including dairy and beef produce. It is critical to our ability to access markets.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why is that? What is the issue with it?

Mr. Pat McCormack:

That is a requirement of the marketplace.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Our customers will not allow it.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

That becomes an issue. Mr. Bourke covered the issue of who pays for it, which is the critical issue as we move forward. There was an agreement nearly two decades ago that we would be paid for an annual herd test. My colleagues on either side of me tell me there is flexibility in moving the herd test. There is a three- or four-month window where you can shift your herd test, without any significant issues, to be more favourable to your farming practice, whether-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are not restricted so.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

Whether you are a spring seller or an autumn seller, you can move your herd test from that perspective.

Mr. Paul Smyth:

The ability to change the date of test has been negotiated through the forum so that the farmer does not enter restriction-----

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a good improvement.

Mr. Paul Smyth:

It is. The other question the Deputy asked was when this will apply to all animals, which is the real nub of the issue. That will come sooner than we think but at the moment we are still arguing over who pays for this. We could see it being applied to all animals sooner than we might think.

The Deputy asked about the hardship grant and the off-farm limit. Under the new proposals it is proposed that the off-farm income limit would be removed. That would be another change brought about through the forum.

On the marts being at a disadvantage, the pre-movement test is the issue. We must make sure that animals that enter the mart are all on the one footing. Farmers must not be restricted and they must not be blind when they are buying an animal.

Mr. Liam Hanrahan:

I thank the Chair and the Deputy for their questions. While they have been comprehensively answered by my colleagues, I will add to a few of those answers.

Certainly the seller in the mart will be at a disadvantage. If the seller wants to maintain the number of buyers, he or she will have to be the one doing the pre-movement test. If you are on the back foot, there are no prizes for guessing who is going to have to pay for it then. We are obviously adamant that the Department should pay for that pre-movement test in that case. There is no doubt about it that the farmer will definitely be on the back foot there.

If a person has off-farm income, he or she is not eligible for the hardship grant. We are very adamant that people should be eligible in certain cases. I know of a member of ours who does an extra half day's work a week and had a TB outbreak and could not get the hardship grant. You do not get paid that much for half a day's work. In other cases, a suckler farmer who has a TB outbreak and poor prices in the same year is going to be under serious pressure. In the dairy man's case, if he gets a TB outbreak this year and the price of a lot of his milk is fixed, he will have a serious problem altogether. Obviously this is if people have an off-farm income, and in some cases people do.

From a deer perspective, there is a management group. On the badger culling, speaking from experience, it is necessary to follow up. A farmer is responsible for his or her farm and following up is very important. On the vaccinations for TB, obviously we would love if we could move the goalposts from a science-led point of view, but our markers do not allow it as it will not fit the eradication laws. The pre- and post-movement testing has been explained. Our only concern is that the implementation of new rules would lead to more rules again. If it were the case that all animals being moved had to be tested pre-movement, that probably would not be too practical for someone who sells through the mart weekly or fortnightly. If a person has store cattle, weaning sucklers or beef heifers and starts drafting the animals for sale from August to November, he or she will be picking out the cattle on a fortnightly basis. If that person needs to do a pre-movement test, is he or she going to be testing every fortnight? If that were to be the case down the line, we would be concerned if extra testing came in.

I am not sure if the six-week rule around the selling of calves is of any benefit. During Covid we moved that up to 120 days and we saw it allowed for the spreading out of the sale of calves. This might actually suit all involved, the buyers included, as it would encourage better quality calves being allowed for sale and weaned calves to be bought and sold easily. It might be a solution to a number of other issues.

Mr. Eddie Punch:

In terms of the question asked by Deputy Fitzmaurice, by 2030 we might not have made a whole lot more progress. I hope we will have but now may be the time when some consideration should be given to "what if" scenarios. As was said, vaccination is a problem at the moment and will likely continue to be a problem because international live export markets do not allow it. What will the situation be by in 2030? Should we be looking at discussions at an international level about the requirements? As the previous speaker mentioned, should we be looking at calves under 120 days? An exemption was found during the Covid-19 pandemic and the world did not end. Should we be testing any cattle under one year old for example? What about the herds that have never had a reactor?

