Mr. Gerry Greally:

First, I will answer the question about the €47 per square metre. That figure is attributed to one of the three farms on the basis of an analysis of the roof type, mainly. We have information on the roof types, whether they are galvanised, fibre cement or asbestos roofs. The consultants concerned calculated that figure on the basis of the components that I just mentioned. These consultants are from a chartered surveyor company. We asked them to look at those aspects. They had information on the farms concerned. They had pictures of the buildings, they had photographs from Google, they had planning applications and they had information on Department files that we have had for years. Our Department engineer has been working with these farms since 2012 to bring the type of building up to a certain standard. We have a lot of information in that regard. All that information would have been used to come up with the figure of €47 per square metre.

I take the Senator’s point that perhaps the €3 extra for building inflation is not enough in the current environment. However, a cap like that can be looked at again. We are not saying that this is set in stone. We could look at the cap again. Certainly, we can take into account whatever information the farmers are willing to provide to us.

As I explained to Deputy Fitzmaurice, the cost of killing the mink are based on cost the of labour as well as the cost of carbon monoxide gas. That is all that is included in that compensation. The farmers obviously are including other costs. Unfortunately, we do not have the information as to what they are including. I note that we talk of 35 cent per mink. However, there is also a compensation amount of €160 per tonne of carcase material. We do not know if they are comparing like with like. In the absence specific information from the farmers, we put those figures in place. I apologise for repeating this but we have been struggling from November of last year until this date to get specific information from the farmers. It is only in the last week and a half or so that we have gotten some information on these aspects. That information can be looked at again.

I will respond to the question about the Denmark situation. The accountants examined different compensation packages. Denmark was just one of these. Denmark has ten years but the UK, for example, has five years back and seven years forward. It depends on what kind of compensation at which we are looking at the time. I am sure the consultants had this issue as well but it is difficult to try to compare like with like when looking at these schemes in other countries. I take the point that Denmark has a ten-year multiple. We do not have information as to why it is ten years, rather than five. Our five-year multiple is based on what Grant Thornton deemed to be adequate. This is five years forward in time and five years back in time for the average. It deemed it adequate to place that value on a company of that type. It is using custom and practice here in Ireland, as well as abroad, in general accounting practice. I cannot give the Senator the exact details as to why Denmark has ten years, rather than five years.