Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 2024

All are welcome this evening. Before we begin, I remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones. I bring to everyone's attention the notice on privilege. Witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that they have a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. They should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse comments should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside of the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as 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 matters 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 a person outside of 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 just to members participating online in a committee hearing when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in public meetings from outside the parliamentary precincts and any attempt to do so will result in a member having their online access removed.

The agenda for the first session of today's meeting is for the committee to examine the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine's Statement of Strategy 2023-2026. The committee will hear from the following officials: Mr. Brendan Gleeson, Secretary General; Mr. Paul Savage, assistant secretary for rural development and forestry; Ms Sinéad McSherry, assistant secretary on seafood and the marine; Mr. Bill Callanan, chief inspector; and Mr. Martin Blake, chief veterinary officer. The witnesses are very welcome to this evening's meeting. I invite Mr. Gleeson to read his opening statement. He has five minutes. We will then proceed to a question and answer session.

I thank the Chairman for this invitation to address the committee regarding the Department's Statement of Strategy 2023-2026. I thank him also for introducing my colleagues.

The agriculture, food and marine sectors are extraordinarily important in an Irish context. In 2023, they accounted for 6.5% of employment, or more than 173,000 jobs, and €18.28 billion in exports. The activities associated with these sectors, and the people engaged in them, are a critical part of the fabric of rural and coastal Ireland.

The Public Service Management Act 1997 requires Departments and offices to produce a strategy statement once every three years, or within six months of the appointment of a new Minister. The appointment of a new Taoiseach on 17 December 2022 also triggered a requirement for a new statement of strategy, notwithstanding the fact that there was no change of Minister in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine so we will have to produce another statement of strategy. I think the deadline is 9 October 2024. A lot of things could happen between then and now, but in the event there is a new government we will have to do the same thing again. I ask the committee to bear that in mind.

The statement of strategy agreed at that point, for the period 2023 to 2026, was the subject of extensive consultation. The priorities outlined were aligned with the commitments in the programme for Government. The document outlines five high-level strategic goals: to promote and safeguard public, animal and plant health, and animal welfare, for the benefit of consumers, producers, the economy and wider society; to provide income and targeted supports to farmers and others in the agrifood sector, to underpin the rural economy and environmental sustainability; to provide the optimum policy framework for the development of the agrifood sector; to deliver a sustainable, competitive and innovative seafood sector driven by a skilled workforce, delivering value-added products in line with consumer demand; and to maintain and develop strategic, operational, regulatory and technical capacity to deliver excellent service plans in all these areas, and plans for strategic investment in research and development, as well as the creation of new market opportunities and improved health and safety outcomes on Irish farms.

These goals are delivered through a variety of instruments, including the CAP Strategic Plan 2023-2027, Food Vision 2030, the climate action plan, the national forestry programme, and the seafood programmes. The Department's remit extends from policy development, to representing Ireland at EU and international level and negotiating access for Irish agrifood goods to third country markets. It is also responsible for the provision of economic support to its sectors, elements of food and feed safety, animal health and welfare, forestry, seafood development, fisheries infrastructure and environmental sustainability. The Department also plays a vital role in Ireland's overseas development aid, and has a close relationship with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and with the World Food Programme.

The Department also has an extensive operational engine. Over the next few years, the Department's work in all of these areas will be shaped by a variety of external policy developments. For example, the publication, in due course, of proposals for a Common Agricultural Policy and a multi-annual financial framework for the post-2027 period will have a profound impact on the way the Department does its business. Ireland will hold the Presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2026, at a time which is likely to be critical for some of these developments. The Department is already working with other Departments to make preparations for that task. The election of a new government, whenever that might happen, will trigger a requirement for a new statement of strategy, and this will reflect the priorities in a new programme for Government, and the developing policy and legal framework at EU level.

I look forward to discussing the Department's statement of strategy with the committee. Before I do, I conclude by recognising the contribution of the more than 4,000 staff in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and those in the Department's agencies, who work with great dedication and diligence to support the work of the Department and the sectors it serves.

I thank Mr. Gleeson. Before I go to the members, I want to focus on his first priority, which is to "promote and safeguard public, animal and plant health, and animal welfare, for the benefit of consumers, producers, the economy and wider society". We had a committee meeting last week at which I and many other members expressed grave disappointment at what happened in the horse slaughter plant. It has done the country as a whole a lot of reputational damage. It was horrific to see what was happening, under what we would consider to be the surveillance of the Department. It should not happen and there is a lot of remedial work to be done to make sure it does not happen again.

I asked a couple of questions at the previous meeting to which I felt I did not get satisfactory answers. Let us leave the welfare issue to one side for the moment. A significant number of horses are not currently microchipped, and a significant number of them are entering the food chain. They are leaving this jurisdiction, getting paperwork elsewhere, and finding their way into the food chain either in the UK or on the Continent. How can we have confidence in a system that allows a percentage of the horses in the sector not to be microchipped? There is 100% compliance in the bovine sector. If an animal is not tagged within 21 days, you get a fairly stiff letter from the Department. That system works exceptionally well. This is a time bomb waiting to go off. We must learn lessons from the "RTÉ Investigates" programme we saw.

For me personally as a TD, my patience has run out with people not complying with existing legislation. In my constituency, we had three accidents with horses in the last couple of months where there were cases of motorists and passengers being seriously injured. None of the horses that were involved in those accidents were microchipped. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. I say that from a road safety point of view. As Mr. Callanan knows well, there is Bord na Móna land in my constituency and a large herd of horses roam it. There are also horses on other public land. The same situation pertains around Clonmel where horses are roaming on lands owned by the HSE. Road safety is one issue, but the horses are being moved on and they are being sold. There is no traceability and they are finding their way into the food chain. It is at a point now where there is legislation on keeping animals and it must be enforced. The welfare issues that came to light in the factory were horrific, but welfare issues regarding horses are more widely evident.

The number of horses being impounded has been greatly reduced. Due to the prolonged period of voting of about two hours last week, I was not able to respond to a statement that was made at the meeting. In my county, the resources are not being put into impounding these horses. It is easy to say the numbers are reducing but if the resources are not put into impounding them, the figures will reduce. Today, a constituent was on to me who is being affected by these horses. They are trespassing on her property and there are serious welfare issues with the horses. Horsemeat is not on many menus in this country but Irish horsemeat is on menus across the European Union. We have a significant number of horses here that have no traceability.

We must learn lessons from the "RTÉ Investigates" programme. One aspect of it was welfare, in terms of what happened in the factory. We gave that a very good airing here last Wednesday evening. We were extremely disappointed that it could be allowed to happen. When the Department was before the committee three years previously we were told about a 51-page document outlining how things should be carried out in a slaughter plant. There is not much point in having a 51-page document if those kinds of incidents are happening in a lairage. Leaving aside welfare and what happened in the factory - investigations are ongoing - the lack of compliance among a certain cohort of the horse-owning population must be tackled as a matter of urgency.

First, we were all horrified by what we saw in the "RTÉ Investigates" programme. There is no doubt about that. It is very disappointing. It is very important to say that Ireland has an excellent food safety system and food safety record across all of the species, but it is clear in the case of horses - despite compliance with EU rules and the EU framework - that we have a system that is capable of circumvention if people are determined to do that. We are convinced that a root and branch review must be done. There are a number of strands to that. I do not want to say too much about the welfare issues that arose. It is very important that I do not say anything here that might prejudice the ongoing investigation. That is not a defensive point. I sincerely do not want to say anything to prejudice the investigation.

It is important to state that we did not see the welfare issues that were brought to light in the programme taking place in the slaughter plant. It is clear that there are welfare issues involved. The second point is that there are traceability issues. People have an obligation to register horses, to have a passport for them and to microchip them. That is a legal obligation on people. There may be people who do not comply with those requirements, but what is critically important is that where there are instances of non-compliance, those horses cannot get into the food chain.

What we saw in the programme suggests it is possible to circumvent that system. We must look at how we can fix it. For me, there are three tests. The first is that whatever we do, it must be lawful. We must make sure we are doing the right thing from a legal perspective. The second point is that it must be effective. We could throw a whole lot of stuff at this now, very quickly, and it may not work. When we do it, I want to be sure it is effective. The third point is that if there are unintended consequences, I want to understand what they are. We have asked Professor Paddy Wall to join a group in the Department to examine these issues very quickly and come up with as many solutions as we can, as quickly as we can. Some of them will require engagement at Commission level and with other member states, because it is clear that there is an international aspect to this. Horses are being transported overseas and it is important to improve traceability across those borders.

It is lawful to export horses and to have them slaughtered. There are lawful means of disposing of horses, but the practices we saw in that programme did not meet those standards. We must deal with all of those things. It is a wake-up call. There is absolutely no doubt about it. We are determined to deal with it as quickly as we can, but we want to do it properly.

I cannot say. In my experience, the overall number of farmers has not changed significantly in my time in the Department. We had approximately 129,000 applicants for basic payments and we still have 129,000 or so applicants for basic payments. We have 3,000 to 4,000 new applicants coming in every year and 3,000 to 4,000 a year exiting the system. I cannot say how many employees were involved in processing or downstream industries 20 years ago. To be honest, I am not sure. Deputy Fitzmaurice might have the figure but I do not.

No. I want to touch on what the Chairman spoke about. In fairness, the animal identification and movement, AIM, system for cattle is probably the best in the world.

