Mr. Chad Egan:

From our systems, we cannot pinpoint an exact claim that has driven this. We are aware that there has been modernisation in that new products have evolved. There are different types of scrapers, for example. We cannot pinpoint something from our internal discussions that would suggest a reason for the issues raised. From talking to those in the sector, we believe there are areas in which we can provide greater clarity and regarding which those in the sector have different perspectives on what should be allowed. With a system of self-assessment, taxpayers are entitled to interpret the order in the manner they feel is right and make their claims on that basis. We are taking on board the issues they have raised with us. We have been able to give clarity on some expenditure items we do not allow, as I mentioned in my opening statement, and we are looking into some items based on feedback from the sector.

Deputy Fitzmaurice referred to the size of feeders, for example, and the tonnage that currently applies. We hope to have something published this month, once we get the final pieces together and the submissions from the sector and after the farm visit. I hope we can offer as much clarity as we can at that point, but that will not end it. After publication, we expect to have ongoing engagement with the sector. We have said this to it. We have always had engagement. Where there are particular items the sector wants us to consider, we will be happy to do so on an ongoing basis to ensure there is at least alignment or an understanding of what our approach is to the refund order so those concerned can make specific decisions themselves on what claims they wish to make.