What we are trying to achieve is the question, I suppose, and this is more from a philosophical point of view but also whether we are going to do this for another 70 years. I do not recall in my lifetime any animal ever suffering or dying from TB on-farm. It is a kind of a disease that is there because theoretically some animals will come out with lesions. What are we trying to achieve? Are we going to spend €100 million forever on testing cattle and causing immense difficulty for farmers who have reactors if it creates no issues in terms of the food chain? If we had a scenario where, let us say, we found a different solution for live exports, could we have testing just for these cattle but not for the rest of the herd? These are just questions that should be asked, not in the short term - we are not going to do anything wild in the short term - but we should have some space to consider what we will do in 2035 if no more progress has been made. We have to try and make progress on deer and wildlife, but after that, are we going to continue testing cattle forever, even though there are no food chain implications? There needs to be a discussion on that and internationally as well. Is there an easier way of solving this? If 5% of the herd is sent for live export, do we test it and leave the rest of the farmers alone? I do not know. These things need to be looked at.

Mr. Farrell may want to say something about the pedigrees.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

I will follow up on the pedigrees and I thank Deputy Fitzmaurice for the question. We have dealt with many of these issues in the past while and with frustration at the valuation system through the marts. Reports were coming back on this great work that was done, and still we have a ceiling price of €3,000. We know the price for commercial cattle today is in excess of it. I saw €3,620 given for a calved suckler animal the other night in a local mart not too far from us.

On the pedigrees, €5,000 is a Stark bull. If that animal goes, it has to be replaced. Then you are taking a price of €4,000 or €3,000. We pushed to get this price increased and the ceiling removed, and a proposal came back to give us €5,000 on the pedigree cows. We put it to them that we wanted the price on spring in-calf heifers because they are the same but they are highly valued. A figure of €5,000 in today's world is sort of an average price or thereabouts in the pedigree system.

We have dealt with numerous farms. In one case there were losses in excess of €20,000 and in others of €10,000. The farmers lost that much money on top of the ceiling price without having other cattle or other bulls to sell. They were ready for sale and were in that business every year selling. They lived off the land and had no other employment. This is true in many cases with the pedigrees because the farms do it exceptionally well. Due to that then, there were bulls that were sold in the factories at a loss of €1,800 and €2,000 on the maximum market value in the pedigree ring sales. This is not being accounted for and has to be moved forward.

The figure of €5,000 is a welcome move forward but it is not practical given what we are seeing every day in the sales rings and the way it has been over recent years. I talk to different pedigree committees about their average prices and what is happening. Regarding the number of bulls presented for sale that are bought from any farm, as we said earlier on, if two bulls went down on a farm and a farmer had five more to sell, where they all had the same value or thereabouts, all of a sudden that farmer is going to take a lot less. This is not acceptable and has to be brought into it so that they are paid for accordingly. We need it on the pedigree animals for in-calf heifers, cows and the bulls across the board. We also need it on the income supplement in order that they are recognised as a separate entity.

Ms Fionnuala Tyrell:

Most of the topics have been very comprehensively covered. I agree with most of what was said. Deputy Fitzmaurice asked how much wire it takes to keep a deer out, and he referred to the three strands in Coillte not working. A five-strand high of high-voltage electric fence is about what will work. That is what is on our farm at the moment and it is the only thing that has worked for the past while.

Regarding the vaccination of badgers, it is hit and miss. You can be lucky and have somebody appointed to deal with the badgers in your area who is very astute and very good at checking earths and that. I am aware of one school of thought which claims if the native badgers are taken out of an earth and it is left empty, other badgers will move in and your animals will have no immunity to any disease they are catching.

Let me refer to an incident on our own farm. There was an empty earth on land next door to us and a forest was being clear-felled but the correct due diligence work was not done. I am not blaming the people cutting the trees but the area with the earth was not marked off. The earths are all mapped and it is known where they are but the person from the wildlife service dealing with the forestry did not keep the recommended perimeter around the earth in question. Consequently, the tracks were seen, the badgers moved to us and we had an outbreak shortly afterwards. That was the last one we had. We are lucky enough that the guys checking on the badgers in our area come around regularly. Prior to that, it was very hit and miss.