We register 2.5 million calves a year, give or take. In fairness, it is clinical. No one could ever fault it. As the Cathaoirleach said, if you do not have it done within the 21 days, you are in trouble. You get the letter. The Department is well on top of it. In comparison with that, why do we have seven different crowds dealing with horses? The owner of the stallion could get the book. This is what is going on and the Department is allowing it. Why is the establishment of one proper operator not been looked at? The Department has to do DNA testing and so this cannot be done in three or four days as it is with calves. That is fair enough. I am talking about one month. There are still 200 of the 2023 books knocking around and more if the truth was known. On the 2024 books, there are sales coming up, people are waiting on horses and there is judging or whatever else has to be done. People have their tongues out for them. This week, I was made aware of a case that has been going on for five years. If that was a farm with cattle, the Department would have it shut down. Why is it not tightened up? Why is the will not there to establish the same kind of professional system that exists for cattle?

On the first thing the Deputy said, we are going to look at every dimension of this. I have said that from the outset. We have a really outstanding bovine identification system, in part because we went through difficulties with bovines in the early nineties. After 2001, our system really improved. It is now pretty tight. These are different sectors. For example, horses live a long time and move a lot. They move to competition, they move across borders and they move to the North. They will move multiple times in their lifetimes. A bovine will generally be born, raised to 30 months of age and then slaughtered. There may have been two or three movements in the meantime. It is a very different and more compact system. The other thing is that we are slaughtering 1.8 million bovines a year for human food. The fact is that horses are not reared here with that intention in mind. That is just an explanation of the history. I do not have to explain that to people but it is just a fact. We changed things after 2013. We introduced a single database and security features on the passport. We are at the point of introducing e-passports. The legal framework we apply in respect of horses is consistent with EU law, as is the legal framework we apply in respect of bovines.

We now know that the system for horses can be circumvented. We will have to look at every dimension of this. We will have to look at the time for registration and how you register. For example, we will have to consider whether a DNA sample is required. We have DNA samples from many horses. We have to consider whether the DNA sample is checked after the point of slaughter or at the point of export. We have to decide whether to change the system of issuing passports and how that should be done. We may move to e-passports. I do not want to prejudice the outcome of this exercise but it is clear that we have to do something fairly dramatic and that we have to do it quickly. I accept all of that.

On strategy and targeted supports for farmers, there is a new EU directive that exempts farms of up to 10 ha. However, farmers contend that paperwork is making it harder to farm. Is there any strategy to simplify that? Does it worry the Department that there are concerning signs of an exodus from the suckler sector? In the last few days, we have seen that the sheep sector seems to be down by something like 6%. Does that trend worry the Department? What is the strategy to support those types of farmers?

I will express my own view on this, which is that we have to provide support for the incomes of people living in rural areas who are engaged in agricultural activity. That will involve targeted supports for various kinds of livestock. We do that. We have more targeted supports for beef and sheep than we have ever had before. The sheep payment has gone up to €20 a head. That is something for which the farm bodies had asked for a long time. We have other options for them. We have very generous organic payments for many people whose systems are on the edge of being organic anyway. We have supports in that regard that may suit people if they think about it. The number of farmers in organics has tripled. We have environmental schemes that again suit people along the west coast and many people with suckler-type farms. The supports are there. We have a complicated system. There is no doubt about that.

Thinking about the evolution of the CAP, there was one great simplification when we went to what was virtually a single farm payment. That replaced about ten schemes. That was controversial enough at the time, but it was simple. We decoupled and paid per hectare. We now have an increasing number of schemes and have to think about what simplification means. To be honest, my blood runs cold when I hear the word "simplification" at EU level because we are not good at it. On the other hand, we have a trend towards results-based schemes. This means that you have to measure the results of what you are doing. We have a shift towards environmental schemes. Again, you are looking at the outcomes for those. We have an increasing number of schemes and we are expecting new proposals to be published in the middle of next year. The next time around, we will have to think about what simplification means. We are reflecting on that in the Department in a very active way at the moment. We are just about getting used to this system now.

Mr. Gleeson knows the system inside and out. At the moment, there is a fiasco with ACRES for many farmers. The matter is not being resolved. It is dragging on and on. I know a certain amount of money was given. As part of this thing of looking at the flowers present in an area, the Department might say that it did not get something even though it had been sent in and it may look for money back even though the application had not been looked at properly. ACRES has been a problem. The Department says it will iron out the difficulties or whatever, but why is there no computer system set up so that, in four years' time, we will not have to go into all of this bang again rather than another hullabaloo starting off and running on for another year while everyone fights with each other in trying to get it solved? Why do we not have consistency? Why do not we look at making the scheme, bad as it is, last ten years and starting that computer eight years in to try to get things justified?

On top of that, Mr. Gleeson talks about trying to make things simpler. Conditions are being brought in for the Department but, in fairness to the farmers, there is big debate going on as to what is going to happen with peaty soil or with the derogation. I was talking to a farmer this morning. I did not know this but he is not allowed to plough because he has a derogation. Some of the stuff that is coming out is putting constant pressure on these people. The Department says that it is trying to comply with EU measures, but farmers are getting sick of it. I cannot understand why someone cannot decide to have a scheme and not to change it. If wild bird cover, fenced-in riparian zones and so on were good for the environment for the first five years, it should be good for the next five years. That is what I am trying to say. Is any thought being given to that kind of strategy?

To be honest, the Deputy has anticipated my point. What I was going to say is that, in the context of simplification, we now have to consider whether the best way to simplify is just to leave things alone. That would make life much easier for us and for farmers. At least they will be used to the system by the time we get the end of this period.

We will have ironed out whatever difficulties we have with ACRES. The last time around we got approval for our programme at the end of 2023 and we had to get applications in for schemes by May 2024. The entire programme was so completely different. It was utterly different. We had to rewrite every system we had. I will make a defensive point now and say that we still got €1.8 billion out to farmers in that year. There are difficulties with ACRES.

-----is a scheme with high environmental ambition. I know the committee is going to talk about it again in the next session but it is a very good scheme. It is complicated, and it came at a time when we had to roll out an entirely new set of schemes. These things are not done in isolation. There is a resource in the Department for dealing with IT issues. We are trying to manage these things. I would love to be the first Secretary General in history who was able to say that there was no disruption between one CAP and another, but I am not that guy. I wish I was, but these things are difficult. I agree that one form of simplification the next time around might be to do the least possible change.

I agree with Mr. Gleeson, especially in respect of the environmental schemes. If people are in on something and they have it there, the computer system is all we hear about.

The forestry scheme from 2020 up to now is problematic for the Department, to put it mildly. Even from 2016 to now was problematic for the Department. In fairness to this committee and the Chairman, we have spent a good while trying to iron out problems and certain things were ironed out. However, there is a distaste in the farming community for forestry now because of all of the problems farmers experienced. When will the Department realise that even though we have reached 1,900 ha so far, the uptake is not there? There is no point in saying otherwise. When is the Department going to accept that we are not going to achieve the figures to which it refers? It is a fantasy world. If every farmer with up to 100 acres or up to 200 acres planted a shelter belts, it would be an option rather than 1 ha in one place. They could plant alongside ditches, for instance, and that would tick the box for the Department but would not stop the people farming. When farmers are mowing a field, they do not go into the corner but go around in a semi-circle. Many people would take that up. When is the Department going to try to look outside the box? The box it is currently looking at is closed? It is not going to happen.

On fishing, Mr. Gleeson used the word "sustainable". We have less fishing going on now than we had ten or 20 years ago. I would not consider decommissioning boats and cutting them up to be a good idea going forward.

There was a lot in that. We had a two-hour discussion on forestry a couple of weeks ago, and we had a bit of a chat about this stuff as well. We have a range of quite imaginative schemes that should be of interest to farmers, including the 1 ha scheme, the riparian zones scheme and the agroforestry scheme. Even the more intensive forestry, for those farmers who have a very low stocking density, is compatible with their farm enterprises. We have a job to do in trying to promote forestry. If people have other ideas, we would not be closed to them but we have a job to do. We have a system in place which has very generous incentives for people. The incentives are extraordinarily generous. The programme is in its infancy and it has legacy issues. It is understandable that farmers would be reluctant in the early stages. What is important is that the people who apply now have a good experience. We made a special effort when there were applications over the past three or four months to phone applicants when they applied, tell them where their application was and let them know when they would get their licences, all things going correctly. We have to try to mind the people who are in the programme. I am not sure we will be as convincing for people as other farmers who have a better experience but that is going to take a little bit of time.

On fishing and decommissioning, the first point to make is that there was a Brexit negotiation and part of the result of that negotiation was that fishermen in Ireland lost quota in the context of an overall package. That was not a deal done by Ireland, by the way. It was a negotiation between the EU and the UK. Then we were faced with people chasing smaller numbers of fish. We had a seafood task force that engaged in consultation with the entire industry. The decommissioning scheme was one of the features that emerged from that consensus approach. That is the way it happened. These things are unpalatable but the choice was between a larger number of vessels chasing a smaller quota and everybody going broke or providing an incentive for some people to leave the industry in order that a smaller number of vessels are chasing quota and have an opportunity to make a decent living. That makes sense. I am not expecting the Deputy to agree with me but that was the rationale for it. We did not come up with it. We engaged with the fishing sector and agreed a strategy that included decommissioning. That is the reason for it.

