Mr. Tom?s Bourke:

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

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

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

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

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