All of this needs co-ordination. This is why we keep saying somebody has to co-ordinate all the efforts such that everyone will be working in tandem. There is no point in having one agency dealing with badgers, another dealing with deer and another dealing with something else. They need to come under the one umbrella. The problem affects everybody in the country, either through disease, gardens being dug up or cars being wrecked. Full co-operation is needed from everybody.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise as I was not present earlier. I was at a different meeting. I welcome all the guests. I suppose most of the subjects have been discussed at this stage. Is there agreement across all the organisations that deer now seem to comprise the major problem rather than badgers? We spent decades blaming badgers for all the problems. I was reading comments by University College Dublin, the University of Limerick and the deer organisation from 2021 to the effect that there was a complete lack of sustainable deer management in the country. Those concerned were engaged in a pilot project at that stage. Have there been any results or feedback from that project since?

I believe Mr. Punch stated it is madness to do the same thing over and over. If €1 billion is to be spent up to 2030, there will need to be results. A massive amount of Exchequer money will be spent. We have spent 60 to 70 years doing the same thing time and again and giving the same feedback at committees like this – feedback to the effect that if so much money is to be spent, there will have to be results. Have the delegates suggested to the forum how to move forward in this regard? Will the burden of the extra work to be done fall back on the farming organisations? Are the delegates all in agreement that the Department needs to start dipping into its pocket more to get the results?

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question might not be a fair one but I will ask it. We have been talking about this problem for 60 or 70 years and it is getting worse by the year. It is costing the taxpayer, farming organisations and farmers a fortune. What vested interest is gaining from this? We had Covid for two years and could produce a vaccination to deal with it. We cannot get anything or anybody to deal with TB in cattle.

Coillte, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and all the other State bodies are wonderful at telling the delegates' organisations what to do and how to do it, but they are not as good themselves when it comes to culling. The biggest problem I raised in the Dáil earlier in the year was that of deer on the main roads in Ballinrobe and other such areas in south Mayo. They are on the road at this time of the year. If a motorist runs into a deer, there is nobody responsible, yet the deer cannot be culled. The authorities do not want to cull them. Many farmers have experienced culls. If but one animal is reacting, the whole herd must be taken away. To me, it never made sense. The whole herd should have been tested but there was no need to take them all away and destroy them. Despite what occurs, the authorities will not destroy the badger or deer. They will not destroy what is causing a problem. This will cost about €1 billion between now and 2030. Something has to be done to make life easy for everybody, including the delegates, as taxpayers, and the taxpayers who have no interest. There must be some vested interest somewhere along the line because we do not seem to be any further on than we were 20 or 30 years ago.

Ms Amanda Mooney:

I thank the Deputy for the questions. I will deal only with the deer issue. There has been a sea change in the Department's view on deer. It is a result of science, which is fantastic. There was an organised cull of deer in Wicklow. Initially, 100 deer were culled and then another 50. They were tested and 17% percent of them showed up with TB. Tests showed the exact same strain that is in the bovine herd.

There is a triangle including the bovines, deer and badgers. The only ones that are constantly being tested and taken out are the bovines because we can get our hands on them. Therefore, there needs to be a co-ordinated approach between all the State agencies. The members are listening to us today and we are representing all the farmers across the country. Everybody wants to get rid of this problem. I have two adult children interested in farming. We have had numerous outbreaks of TB, which is heartbreaking. There is a financial cost but nobody talks about the emotional cost on family farms where healthy-looking animals are loaded up on a trailer and removed. We are all buying into this because we want to rid the country of TB.

The buck now stops with getting the funding to sort out the livestock. The farmers are playing their part and we will do everything we can with the bovine herd. The wildlife needs to be sorted out. A co-ordinated approach by all the bodies is needed. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine needs to fund what is needed to get this sorted. Everybody in this room and those at every TB forum I have been involved in wants a solution. Nobody wants to be here in another 20 years. There is a lot of research taking place and new technology that may provide a way out through vaccination in the future, but what we are doing is all we have in the meantime. We know a three-pronged approach is required

Mr. Tom?s Bourke:

To pick up on the other two points, Deputy Browne talked about more being spent while doing the same old thing over and over. We have to be careful about using that overly simple narrative because, if we find something to be successful, we should continue to do it and enhance how we do it. The figures clearly show that after we implemented a wildlife control programme for the very first time back in 2000, as the Chairman will recall, we reduced the number of reactors from 44,000 all the way down to 13,000 by 2013. Unfortunately, as has been clearly shown, the eye was taken off the ball by those responsible for implementing that programme. This has contributed to a significant increase since.