I thank our guests for coming in and for their opening statement. One of the actions under goal 2 is to achieve payment targets and target dates in line with the commitments in the farmers' charter. I welcome the fact that there has been movement in relation to the charter today. Obviously, there were a number of issues last year when it came to payments, including with ACRES. That was particularly disappointing because farmers, who are often accused of not doing enough, had put their hands up, joined the scheme in large numbers and done everything that was asked of them. However, the Department let the side down and could not pay them on time. The aforementioned action is a really important one. I appreciate that there was a new CAP and new systems. All of that is fine, but has the Department taken any specific measures this year to make sure that we will not see those delays again?

Yes. First of all, in a way we are victims of our own success because the payments we make in 2023 are payments for 2024. The legal deadline for making those payments for the basic payment is the end of May, 2024 but we made those payments in October and December of 2023. Even last year when we were operating under a brand new system and had to develop schemes, our ANC payments were four weeks late while our big BISS payment was a week and half late. When I say late, I mean later than it would normally have been but we still got €1.8 billion in payments out. It means a great deal to us to try to meet those deadlines. When we agree targets under the charter, it is a signal of the commitment of the Department to these things. We are putting resources in place and we move them around, where necessary, to meet new pressures. There were several unanticipated pressures with schemes last year because of Ukraine, the weather and other factors. All of these things have an impact on the utilisation of the resource we have for these things. We are working hard all of the time to make things better. ACRES is a particularly complex scheme. Farmers have voted with their feet and the Deputy is absolutely right about that. In recognition of the fact that there were delays, we got an interim payment out to farmers because we did not want people to be disadvantaged financially. We were responsive to people's needs and I am pretty confident that we will have these problems ironed out by next year. Farmers will understand the scheme better next year, we will be set up to run it and things will run more smoothly. We are trying all of the time to improve and are really committed. I have really committed teams, one in Portlaoise and one in Wexford, who are trying really hard to get these payments out but it is complex stuff.

I understand that the payments are made earlier than may be the case elsewhere but the point is that farmers need certainty.

The point is certainty for farmers. They have bills to pay and need to know they will get their money when they are told they will. It is important, regardless of the efforts the Department is making, which I acknowledge. Farmers need their money on the date they are told it is meant to come.

Under goal 2, to actively engage with the simplification process for schemes, what measures is the Department applying to the CAP simplification package for this year in particular?

I may need help from Mr. Callanan on the application of the GAECs Bill. However, we will apply all the measures. We will have to send in an amendment to our CAP strategic plan for the measures to be identified. We already have an extension to the requirement for good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC 7, which relates to crop rotation.

In general terms, the platform is there for how such things will be paid out. It is based on last year's eco payment for which all applicants this year used the system and it generates messages back to them automatically to let them know whether they are in compliance. If anyone around the table has filled out an application under area 8, they will know they need to enter their field details and the system will generate whether they have achieved their target for the eco payment. I know from a number of queries that came in where a parcel was outside the accepted area, that the system generated a reply immediately to the farmer to correct it without penalty. The basic statutory management requirements, SMRs and GAECs are in place. The Secretary General is correct that there was a provision relating to crop rotation, which was set aside this year. The framework is pretty much in place for enabling payments in due course for BISS and the eco-schemes with a commitment under the charter to bring those back in line with previous years.

I apologise for having to refer to Mr. Callanan. One measure is a reduction in the requirement for inspections, so essentially we will not have to inspect farms of fewer than 10 ha. We will apply that but we have to submit proposals by way of an amendment to the CAP strategic plan for that.

The other matter that was significant was the requirement to have space for nature on 4% of a farm. That does not affect us much because when we did the eco scheme, virtually every farm had 4% space for nature so that did not make significant difference. However, all those simplifications will be applied.

The strategy speaks a lot about communication, enhanced customer service for farmers and so forth. Do the officials feel the Department engages enough and has enough conversations and dialogue with the farm organisations? Is it where it should be or is the strategy a means to perhaps improve that going forward?

Virtually every strategy we have is prepared in consultation with farm bodies. The food vision strategy we have for 2030 was done with stakeholders, farm bodies and environmental NGOs. We had significant engagement on the farmers' charter. The discussions were difficult but they finished well yesterday and that is constructive. Let us talk about farmers rather than farm bodies for a moment. Regarding our basic payments scheme, we hold clinics all over the country where we sit down with people who are having difficulty filling in the forms and work through them with individual farmers. That service is really appreciated. The National Ploughing Championships is the place to see really good interaction between the Department and real people, if you like, because people come into the tent and they are told what is happening with their payments and what the issues are. There is positive engagement. You can never have enough, but compared to other sectors, we are very close to our stakeholders with respect to communications.

I thank the officials for coming in. The report looks great. There is plenty of colour. It looks brilliant. However, it is amazing that there was no mention of horse welfare in the Department's opening statement, given everything that has happened. On a cursory glance, it does not specifically mention horses or horse welfare, though it mentions animal welfare. Until the Chair mentioned the matter and gave us a segue into the topic, we might have gone through the whole meeting without discussing what must undoubtedly be the biggest issue for the Department. I am sure the officials saw last week's exchange or the transcripts of it. It is no secret that absolute accountability for what happened rests with the Department of agriculture. There was a guarded response in the opening statement. It said what occurred happened in a building that was not a registered slaughter facility and as such it did not look at it or go near it. However, it is extraordinary that in four years, on the slaughter day, neither the veterinary official or the two other departmental officials at any stage decided they should look in that building or thought that something was going on in the building that was not quite right. Anyway, that is for another day and, as was said, an investigation is under way.

I hope I am not reading too much into the Department's comments, but I think it accepts that there is a major problem with horse identification. It is fair to say that is what the Department said. It is no secret and it did not take the horse welfare incident in Sallins to bring that to a head. Any week, in picking up The Irish Field or going to any show or sales, especially in the sports horse field, an absolute problem with it would be evident. It is estimated that up to 75% of foals for sale last year went to foals sales without their certification. I am hearing anecdotally from breeders that they have not received their foal kits yet this year. They should have been issued. The expectation was that they would go out in January. There was an update from Horse Sport Ireland, HSI, that they would go out at the end of June, but most breeders still have not received them at this stage.

Brexit adjustment funding was given to HSI for the delivery of a new passport service. Clearly that did not work very well in its first year. Did the Department review it to see if there was value for money, whether that money was being well spent or whether there were problems with the passport system in HSI?

My next question relates to a small studbook. It is the Irish cob small studbook maintained by Horse Sport Ireland. Its head office comprises one woman who lives in County Longford. It is a unique breed, probably influenced by the draft horse. It is coloured and there are a lot of hairy legs if you are from the town. It is a beautiful animal and it is unique to Ireland. The expectation was that we would get the passport situation sorted out and get it into ACRES 1. ACRES 2 has passed and the expectation is now that it might get into ACRES 3, if we have an ACRES 3. The officials probably will not be able to respond on the Irish cob today, but it is indicative of the problem we have with the passports for horses. We saw it in Sallins; they can be manipulated. Microchips can be taken out and a new microchip can be put in. This is no secret. It did not take the events in Sallins to tell the Department that there is a problem with horse identification. Perhaps the Department will decide to take the responsibility away from HSI and that the Department will do the identification.

Will the witnesses tease out and address whether the Brexit adjustment funding was money well spent? How much was given to Horse Sport Ireland? Did the Department review the operation in the first year and did it identify any problems? Has it told Horse Sport Ireland that it is unhappy? That is the kernel of the question.

Following on from Deputy Fitzmaurice on the forestry issue, it is no secret that we are broken down and weathered down. Whatever hair we had coming into government, we have lost it over forestry and it is not getting any better.

I know, but the bit I had is gone now and it has gone very grey.

The latest reports show that planting reached 716 ha this week, or not even 9% of the annual target, halfway through the year. That underperformance highlights the issues. The new forestry programme looks great. There is plenty of colour and it looks fantastic. The website is lovely, but trees are being planted in the wrong places and people who want to plant trees cannot do so. I understand and appreciate the need to plant traditional trees, but forestry has to be commercial.

The commercial timber growers are telling us that there will be an exodus to Scotland if we do not address this. My second question is whether there is any possibility that we will have a review of this forestry programme. It is evidently not working. It has not taken off. I know Mr. Gleeson said it is a case of selling it, but as anybody in horses or agriculture will tell you, you cannot flog a dead horse.

I will deal with the forestry question first because I am more familiar with that. We have a forestry programme now, the negotiation for which was tortuous. We had to have that with the commission because we grant aid the provision of forestry in Ireland, unlike many other member states. Therefore, there has to be state aid approval. A big part of the discussion was with the directorate-general for the environment, which had specifications that it wanted. The kinds of things that the commercial sector might not be keen on include the overall proportion of native species that has to be planted, which is 50%. Mr. Savage can correct me if I am wrong about any of this. It includes the proportion of native species that has to be planted in individual plantations and planting on peat, which we now know led to let emissions in some historical situations. That is some of the conditionality that was applied to forestry.

There will be a mid-term review of the programme in 2025. We had a fairly long session on forestry a couple of weeks ago. I made this point but will make it again. People often press the pause button if they think something easier is coming down the tracks. I do not want to give people the impression that the environmental conditionality for forestry will diminish as a result of this mid-term review. Frankly, I do not see that happening.

