Mr. Eddie Punch:

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

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

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

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

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