We know that one of the key tools is reducing the prevalence of disease in wildlife. That has to remain the primary focus. This is the evidence in all the other jurisdictions throughout the world, including New Zealand, Australia and the United States. The same issue arises in those jurisdictions. You cannot get rid of TB in the bovine population until you address it in the wildlife population. That is the critical strand. While there have been practices in the past that have not been successful, and while continuing to do them would not reap any rewards, we need to return to carrying out on the ground those that have been successful. That is where we need the extra resources and the wildlife control programme. Obviously, the science and sequencing will help, and we will always find the other bits.

Deputy Ring asked a very direct question – more direct than Westport was at the weekend against Moycullen.

Mr. Tom?s Bourke:

He asked who the vested interest is. The obvious answer, or the very simplistic one, is to follow the money. In fairness, it is a little more complex than that. We have a problem with TB in the wildlife population that we have failed to address. Until we do so, we will have it in the bovine population.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have no doubt it worked back then. Why is that not being implemented now? Who is responsible for taking their eye off the ball? We have gone back-----

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The other witnesses might address that.

Mr. Pat McCormack:

Mr. Bourke talked about going from 44,000 down to 13,000. We are somewhere in excess of 20,000 now. What has happened in the meantime? Farmers have done their annual TB tests - often twice or three times a year - and have had positive animals removed. Whether it is 17% or 16% in Wicklow, those reactors, the positives in the deer herd, were not removed. Over that period, we have seen the environmental aspiration to continue to expand the forestry programme with pockets appearing in various parts of the country. Adjoining landowners have fallen foul of positive TB test results as a result of an increase in the deer population. I would have major concerns from a TB perspective if the wildlife herd is not tackled. By no means can we take our eye off badgers at this point. Certainly, we need a renewed focus on the growing population of deer and the likelihood that TB is spreading within those deer herds and passing on to the bovine herd.

As regards 60 or 70 years and the Covid vaccine, as I said earlier, we have an issue with our ability to export to foreign markets with a vaccination programme in TB among bovines. Deputy Ring mentioned vested interests in this regard. It is in farmers interest to eradicate TB. It gives us a greater opening to further markets as an exporting nation. It also reduces a farmer's stress with worrying about an animal in the neighbour's herd going down and the farmer having to test next week, or the stress of seeing a deer running through the place and wondering what the consequences might be. There is also the financial cost associated with TB, involving the herd test and the ability to remain compliant.

The prolonging of the TB campaign is not in the interest of the farmer; it is anything but. I say as a farm leader, the quicker it is eradicated the better.

Mr. Liam Hanrahan:

There is no doubt that deer are a massive problem, but this is very much area specific. Everything that can be done with deer should be done. Public safety should be paramount here. It seems it is coming secondary at the moment. Badgers are most certainly a problem and we cannot take our eye off the ball. In most other areas of the country badgers are very much an issue. The vaccination programme and the management of badgers through culling must be maintained and enhanced.

We need funding directed towards genome sequencing allowing for more data-based decisions to be made, the proper management of inconclusive animals and the specificity and sensitivity of the testing as outlined in our opening statement. We very much back what everyone else has said here at this evening. The eradication of TB must be done.

Deputy Ring asked who will deal with this. We are very much doing our best to deal with it at the moment. He mentioned a figure of €1 billion; I think it could cost more than €1 billion. As much money as possible should be directed towards it immediately. The longer it goes on, the greater the cost will be.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

Deputy Browne spoke about more money being spent and nothing coming from it. We have touched on it here at different times. The eye was taken off the ball. Wildlife is coming across very strong on that one. That includes a shortage of staff. The recruitment programme in the Department is such that somebody must leave a job before consideration can be given to someone else to replace them possibly two months down the road. That is no good. There should be prior approval because many of them know who is going. It is not being given serious effort. Much of the time where the implementation programme wanted to move policy along on different issues, the finance committee dragged its heels. We are in that state at the moment over different issues where we could be moving on with other things instead of delaying the process. This is where there is an issue.

In response to Deputy Ring, the vested interests in this are not the farmers. As everyone else has stated, they keep it going. This is interesting to say in the industry: many people are gaining financially out of it. This is where the big problem is because every effort has been made inside the farm gate nationally. Every farmer is doing their best do deal with every risk matter. We have identified many risks, from wildlife to the removal of reactors to inconclusives lying on farms. It is a to-do list for the officials in the Department. They are looking at what we have to do. They should start looking at where they have failed and take that out. The group that is leading us at present is making an effort and is willing to do so. I honestly believe it will do so and with our help will hopefully achieve. It will take commitment from more than just the few leading it. Other people in higher positions need to back them. The Minister needs to be there with them and make fast decisions. This thing is hanging around there over the pre- and post-test periods. That has gone on for eight or nine months at this stage. There should be a decision within a month or six weeks. This is all delaying the process. We need to make use of our time.