We now have a programme which has all sorts of imaginative schemes. Deputy Fitzmaurice might not agree. It has a variety of schemes that might suit people. It has the commercial element in it. We now have 20-year premiums for farmers, when we only had a 15-year premium last time around. There are substantial increases of between 40% and 60% on those premiums. We have a commitment where if people apply for a licence and does not need an appropriate assessment, they will have a licence within six months. If they do, it will take nine months. They have the certainty that, all things being well, they will get the licence in that time period. I know there is a legacy of problems with the licensing system. My hair is torn out as well. Certainty is important now. We have a programme that is stable. It is there for people. We will try to give new applicants for forestry a good experience. We will try to contact them and talk to them about where their licence is. I do not want to pretend that, in three months' time, we can review this and everything will get much easier, that the environmental conditionality will be diminished and we will be able to plant on peatlands greater than 30 cm. That will not happen.

It is in its infancy. Let us think about this from the point of view of an individual. It is a permanent land use change and a 20-year investment. After 30 years, people will get a tax-free income from harvesting, having got 20 years of a premium. It is a long-term investment. I am not sure we should judge the effectiveness of a new programme a few months in. It would be great to be able to say we will plant 8,000 ha this year. We will not, but this is voluntary land use for people. I think I said last time that there will be ways to make this more attractive to people that nobody would find palatable. We could decide that people will not have choices and this is the only show in town. We will not do that. This is voluntary land use. Over time, we have to persuade people that it is an attractive source of income which is entirely compatible with the business of livestock farming. It is not farming or forestry. This can be a remunerative part of people's farm enterprise. That message will take time. It is a cultural change that people will have to get used to.

I am not disheartened, because we have a great programme. I would prefer if the numbers were higher. If we keep talking it down, it will be self-fulfilling. I just cannot see that we will diminish the environmental requirements in a few months because of some kind of pressure.

I am not familiar with the Brexit adjustment funding that HSI got. It surprises me a bit because most of the services that HSI provides for us now are on the basis of a procurement exercise. I know there have been difficulties with passporting in the breed societies this year that need to be sorted out.

I will start with the Chair's opening statements regarding what happened last week with the slaughtering of the horses. We are very much aware of the disappointing show on TV regarding the issue, the knock-on implications for the industry and how it affected confidence in the entire industry. Statements were made at last week's hearings that it was new to them that there was cloning of microchips. I read in The Irish Field, Irish Examiner and Kilkenny People in the past few days that this issue has been under investigation in the Department since 2019 and there have been different court cases throughout the country. Cloning of microchips is an issue that appears to have existed for some time. We are concerned by the actions of the Department over the past five years, particularly with regard to the cloning of microchips.

What have the issues been? What work has been done to ensure that we have a robust system that cannot be overridden by individuals for their own monetary gain? The witnesses might give clarity about the microchip issue, the cloning, when the Department became aware of it and what the Department is doing about the issue. What are the knock-on implications for the food chain? Some members were involved here in 2013 when we had the horsemeat scandal and how that operated. Significant reports were done. Have all those measures been implemented? Has the traceability factor been addressed? I spoke to a lady today who had her horse put down, an old cob of several years. She asked what she did with the passport. In a bovine system, that would not happen, because we know exactly how traceability systems and where it goes. It will go to a knackery at some stage. We are concerned about traceability and what systems are in place.

As the Chair rightly said, there is a 42-day period to register a calf and, if not, the farmer is in breach. There is everything else in between. People might not have to register a horse for a decade. Horses are potentially not being microchipped for a period. I realise there are no financial implications here, which are present in the farming community, but we have a system which is really not working. I am genuinely concerned about microchipping and cloning of microchips. How much has been done to try to sort out that issue? The other issue is the food chain. Has it been breached? If so, what volume are we talking about? The volumes talked about last week went up to 100 animals. Nobody believes it is just 100 animals. How significant is the potential breach? The witnesses might inform me how the process works for going down the line and what the long-term implication will be for how we will have a robust, working system.

I will ask Dr. Blake to help me with some of the process questions. We are reviewing the entire system now. I think I said that at the beginning.

We got Professor Paddy Wall in to help us with that. It is the identification issue. We have to be sure that when an animal comes into a plant, it is the same animal it was identified as at the point of registration. There are various ways of doing that. We have some ideas around that but we want to make sure it is not a deterrent to registration either. We need people to register foals. We need to make sure that those animals are correctly identified at the point of slaughter. I mentioned the DNA possibility earlier. For example, one possibility is to require DNA registration at the point of registration of a foal and check the carcass in the plant afterwards before it is released to make sure the DNA matches the registered DNA. That is a potential solution. One does not want to impose costs or complex processes for owners which might be a deterrent to registration. That would be an undesirable consequence. When I spoke earlier about wanting to understand any unintended consequences, that is a potential one. Will Mr. Blake talk us through the process of registration and identification?

As Mr. Gleeson said, the system we have complies with the EU law, just as the cattle situation complies with EU law. On identification, the big difference in relation to horses is that a vet must do the identification and a microchip and the markings of the horse must be submitted to the passport-issuing organisation. The difference is there are seven passport-issuing organisations in Ireland. There is one that issues passports for bovines. They comply with EU law. Based on what we have seen and gathered over the years and in the context of our discussion with the food fraud network of the EU last week, this is a problem all over Europe. It causes problems in the apparent trade in horses which are re-identified or misidentified. We are looking at what we need to do to become a world leader and give leadership in the identification and traceability of horses. That is where the issues Mr. Gleeson mentioned are part of the conversation.

After the BSE issue in the late 1990s, we moved quickly to make sure we were not just following EU law but became the world leader on the whole issue. In 2013, meat entered the food chain which was not appropriate for it. A decade later, the exact same thing has happened. It is a question of accountability. I am not trying to rewrite history. We know what worked when it came to BSE and what was effective. A system is in place with seven organisations, a vet is needed to register an animal and there is no timeline attached or end-of-life element tied into the database. That becomes an issue, as we saw in the shocking television programme. where it was being abused for monetary gain.

I welcome that Professor Pat Wall is involved. He is a competent and capable individual. I wish him well in his task but this is very serious. Confidence in our food industry is up for review now off the back of this issue. We knew in 2019 that there was cloning of microchips. What has been done since 2019 to stop that? I got the impression last week that it was a new thing. The reports in these three papers indicate this has been going on and there have been court cases regarding it. What has been done to stop cloning of microchips? Do the witnesses think cloning of microchips is a massive issue in the industry? Will they provide information on that to the committee?

The BSE crisis generated significant change but that was across Europe, of which we were a part. It was not that we led Europe. We were part of the European response. The European response in relation to horses needs to be at that level as well. We need to give the leadership to that. A number of investigations are ongoing which are to come before the courts shortly relating to alleged tampering with horse identification.

As I said, significant investigations are going on across Europe. In our response, the level of engagement and checks at the plant here was far ahead of anything we do at any other premises. Each animal was checked on an individual basis by a vet, the microchip was checked against the passport and against the database. The passport was checked for medicines usage and so was the database. Significant efforts were made to make sure no animal went into the food chain.

We could put this out to public consultation and take three months doing that; we do not have time for that. We will work with Professor Wall who will have his own views. He is an expert in the equine sector. He will not be pushed around by us. We will come up with a set of proposals. At that point, we may engage with the sector and do some consultation. I do not want to hang around for three months consulting people when we need urgent action. That is not what is needed now. We need to get on with this.

I ask Mr. Gleeson to inform the committee when he has that proposal.

I will move to an important topic. As Mr. Callanan is here, it is important that we have the opportunity. I will be brief. There is a milk supply issue. Supply was down 4.1% in 2023. I have been given figures that it is down 9% so far in 2024. There is a significant drop in milk volume, to say the least. The knock-on implication for the farming community is a potential reduction in rural income of up to €500 million per year. Regarding production costs, our 58 or 59 plants have viability issues - they are huge in the industry. It could potentially go from 10 billion litres of milk down to 9 billion. The implications would be huge. What is the Department's vision regarding the fall in milk supply in the past 18 months in particular? There was the derogation issue and confidence issues - there have been huge issues regarding the industry. What is the strategic plan to look at the industry which will potentially see a reduction of €500 million going directly out of the rural economy compared with the figures of milk loss at the moment?

That is an easy one.

The reduction in milk output is a concern. The Department and successive Governments have always been very supportive of the dairy sector. Obviously, it is the jewel in the crown in economic terms. Livestock numbers in the dairy sector are levelling off and there was a very small reduction last year. Therefore, the reduction in output is not an issue of livestock numbers. Over the past couple of years, it has been a weather issue, and maybe an input costs issue. There have been extraordinary events over the past few years that have given rise to increases in input costs. What has happened up to now has not been on the basis of some dramatic reduction in livestock numbers. The Senator did not suggest this, but it might be inferred by people listening.

The Department will continue to support the sector through investment and TAMS, which will be discussed later. In the context of Brexit, we made funding available for the processing sector to diversify away from the UK, and that is being used by some in the sector. These supports will remain in place. One of the things we have to do, which we have mentioned, is invest in research and innovation, and also consider value added. Realistically, the days of dramatically expanding output will be limited by our climate obligations, but there is potential for adding value. Of course, we also have an international trade dimension to our function. We are going to China in September and were in South Korea earlier in the year, so we are working hard to try to develop new markets for our dairy output. I do not believe there is any question about the Department’s support for the dairy sector. That will continue.

I can stay here for only three minutes, so I have only two points. I am not even going to ask a question. I have to be in the Seanad, which will start considering a Bill two minutes from now.

