I thank the members for their questions. I will cover several of the them and then I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. Forde, for the others. Deputy Carthy requested that the deer figures be circulated. That is fine. Members should note that those figures were presented to the TB forum at a recent meeting and they will be in the minutes on the website. We publish all of this in our annual reports on our website but it can be difficult to find as it is not the easiest thing to navigate. Members should note that all of this is in the public domain and that the minutes of the TB forum meetings are published but we will certainly circulate these figures through the clerk.
As far as the question about Lorcan McCabe is concerned, I missed some of what he was doing. I was tied up with a few domestic arrangements prior to this meeting. On the point of Scotland and intensification, we have very good relationships with our colleagues in Northern Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland. We discuss this a lot because the Northern Irish, Welsh and English have similar challenges to us. The Scots do not, of course, because they eradicated TB. We had a meeting with them a few months ago and asked them whether they could tell us specifically what their programme involves. For instance, it involves things like every farmer in Scotland getting a letter which informs them of their risk status, categorises them and gives them advice on how to reduce their TB risk. They provide farmers with information to enable them to make decisions. Farmers get a frequency of testing, based on their TB history. They have risk-based trading and, as has been discussed, they have no wildlife programme for whatever reason. I caught somebody saying Scottish badgers are different. We have no particular indication of that but for whatever reason, whether it be density or something else, TB is not an issue with badgers in Scotland.
As far as the intensification issue is concerned, we think there is evidence that the increase in TB is linked to increased intensification. We have carried out scientific research on this, most recently a series of studies in 2020. The most important factor in increasing TB risk is the increase in herd size. Dairy herds, for instance, are at a higher risk of TB. It has always been disproportionate that a higher number of dairy herds are restricted at any given time compared to suckler or beef herds. The figure of 55% of all reactors in 2020 came from dairy herds. Our analysis indicates that while there are factors, such as the number of contiguous herds, the number of farm fragments and intensity, overall it is herd size. This is combined with the fact that there are 2.8 million cattle movements each year, so that plays a role. That is not to criticise intensification but it is just an observation.
There was a question on whether we link in with other parts of the Department. Yes, we have much horizontal interaction where we work with and communicate regularly with other sections of the Department to discuss these issues.
On EU funding reduction, there are other animal diseases that it has been allocated to. The countries that get TB co-funding are Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and France because they have certain areas that have TB, although not nearly as serious as us. Until recently, the UK got co-funding but, of course, it is out of the EU now. African swine fever, which I am sure everyone on this committee is aware of, avian influenza and, in eastern Europe, rabies are considered to be more important for Europe generally than TB is. A decision has been made to phase out TB funding. We have had specific meetings. Mr. Forde and I have been to Brussels several times trying to secure additional funding and trying to delay the winding down of it. There have been discussions at EU level. It is not specifically due to Irish factors, although I will let Mr. Forde comment on the figures because we have had funding penalties imposed. I will let Mr. Forde talk about the financial working group as that is his area.
We would be happy to give a synopsis on the other working groups - the scientific working group and the implementation group. It is outlined in the TB strategy. To put it simply, the strategy states what we, the farm organisations, ourselves, and other stakeholders, have collectively agreed to do. There are no easy decisions left to make. We know there is a hard road ahead but what are the things that we have agreed collectively to do? The implementation group is asking how will we do those things. We have agreed to take actions on certain things. How will this work at farm level? It is a way for farm organisations and stakeholders to ask how this will work in practice and to nuance that because it is an important point.
The scientific working group is a group of experts on TB who have very generously agreed to provide their time. They are under the chairmanship of Dr. John Griffin and provide scientific input into some of these questions. TB is a changing disease in which the risks change, the context changes and there are new developments. It is critical that what we do is based on science, that our policy is based on science and that the advice we give to farmers is based on science. Under all of this, there has to be a basis of evidence. That is the purpose of the scientific working group.
To give members a snapshot, the implementation group might discuss how a policy would be implemented on the group, how a farmer is told about something and how something will work. The scientific working group is asking whether our policies are based on science and whether there are changes we need to be aware of that are being developed. For instance, are there new tests or new risks that need to be closed off? It will make recommendations, for example, on what advice we should give farmers on how to reduce their risk of TB. Farmers deserve to have robust scientific advice. How can a farmer protect himself or herself? Deputy Kehoe made the point that many young farmers, in particular, are taking out loans, building up their herds and buying in stock. What can they do to reduce that risk because it is devastating? We have to make sure the advice we give them is based on evidence.
There is no doubt that the deer issue in Wicklow is a significant one. Consistently, studies have shown that approximately 10% to 12% of deer, when studied in Wicklow, have TB. I will include those figures in the summary of those studies in the note, which I will circulate.
As far as employing local staff is concerned, we use local contractors for our wildlife work and it is very successful. It is one of the reasons we work closely with local farmers and our contractors are locally based. There are often personal relationships there that go back many years. That is one of the reasons farmers feel comfortable talking to fellas they know locally.
The Deputy made points on research with which I agree. We are supporting research on the ecological role of wildlife and TB. We are working on a project on that with the UCD school of biology. We continue to carry out whole genome sequencing on isolates from deer when we get them. As I noted earlier, while I completely accept there are areas, north Wexford, for instance, where farmers have very strong concerns about deer and TB, in other areas, such as Offaly, we cannot sequence TB from deer because they are all testing negative. They do not have any TB to sequence.
On the issue of management of wildlife control, we put much effort into actively managing our wildlife programme. We make sure we find badgers, vaccinate them and check how things are working. Where necessary, we cull them in the wake of an outbreak. We prevent TB in cattle by vaccinating badgers in advance. I am happy to give more details, if necessary.
I am conscious of time so I will ask my colleague, Mr. Colm Forde, to take some of the financial questions that were raised, if that is okay.