We were asked earlier about the forum. The forum was continually pushing back and we were not making progress. Thank God, it has moved out of this and we have gone into subgroups. Another speaker mentioned Coillte representatives coming around the table and being involved. They have been at the table for a number of years. They were actually delaying the process because there were only a handful of us. We had fewer people than we have here this evening and there were maybe 25 other different groups. We had very little voice in that. Many of them had no vested interest in it and had no risk of loss but they had control over it. This where we need to get practical and move on. We need to take it from a farmer's point of view straight with the Department. Work is in progress. I honestly believe we will make progress now.

Ms Fionnuala Tyrell:

As everyone else has said, all farmers want TB gone. No farmer wants it visiting their family. We do not like to see our animals, most of which are bred on the farm, and a couple of generations being loaded into a lorry to go off. We then look around and see that nothing is being done about the wildlife population. If the words "culling" and "deer" are put in the same sentence, a certain percentage of the population will rise up to ring Joe Duffy and everybody else they can ring bout the poor Bambi. Bambi is what people think of when they hear the word "deer". I would not wish it on anyone but if one of those people ringing Joe Duffy had a deer coming through a fence and on to the bonnet of their car, they might not be quite as sympathetic.

I think it is about language, but we need to manage the deer numbers. It should be put as "management". There is very little said about badgers. At various times it had been announced that there would be a cull of deer. Farmers are taking on board everything we are asked. It is quite upsetting that these different testing regimes are thrown out there. They are in the Irish Farmers' Journalor whatever. Farmers do not actually know where they stand. They worry what they will do of their policy is to sell their weanlings at a particular date. If they test every year in April, they wonder if they will be in test or if they need to get them in again?

There is a significant problem with testing too regularly on farms. Cattle are not stupid and they cop on very quickly. They will come in once a year, get tested and it is done. I have seen it on my farm where I have had to test more regularly. They know what they are coming into the yard for. It can actually get quite dangerous at times and they do not want to go in.

We are back not only to the stress on farmers but also to a farm safety issue. We are subjecting certain animals to all of this and letting other animals that are a major root cause of the disease get away. We are sacrificing our cattle. This has to be looked at. We are back to who will stand up, take responsibility and make the hard decisions. These deer need to be put in suitable habitats where they have food. I know what happened in west Wicklow over the years in that as forestry was planted high up, the deer lost their natural grazing ground and, like any animal or human, they moved to look for food. They found nice pasture land. This has resulted in a healthier deer herd and less fawn mortality. As a result, the population increased. They have the taste of nice grass and silage - easy pickings. When farmers reach the end of their tether and put up a fence, the deer just move on to the next plot. As their herds increase in size, they move on.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. A common theme ran through what the five organisations had to say. It was good to hear that people have confidence in the forum with regard to the contribution wildlife is making to the spread of TB. I remember when the initial badger experiment was done in Offaly. There was considerable resistance in getting that experiment going at the time. TB was reduced to approximately 20% to 25% nationwide when there was severe testing and culling of badgers with TB. Badgers are still the primary source of TB in wildlife and they spread it to cattle. They are spreading it to deer, which are the secondary source of TB. Until we get to grips with wildlife, it will be impossible to reduce TB figures from their current levels. We will have representatives from the Department in to discuss this subject in the coming weeks. The presentations made today will be extremely useful to the committee in trying to make progress with the Department on getting the figures for TB down, which is in all our interests.

As members know, we have received correspondence from Mr. Niall Curley from the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations-General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives, COPA-COGECA. Mr. Curley addressed the joint committee on Wednesday, 5 October, on the EU's restoration law proposal. Mr. Curley has stated that, in evidence to the joint committee, he misinterpreted the proposal with regard to the 20% target relating to agricultural peatlands. He apologises for misleading the joint committee in his presentation and in the discussion on this matter and withdraws his remarks. The joint committee, at its private meeting on 2 November, decided to publish Mr. Curley's correspondence to clarify his evidence. It will be available on the committee's website.