I thank the Secretary General for the successful completion of the farmers’ charter. It took a long time and there was extension after extension. I acknowledge the importance and significance of the charter, in addition to the engagement. There was talk previously about engagement. All the farm organisations are happy. They have different interpretations of and spins on what has been agreed, but there is a view that there will be a more reasonable regime for farm inspections on many such matters. I not going to go into these now. The charter is a really good reference point or touchstone for both the Department and farmers. Well done to all involved in it. It is important.

I want to touch on something in the Department’s strategy, namely, animal welfare. The strategy is excellent because it has the key performance indicators. Last week, we heard from Mr. Sheahan, one of Mr. Gleeson’s officials. He set out his stall, as he understood it. I subsequently received emails from some veterinary inspectors that shocked me somewhat, but I am conscious of the sensitivities. This is not the forum in which to refer to them. I have referred the matter to another party – not a political party, I might add. When people bring things to your attention, they need to be followed up.

Mr. Sheahan, who is not present, led us to believe very clearly that there is a track record. He referred to an internal investigation unit. I was led to believe he had no hand, act or part in that unit, but I am not sure now that that is the case. Again, this is a matter for further follow-through. I am already following through on it.

Ultimately, Mr. Gleeson has the responsibility for animal welfare. With regard to the shortcomings, I am sure he looked at the transcript of our proceedings. Many of my colleagues here were critical of the Department, as I was, and its role in what happened. It is unsatisfactory, and the general public is appalled and shocked by the violence. I suppose there are two issues: the animal welfare issue, which I will not get into but which I want to flag given that Mr. Gleeson is the Secretary General who heads up the whole thing and is the smart guy sitting at the top of the table, and also the issue of food fraud, with its food-chain and health-and-safety implications. These are major concerns. The Department’s officials cannot act as judge and jury in their own cause, so there is an issue. I call for a fully external and independent review of the issues concerning the Department. Let the external reviewers, rather than me, determine whether there have been failings.

We have talked about the farmers’ charter and we hear from farmers, farmer representative groups, forestry representatives, fisher representatives and growers, and from time to time they have difficulties with the Department. Everyone will have difficulties given the vast array of the Department’s work but people need to be confident that when the Department gets it wrong, it will be held to account. In the private sector, heads roll. When people do not deliver, they are gone, and I do not see why this should not apply in the Department. Therefore, there is a genuine need for a fully independent review. Who would set the terms of reference? It would not necessarily be appropriate for the Department to set them. Mr. Gleeson has already told us about an individual he is inviting in and has said that he has yet to decide. I realise there are processes and I respect all that, but people have deep concerns about what they regard as the failings of the Department. I understand that “RTÉ Investigates” may be considering a further programme on these matters, but that should not be our focus. If we are doing our job right, it follows that things are being done correctly. This issue is not going to go away, however.

There are also the issues of public confidence and the Department’s ability to instil it. Nobody, including members of the committee, should be unaccountable. There has to be some accountability, and it is this that I am concerned about.

I have learned a lot more about the Department’s internal investigation unit. People in the Department have contacted me about this to explain matters, and I was shocked and somewhat surprised. That indicates the diligence of, and hurt among, some of Mr. Gleeson’s departmental officials regarding this saga. I am conscious that the issue has both national and international dimensions. Was Mr. Gleeson conscious that Interpol was involved? Was he conscious of the food chain, particularly in France but possibly also in other jurisdictions, and the implications for and reputational damage to Ireland? Representatives of HRI and other equine people were before us. I am not blaming them because I believe the question was all focused on the Department.

Ultimately, we must have some protocol and process for end-of-life sport horses, including racehorses. We will have to consider this. Clearly understood protocols will have to be developed for the industry because, on the one hand, we want animal welfare and, on the other, we need to regulate the end-of-life practices. Perhaps this is for another day, agenda or forum, but we need to be mindful of it.

Clearly, there are investigations, which is grand, but I am concerned about the perceived shortcomings of officials in Mr. Gleeson’s Department. After all, Mr. Sheahan appeared recently at a meeting of the Committee on Public Accounts and confirmed the responsibilities of the Department. I do not believe there is any dispute over the Department’s statutory requirement concerning animal welfare. There are the issues of the food chain, food fraud and our international reputation. Were there shortcomings involving officials in the Department? Mr. Gleeson could not stand over them and we must be seen to be taking proper action in this regard.

That is just the gist of it. I am not necessarily expecting Mr Gleeson to respond as I am sure he is aware of all these matters, but he might take my points away. In simple terms, my question is whether he sees the need for, and supports the principle of, having an independent, external investigation into these matters. How does he feel about that?

I will respond to some of what the Senator has said. He has referred to somebody who is not here, somebody in whom I can say, for the avoidance of any doubt, I have tremendous confidence. We have an independent investigation unit that is working hard with the Garda to investigate this. I have confidence in it, too. The individual the Senator referred to is not responsible for the investigations division.

Apologies.

It is clear that the system being operated here can be circumvented by people determined to do so, and that is not satisfactory. We need to resolve this quickly.

I mentioned the appointment of Professor Paddy Wall earlier to look at this. The aim of the review is to resolve this as quickly as possible. However, we operated under a system which is compliant with European Union law and the frailties in this system are right across the European Union, not just in Ireland. All that sounds like defensiveness, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the Senator’s sincerity in raising the issues he raised, but that is my response.

I will wrap up because, as I said, I have to leave the meeting and I do not want to get into argy-bargy. The individual to whom Mr. Gleeson referred is on public record. He was here last week. There is no mystique about it. I get a sense that Mr. Gleeson does not like or is uncomfortable with the idea. I am with telling Mr. Gleeson what I think. I do not have a problem with this. I do not come in and make things up. As I say, I have other information and I am happy to share it with the relevant authorities in an ongoing investigation. I am saying clearly and categorically that I believe that there should be an external, independent review of the perceived shortcomings relating to the Department. None of its staff, from the top to the bottom, are above being questioned-----

----- as likely here. The public has lost confidence. It is worth going back and reading the transcript of all the questions asked by colleagues last week. There was a clear view that they were deeply concerned about what were perceived to be shortcomings on behalf of the Department of agriculture. Frankly, it is not right or proper for any organisation to be judge and jury in its own cause and investigate itself. Yes, it can have all those preliminary investigations but the simple thing I ask for, and I do not necessarily want a response, is for Mr. Gleeson to reflect on the idea that the Department would initiate and be supportive of an external investigation at an appropriate time. It might be premature now. It may result after the Department’s internal processes but that is what the public expects and I am a strong supporter of that.

I welcome Mr. Gleeson and the officials here this evening. Regarding the issue on which Senator Boyhan finished, we had a meeting about it last week. I do not have anything to add to or subtract from what I said last week. It is all out in the public domain. This evening is about the statement of strategy. I condone a lot of what Senator Boyhan said but I will not rehash last week’s meeting except to say that in the animal welfare section, the issues relating to horses have received a lot of attention, but there are also issues with dogs. The big issue with dog control and dog problems is that it is cross departmental. We need a strategy. I know a lot of work has been done and the Departments have come together. We have problems in the agriculture sector in particular with sheep-worrying but there is an even more worrying problem among the public with the number of attacks and unmicrochipped, uncared for or uncontrolled dogs. Ultimately, in my experience at least, it ends up back on my desk because I am the spokesperson on agriculture. I have no doubt that it ends up back with the Department as well. That is one strategy that should not be overlooked this evening because we seem to have gone down the horse direction for obvious reasons. That is just in passing.

I know this is a sort of a mid-term review because of the change of Taoiseach. It is a review of the strategy for 2023 and we are into 2024 now so we are more than half way. In his opening statement, Mr. Gleeson made the point that it is “to provide the optimum policy framework for the development of the agrifood sector”. I have a couple of very broad questions on that. Any time I have done a strategy or plan in the private sector or elsewhere, the first step is to review the one that was there before to see how we stood on particular issues and if we needed to cross any t's, dot any i's or change the direction we were going. I will throw some headings at Mr. Gleeson and ask him to comment. Forestry has been well covered so I will not go there again. TB is an issue on which I would like to hear where we are going. There are problems in every sector of agriculture but the big one that is coming to me most, along with forestry but that has had plenty of airtime this evening, is TB. I would like Mr. Gleeson to comment on the Department’s policy going to Europe with a view to an extension of the derogation or a new derogation and the role it is playing in getting some groundwork done before D-day on that one. It has to be a part of any Department of agriculture policy or strategy. I would like Mr. Gleeson’s comments on TB, the derogation and also animal welfare, to an extent.

We had meetings here about live export issues and what seems to be coming down the tracks from Europe. What is the Department’s strategy around influencing any restrictions on live exports, particularly calf exports, given that we are an island nation and that we should always have the same access to the Common Market as everyone else. Lest I be quoted otherwise, that should be have tight animal welfare regimes. I am pro animal welfare but we are an island nation and that should be part of the Department’s strategy.

Finally, to save myself coming back in, this is a simple thing but it drives me mad and it probably drives others mad too because it is being raised with me. Deputy Fitzmaurice talked earlier about paperwork and red tape and frustrations about that. It is not always a big job to sort out some of the things that frustrate farmers. One is the genomic-type buttons and tags for the SCEP arriving three days after the cattle go out after the cattle have been in for maybe seven months. It must be easy to put this into a strategy. The scheme sections and the ICBF could sit down together on this. The way the world has gone, cattle are in for six or seven months. Surely to God, we can do this joined-up thinking. It is cost neutral. It would alleviate a hell of a lot of frustration for farmers if they could get those buttons or tags during the six months the cattle are in the shed. It nearly always seems to be three days after letting them out that the tags are received. That change would not cost anyone anything. It is just a bit of joined-up thinking. It is a small change that would avoid a lot of frustration for a lot of farmers with everything else that is going on. These yokes arrive in the post the week after you let the cattle out having been looking at them in a shed for six months.

The Senator has hopped off a few things there. If there are things that keep me awake at night, he has mentioned at least two of them. The incidence of TB is increasing. It has gone to 5.13% from 4.89% or so at this time last year. It is a real concern. We have a TB forum that facilitates constructive engagement between the Department and farm bodies on how we address this. It is a concern, first because it is an extraordinarily difficult experience for people whose animals get this thing. It is a terrible experience for them. Second, there is a cost issue. This year we will probably spend €78 million on this. Third, it leads to complexities with trade. Certification of product to China, for example, is affected by TB rules. It is a really significant issue. I think we are at a point where we have to do something different. If we just keep doing the same thing and expect different results, that is not a great way to proceed. At the moment we are reflecting on what we might do. We intend to engage with farm bodies on that. People have to be able to work, live and trade. There might be solutions for this that might not be workable from a practical perspective. Take how we dealt with Covid, for example. We locked the country down. I am not sure that is a solution for dealing with TB.

These things are not simple. If there is a herd incidence of 5%, then 95% of herds do not have this. We really have to work hard to protect the 95% that do not have this. We have to work with people who have chronic problems to make sure they manage it better and reduce their risk and we have to help people to understand their own risk better and to understand there are measures they can take, whether it is in buying in animals or protecting their farm from wildlife, and we have to take some of those measures. I do not want to prejudice what might emerge from our reflection at the moment.

I will ask Dr. Blake to correct me if I say anything incorrect here. This is something the UK is looking at. We do not have an ideological position on it but my understanding is that it can affect trade in live animals and one of the difficulties is that it can be hard to tell the difference between a vaccinated animal and a positive animal.

Those are issues that have to be resolved. Dr. Blake may wish to elaborate on some of that.

That is the gist of it. There is significant work going on in the UK. We were involved in supporting that two or three years ago, and the UK has taken it to another level now. As Mr. Gleeson said, there are two issues with the vaccination of cattle. First, that is not seen as doable under the current trade rules. That is based on the older situation where vaccination interfered with the TB test and also the ability to differentiate between infected animals and vaccinated animals. However, an alternative test that will do that differentiation has been developed in the UK. It is still in the early stages of development. A research paper published a couple weeks back indicated the new test could work. However, more work will need to be done on it. Ultimately, if there is a vaccine available and it does not interfere with our ability to identify infected animals and does not interfere with trade, it is a definitely a tool we need in our toolbox.

The nitrates derogation was mentioned. First, Government policy is to pursue the renewal of the derogation. That is largely a technical exercise. The Department of housing is primarily responsible for the derogation because it is responsible for water quality. However, we obviously do a lot of the running on the derogation. It involves engagement with the relevant directorates general of the Commission. We are doing that all the time on these technical issues. I ask Mr. Callanan to elaborate on some of what is going on.

I will answer this at a couple levels. First, as the Secretary General said, engagement is ongoing with the Commission. As the Senator knows, the Minister issued a formal invitation to the Commission to visit at some stage. We had not received a response to that and we followed up with a further request that the Commission come here to see some of the practices we have in this country.

I have also chaired a water quality group which engages with farmers. There are two aspects to this. There is a technical presentation we have to make but, critically, the biggest issues is whether we are seeing water quality improvements. Our focus point in respect of that work is the water quality group and looking at three objectives, namely, how we improve water quality; how we improve compliance; and how we better connect farmers with water quality locally so they can understand why they are doing things and that it is not just a rule being proposed or developed by the Department. That type of work is ongoing.

The Secretary General is right that the clear objective is to maintain it at the highest possible stocking rate. We have participated in quite a number of outreach meetings as a Department recently. Carbery and Arrabawn held events. I spoke at a Tírlan event. Lakeland had an event where we engaged with farmers to understand the importance of a collective approach. The Department has a responsibility to make a scientific argument, but that has to be based on a comprehensive engagement by farmers, stakeholders and industry to ensure we are progressing improvements in water quality. I have been clear with everybody that we have a unique production system in this country. However, we do not have a unique target which is common to all EU member states in terms of improving water quality. We must frame our thinking in that construct. That is the clear policy. We are engaging with farmers practically with farm walks and through the water quality group in respect of everybody having a common understanding of that objective.

A question was raised on the issue of genotyping. I will bring that back in relation to somebody getting tags three days after letting out. I was not sure we were aware of what the let-out date was.

We will have a million calves genotyped this year. The turnaround time, with the full support and co-operation of farmers, for getting the samples into the laboratories and back to farmers was around 12 days. That is a superb performance for what was almost a standing start. I have to compliment the ICBF on how this was rolled out and the engagement with it. It is an ambitious programme. There will always be teething problems. I will bring back the question as regards three days. However, we cannot lose sight of the strategic importance of this direction of travel. I do not think members will have had many phone calls from farmers taking a contrarian view and saying the programme has not worked for them. We should not lose sight of that. However, if there are a few issues with the process, I accept that we need to engage on them and we will do so.

To return to dogs, I know the Senator only mentioned the issue in passing, but he is right, particularly given recent events. There are incidents with dogs every year. The fact that we have an interdepartmental committee now is an advance. It does not solve the problem but it heads in that direction. We have a plan now and the Minister for rural affairs is bringing back proposals for a ban on certain breeds, and there are increased controls on breeds. However, we can have all the controls we want but if there is not responsible dog ownership, we will still have these incidents. If people do not keep control of their dogs, lock them up at night and know where they are, none of this will be effective. I again make that appeal. The State can do what it can to control these things but people who own dogs have to behave responsibly and keep control of them.

Our policy has been to protect live exports and we have done that in successive years. It is an important part of the trade and an important commercial outlet for farmers. We exported about 300,000 calves last year. There are pressures. We have proposals coming forward at EU level that we are working with the Commission on. One of the successes in the negotiation on that was that the sea journey is being disregarded as part of the journey time. That was a specific Irish intervention. We are still working with the Commission on that.

There is a judicial review against Ireland’s live exports, which we are defending at the moment. We have events in the Netherlands where there was a motion in the Dutch Parliament about a year ago about stopping live exports. However, we are part of the Single Market, so I am not sure how that could be done legally. We have had some discussion by some of the companies that buy Irish calf for veal production in the Netherlands suggesting they might stop doing that from the end of 2026.

We have all of these pressures emerging and we are trying to deal with them as best we can. We are trying to negotiate with the Commission on the new proposal. We are also working with stakeholders in Ireland to try to make sure that calves are well cared for and that we produce a better class of beef bred calf from the dairy herd. Dr. Blake chairs a calf welfare group in the Department. I do not know whether he wants to say something about the work of that group.

Members may be aware of it, but it has been going on for some time. It has been driven by the need to ensure that dairy male calves in particular are cared for and have a utility once they are born. One of the great successes that arose out of this is the increased use of sexed semen. We reduced the birth rate of dairy male calves by 100,000 in the past two years or so, from 380,000 to 270,000. That has been a significant change in the type of calf being born on the farm. That feeds into the ongoing dairy beef integration initiatives. We met last week with a stakeholder group to update it on the development in the Netherlands. As Mr. Gleeson said, in the context of the beginning of 2026, the industry standards are suggesting the Netherlands will be reducing the intake of imported calves, not specifically from Ireland but imported calves generally.

Obviously, Ireland is one of the bigger exporters to the Netherlands. It is part of their quality assurance scheme in the context of wanting to reduce the carbon footprint of the calf they are bringing in, but also reflecting pressures within the Netherlands in relation to nitrates and ensuring the calves born in the Netherlands are bred and grown in the Netherlands. We also see some initiatives whereby Dutch farmers are moving to eastern Europe to set up farms there as well. That would reduce the imports from eastern Europe into the Netherlands.

It is a significant issue in relation to that particular type of calf being exported to the Netherlands over the next 12 to 18 months. Bord Bia is part of this group as well and is looking at developing other markets for calves. The sense across Europe generally is whatever the outcome of the negotiations on the transport rules, it will be pushing towards an older calf being moved. Some people would push that unweaned calves should not move at all but it will be an older calf that will be moved.

We see some developments in markets in Spain, particularly in respect of older calves going to Italy. We see some developments in calves moving further afield in Europe. The diversification of markets for calves is happening but ultimately, the biggest challenge we have is that no matter what, we have to come up with a way to feed the calves on the ferry. That is the challenge out there now and to my mind, it is an engineering challenge.

Some dairy farmers are now prepared to rear their calves to seven or eight weeks or to 12 weeks and a beef farmer or dry stock farmer will take them on. The 42-day test is a barrier to that, in that a calf has to be tested at 42 days if he is going to be moved after it. As Mr. Blake said, with live exports we are talking about an older calf and the fact that calf would have to be tested. We had an exemption during Covid when a calf did not have to be tested. There was something done where, when 95% of herds were clear they could be left and not tested if they were under 70 days or something like that. It would be of benefit to that.

In my view, trying to feed calves on a lorry or a ferry will not work. I cannot see it working in practice. Has the Department looked into the possibility of a walk-on, walk-off boat to carry calves to the Continent?

That is one of the issues that has been discussed at the forum. We have reached out to see if there is anyone out there doing it at the moment. There are historical references to it happening 20 to 30 years ago in different places but we have not, as of now, identified it. However, it is one of the contingency issues we are looking at.

On the first remarks of the Cathaoirleach, we all saw the programme "Horses: Making a Killing" and we do not have to go over old coals because it was shocking and everyone knows that. Mr. Gleeson remarked that there needs to be a root and branch overhaul. When will that take place, is it going to place or what internally has changed from last week or two weeks ago compared to now? That is one question.

I will have to disagree on the analysis of the fishing industry, as I come from a fishing county, Wexford, which has a great maritime history. Mr. Gleeson cannot make a statement that says that. The huge number of Spanish and French boats there are not catching fresh air. We even have the Chinese here and they are not catching fresh air. We have the super trawlers coming in that are not catching fresh air. To say there is a depletion of fish is not quite right. Maybe we could get examples of fish species being talked about because the Dutch are building a new fleet. They are not building a new fleet for nothing.

I am involved with fishermen down there and as the witnesses know, it is a very lucrative business. It is one of the superfoods that is going to be really important for our food industry and food security in future. It is one of the industries we should really be looking after. In his opening statement, the Secretary General stated that the agriculture, food and marine sectors are crucial to the fabric of rural and coastal Ireland but would he say they are equally important and are treated equally when it comes to the State in terms of representatives giving supports and subsidies?

First, on horses, we have covered some of that ground. I said there will be a root and branch exercise and what has changed is that we are operating a system which was entirely consistent with European Union rules but it is quite evident now, following the programme, that it can be circumvented. From Ireland's point of view, horses are not reared as a food but we are anxious to ensure that we tighten up on rules and we have a set of circumstances here-----

No, I accept that. About 2,000 horses a year are slaughtered, that is, 65 or so a week. It is quite clear that the system we have of identification can be circumvented if people are determined to do it. I mentioned earlier about the individual we have asked to review this with us. I do not want a long process with a six-month public consultation. I want something that is going to change the system, insofar as we can, and as quickly as we can. There is also, however, an EU dimension to this. Many of the events we saw on the programme took place in other member states and the system we have is broadly the same. It is at least as good as the system in other member states but as it is quite clear now that it is inadequate right across the European Union, we have to do something about that.

On the fishing, I am acutely aware of where Deputy Mythen is from and his interest in it. I used crude language when I mentioned fish earlier on because I meant quota. The outcome of the Brexit negotiation for Irish fishermen was a 15% reduction in quota and for some of the pelagic species, it was 25%. That means it is a significant reduction in the quantity of fish that fishermen can legally catch. You are then faced with a situation of determining how you resolve that issue and making sure that people within the industry have the potential to make a reasonable living. It was not fish stocks I was talking about; it was quota. As under Common Fisheries Policy rules, other member states of course have access to European Union waters, that is the reality and there is nothing we can do about that. When you ask do we pay equal attention to fisheries matters-----

In the context of Brexit, that was a negotiation between the European Union and the UK. The outcome was one that represented some kind of balance from the perspective of the European Union for Ireland against the burdens that Brexit might put on us. We were not directly involved in that discussion but we are involved annually in the negotiation of quota and we operate on the basis of a zero sum game. We negotiate the best deals we can, with the best interests of the Irish fishing sector in mind. We consult with the Irish fishing sector during those negotiations every year. They usually have a team in Brussels during the December Council and we brief them on what is going on. It is, however, a zero sum game. As we are talking about relative stability, broadly, the sum of the quota allocated to member states does not increase. To get more quota you have take quota from somebody else and you have 27 member states, albeit with a smaller number significantly interested in fisheries, but that is the reality. That is the world we live in.

Obviously, there are different kinds of support systems for fishing and farming. There is a Common Agricultural Policy for farming. There is a Common Fisheries Policy for fishing.

That involves a negotiation around quotas, but also a programme for fisheries whereby we fund capital investment in the fishing sector in coastal communities. In recent years, more than €200 million has been made available through the BAR funds for fishing in coastal communities against the background that fishing got a tough deal during Brexit, which it did.

I do not. State agencies, such as Teagasc and BIM, engage with farmers and fishermen all the time. In the lead up to new Common Agricultural Policy proposals, we had consultation meetings with farmers, many of which were held last year. We meet with the farm bodies and the fisheries representative bodies all the time. In the lead up to the direct payments each year, we go out and do clinics with people who struggle to fill in the forms or understand the scheme. They are hugely successful. I believe we did 17 clinics in 2023 in the lead up to the application period for the direct payments. I probably have the figures about the number of farmers who participated in those clinics somewhere. Other farmers may have advisers but we try to speak person to person because it is an effective way of meeting people. We also have the ploughing championships. We send a big team down to the ploughing and put a big effort into engaging directly with farmers, real people who have real issues and try to help them. We work hard at it, but of course there can never be enough communication.

We have very generous incentives for people to go into organic farming. The reality is many people in the dry stock sector, such as those with sheep, are pretty close to organic anyway. It probably makes sense for some of them to go into organic farming. They are voting with their feet now because the incentives are so generous. We have to do something on the market end as well. We have to try to make sure that there is a strong market for organic products as that is a challenge.

I may ask Mr. Savage to help me. He will correct me if I am wrong about anything. We have been engaging very closely with the Scottish authorities and they have an area which is free of the beetle. People in the timber industry have imported timber from that beetle-free area. In the context of the discussion, this year, we have narrowed that area by about 35 km around the perimeter. We are not importing timber from any area within 35 km of the beetle-free area. The area from which we are importing timber is getting smaller and smaller. We are monitoring the situation all the time and are engaging with the Scottish authorities. It is a concern. We have thought about all possibilities, including a ban, but our view is a ban at this point would be unlawful and could breach the trade and co-operation agreement with the UK. When things are done that affect trade, there may be reciprocation from people. If we stop stuff coming in from a country with which we or the EU have a trade deal, there could be reciprocal action. It is something we have to watch very carefully, which we are doing. It is a concern.

It is a major concern because if it gets into the country, it will destroy every forest. As Mr. Gleeson mentioned trade, on the trade co-operation agreement we have between the UK, ourselves and the EU, are there any improvements we can make to that? What improvements would the Department make, were it able to make them?

That was the subject of a torturous negotiation. I am not sure. It has to be reviewed in 2025, by the way. If there could be some simplification of the certification rules for animal products, for example, that would be a great help to us. At the moment, we have introduced systems whereby we check animal products that come into the UK. We now have to certify animal products that go to Great Britain. From some time in 2025, they will start checking Irish animal-based products at European and UK ports and border patrol posts at Europe. That is all friction that costs exporters and is a huge administrative burden on us. If there were an SPS agreement, a kind of agreement as part of the trade and co-operation deal, that would be a great help.

On organic farming, Mr. Jack Nolan and others went around the country and had meetings in halls at night and that is how the Department got numbers up. He explained it in bread and butter terms. He is at it himself, which means he was able to go through it. A bit of credit has to be given there. Mr. Callanan spoke about water with Senator Lombard earlier. I read a report again this morning on drinking water. The first thing was most of the water in Ireland is fairly good. Then there was a line that this, that and the other were wrong. Is there an agenda being driven by certain organisations to blame everyone? I believe farmers are not getting a fair crack of the whip in this. Within six months, with a bit of luck, we will have enough evidence of all the sewage that is going into the water around the country that everyone has turned a blind eye to. Farmers are getting the blame for it, especially with phosphorus, because we cannot decide which is which. When you see a river coming down and it is clear, and there is green grass, you know something is shooting into it.

The Department has looked at it, and Mr. Savage would be at it as well. What worried me - and I wish to hear the Department's analysis of it - when the Department of housing appeared before a committee, which was part of the set up, when I asked the lady about the criteria that is being used I was told it was set by Brussels. When I asked whether we would use that same criteria, she said - and I do not want to take her out of context - that we would not be using that type of system but Brussels determined it. Does the Department have any fear that this target is unachievable? This is something I would like to know because I do not understand the targets. The Department is going through all of that. It is nearly trying to make it run and run, and it still will not run fast enough. That is the worry I have. I would like to know the Department's opinion on that in terms of derogation and water quality. Has the Department looked at some of the ways it is used? How will it be set up? Information is being sought from the Department, such as how many cattle are in an area.

The cattle could be within a shed or wherever. God only knows. Brussels wants to know how many cattle are in the area and this is done up on their system. How foolproof is all of that?

There were many different questions to deal with there. To break them down, structurally, it is important to understand that the objective of improved water quality was set by a directive agreed across Europe. That Nitrates Directive is there since 1991 and the Water Framework Directive is there since 2006. In terms of anybody setting a target it is a target that is set right across Europe and we therefore do not have any suggested opportunity in terms of saying it should not apply here.

With regard to the EPA's role it is simply reporting against that target. That is it. I fully accept the evidence put before me.

In terms of what we can do and who is responsible for impacting on water quality, a lot of that is done on modelling and there is no doubt about that. Ask anybody about a model and they will always say there is a flaw in every model but some models are better than others. I would be careful about a narrative that farmers are getting a bad deal because I can assure the Deputy the knowledge level is growing every day. It is growing at a massive rate. I spoke at an EPA conference a month ago as part of that water quality outreach and there was a presentation the Deputy should look at. It was about the local authority waters programme, LAWPRO, and its capacity to establish load by area and what is impacting in terms of water quality. That knowledge is growing so it would be wrong of me to suggest an expected "get out of jail" clause for farming.

I have been clear with people about the nitrates derogation map, that in relation to the criteria it would not be one that would be applied if looking at it from a purely derogation point of few. The inclusion of Leitrim or other areas has been used as an example where effectively water quality was driven by phosphorous rather than nitrates and that is not in any way connected to farming intensity. It is about soil type. There are other areas. We have been clear and honest about that. I have equally challenged that if anybody were to bring up or propose criteria of a different nature, it would not make a major difference to those areas that are in derogation in significant numbers. It would not and it would be incorrect to suggest if we designed different criteria to generate a map if would have made a difference in those areas where there is the most common derogation farming or most regular farming under derogation.

The last question concerned whether we can improve water quality. When I look at this I look at it in terms of whether or not we can make improvements, I am clear that I think we can, working with farmers. How far that can bring us is a challenge naturally and scientifically in terms of distance to the target but we can make improvements. We know farm practice can improve in terms of the loading and how that is managed, the appropriate application time for fertilisers and slurries. Looking at the progress farmers have made, the ask was around environmental demands and how they fit in. Farmers have made a tremendous improvement in terms of nutrient use efficiency by using slurry more efficiently which has allowed the reduction in chemical fertilisers. That is supported by Department initiatives such as multi-species sward support, red clover, support for soil sampling etc. When the soil sampling programme is concluded we will have close to a quarter million of soil samples having been supported by the State. That is what I mean about the collective ambition with the objective of maintaining output, which was the original question. We can make a difference in the improvement of water quality. I am confident of that but it is not easy because there are outside factors. Everyone will recall that recently there was a publication about a very heavy water event - I think in Wexford - that had a profound impact in terms of phosphorous loss. Those are things we have to get a better understanding of. I can assure everybody the knowledge about impact on water quality is growing. It would be an incorrect message and we are not just saying this, industry is saying it. It is now engaged with us in common messages to farmers. How do we get practice change on the ground that will improve water quality to put us in the best place for arguing for a continuation of derogation should be our shared objective.

Indeed you are, sir. My deepest apologies. The issue is potentially about the production and the loss of production in certain key areas. We mentioned that the weather might be a potential narrative there. Confidence is an issue as well. We have seen huge issues that farmers might see they have probably overscaled and will pull back a little bit. Will Mr. Callanan give me an indication of the nitrates issue with regard to the 250 kg N/ha area we have on the island? We have a significant but small proportion of the island still on 250 kg N/ha and that is in what is considered to be a major dairy part of the world in many ways. It is down in my part of the world. What is the future of that 250 kg N/ha at the moment? It is under review. What are the timelines of that review finishing so there will be an indication of where the 250 kg N/ha will be? Will Mr. Callanan give me an update on where the potential 250 kg N/ha is?

In terms of the interim review of the nitrates, that is under the aegis of the Department of housing. Let us be clear about that. As part of that a number of proposed changes have been put into that system and then the appropriate assessment etc. that accompanies it can be finalised. That process is expected to conclude by September, with an expectation of new regulations. The Senator will have to ask the Department of housing in terms of a definitive date but that is the general pace and direction.

As part of that, if that process identifies areas where the question of moving from 250 kg N/ha to 220 kg N/ha should arise, the Department has been clear and has advised the Department of housing that the Minister was clear that cows having been put in calf, that threshold needs to be understood with regard to any further move. We have put that in writing to the Department of housing so that it is at least understood as part of the process of developing and finalising the interim review. That is our position on it. On the output though-----

If I could answer this, with regard to the output looking at some of the indicators out there, the Secretary General identified the output is down. The Senator is entirely correct. However, the dairy herd population is not down. Output per cow has reduced. If I look at other areas, for example we have been reducing the age of slaughter of beef animals in this country by approximately a week per year every year, in line with our climate action plans but not last year. We went back up slightly. That is an indication of weather impact in the beef sector, which I assume is similarly responsible in terms of the dairy output reduction, so in combination-----

You would think that banding would be an issue here, that farmers would have said they need lower production to get into a different nitrate band. Is Mr. Callanan concerned that is why we have seen the reduction in production because farmers have looked at the banding issue and said they cannot be in the top band?

I have no evidence of that but in terms of the engagement of farmers with banding last year, 92% of them engaged online. It is lower this year at approximately 82% and the Department will write to farmers who have not declared a band. However, I do not have any evidence to suggest there is a management of output downwards. We have looked at the production curve and who is sitting into the various bands and it is quite uniform. It is like any typical bell-shaped curve. It is natural somebody who is very close to the edge might turn around and ask how they will manage their output. For that, it would be expected in a dairy herd production to happen at the end of the lactation where somebody would say, "I want to cut production here. I will manage it." What we are seeing all springtime, which would not be in line with a suggestion of what the Senator said about banding, is that output has been reduced every month. It is down consistently which is not in line with the suggestion farmers are managing the output in line with the band. We can certainly look at it over time.

I have one more question, Chair. I am under time pressure. The TB issue my colleague raised was a really important statement.

Three of us here today remember the famous Dr. Margaret Good, a formidable lady, informing us there would be a strategy and that the problem would be all sorted by 2030. That has not quite happened. The Department's eradication programme has been going since 1957. We will probably never eradicate TB but it is still called an eradication programme. Even the terminology around this needs to be reconsidered. We must be honest with ourselves that it will be a control programme rather than an eradication programme. A terminology change would give an indication of where the Department is at right now.

The figures have gone one way. In my part of the world, in Curra, which Mr. Callanan probably knows, the numbers have gone absolutely crazy, with 500 reactors this year alone. It is crazy stuff altogether. We need to approach things with a logic that we will seek to control the disease rather than eradicate it. We cannot eradicate it in wildlife. In some parts of Ireland, deer are a huge issue. Badgers are a problem in my part of the world. Without controlling the wildlife, we will not be able to control the disease itself. It is always going to be about having a control mechanism rather than an eradication mechanism.

Regarding vaccinations, we are mainly dealing with breeding animals. That is the issue. The numbers in particular dairy herds have increased. As a result, the numbers of reactors pertaining to those herds have gone through the roof in some locations. As a farmer whose herd is locked up every second or third year, I am very much aware of the stresses arising from this situation. A change in process is needed from the Department.

I agree with Senator Lombard that deer are out of control in certain parts of the country. A working group has been set up to examine how a cull can be organised. It needs to be done as a matter of urgency. Deer are appearing in significant numbers in places they were never previously seen.

On the reduction of milk supply, a significant number of farmers are exiting the business. From what I hear from people involved in co-operatives, that number will increase. The Cork marts are booked out for clearance sales for next spring. We have gone from a point where quotas were abolished and there was huge optimism. It is definitely the case that people are leaving. One of the biggest factors in that is the uncertainty. I can name five or six people in my area who have got out of it. Their herds were of a certain size and they were looking at having to contract their business as they had no successor. It was not for them. I say that not as a criticism but as a matter of fact. This is where we are at. Those farmers were in derogation, milking between 80 and 120 cows. If people are forced to contract that size of herd, depending on their age, they will ask whether there is a viable income in it for them. That certainly is a factor. We are going to see a fairly significant reduction in milk supply over the next couple of years due, first, to a lack of successors. That is the biggest reason farmers are getting out. There are a lot of complicating factors as to why successors are not taken on and uncertainty is one of them.

I ask Mr. Gleeson to address Senator Lombard's points, after which we will conclude.

Dr. Blake will correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that we must have an eradication programme. I accept there are challenges in this regard. When I started in the Department, which was a long time ago, I was in the district veterinary office in Cavan. At that time, TB was on an upward curve but it subsequently came down. Sometimes, these things are cyclical. There are particular factors at this time that are making it difficult to deal with the disease. Without meaning to minimise the situation at all, what we still have is a low-level, very persistent disease that is very difficult to deal with. It transmits between animals, including wildlife and cows. We have to deal with all of those issues. To strike a slightly optimistic note, we eradicated brucellosis. If we were having a conversation about brucellosis ten years ago, the Senator would probably have been saying the same things about that disease as he is saying today about TB. We succeeded in eradicating brucellosis. On the terminology aspect, my understanding is that we are required to have a TB eradication programme and there could be all kinds of unwanted implications if we did not have it.

I say that as a point of fact. I remember being at a meeting at which some people were opposed to post-movement testing. Some of us stuck to our guns and said it had to be kept. We had been there a few years previously. We relaxed the restrictions and brucellosis came back. We probably kept the restrictions for longer than we needed to but we finally got rid of brucellosis.

I could not say it better. If we want to solve the TB problem, we will have to make hard decisions again. That is the reality. There will be bitter pills for people to swallow but the long-term gains will be worth it. I sympathise sincerely with the people whose animals are at risk of getting the disease. Senator Lombard said his herd is infected every three or four years. That is a hell of a burden for people to bear. We must do whatever is necessary to solve the problem. It will not be easy.

I thank the witnesses for their very comprehensive answers. We covered an extremely wide range of topics relevant to the Department. Our questions certainly were thoroughly answered. We very much appreciate it. We will suspend briefly to let the next group of witnesses take their seats. I hope the second session will not be as long as the first.