Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Dec 2001

Vol. 546 No. 3

Written Answers. - Compensation Package.

Alan M. Dukes

Question:

150 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason his Department has now gone back on an agreement made with persons (detail supplied) in County Mayo; and if he will arrange for compensation for the depopulation of the flock in question to be made at the original price. [31801/01]

Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (Mr. Walsh)

In the context of an enhanced approach to seeking to eradicate scrapie from the national flock, my Department has decided to depopulate flocks of sheep which have had a case of scrapie since 1 January 1999 and which had their movement restricted by the Department.

The persons referred to are the owners of one of the affected flocks. The Department was approached by the IFA on their behalf, and on behalf of other flockowners in a similar position, with a view to entering into discussions on a compensation package for those concerned. Pursuant to these initial contacts my Department has had a series of meetings with the IFA, at which a number of the flockowners concerned were also present, to progress the matter. It was pointed out by my Department that the compensation measures which were contemplated constitute a State aid and as such require the necessary European Commission clearance. It was also pointed out that a key element of the Commission's determination would be whether it considered as objectively reasonable the compensation offered.

In a letter to the IFA dated 27 November, following meetings on 17 and 21 November, my Department made an offer of compensation via the IFA to affected flockowners. The letter dated 27 November superseded and corrected an earlier letter dated 22 November containing a typographical error which was identified as such and drawn to the specific attention of the IFA by my Department within a matter of hours of its issue. My Department advised the IFA that the letter dated 27 November should be regarded as the definitive statement of the position. It is surprising that the IFA spokespersons persisted in public statements in seeking to rely on the erroneous element of the letter dated 22 November in the full knowledge that it was an error and did not represent my Department's position on the points at issue.

The offer made by my Department to the affected flockowners included provision for the valuation and purchase of the flocks and for income support for up to three years after depopulation. It also included a number of other elements. The offer, in relation to the market value of the flocks, substantially mirrored the IFA's proposals with a minor reduction in the valuation of hoggets. For the past number of weeks the IFA has persisted in demands to have all female animals of more than 37 kg live weight treated as ewes in lamb for the purposes of market valuation of each flock to be depopulated. This is something which was never agreed to by my Department at any stage. On the contrary, my Department's position is that the treatment for market valuation purposes of all animals up to 55 kg had been settled at the meeting with the IFA on 17 November.

A further meeting with the IFA was held on Friday, 7 December. This meeting was held in the context of a rejection by the IFA of an offer by my Department to employ scanning as a mechanism for determining pregnancy and of my Department's insistence that there is not, and never was, any question of simply deeming female animals above 37 kg live weight to be in effect ewes in lamb for market valuation purposes. At the outset my Department made it clear that it is not prepared to reopen or renegotiate aspects of the offer which had already been settled. It was acknowledged that, given respective positions, clarification was required on the approach which would be employed for determining relevant animals to be ewes in lamb thus attracting a market value of £133. A formula emerged from the meeting under which percentages generated by historical research undertaken by Teagasc would be applied.

A letter reflecting the outcome to the meeting on Friday last, and reiterating the elements of the compensation package on offer to flockowners, was issued by my Department yesterday. Under the terms of the offer particular arrangements will be made to cater for pedigree flocks, such as that owned by the persons to whom the Deputy has referred. The package is available to those flockowners who by midday on Friday next, 14 December, accept the terms of the offer.

I reject the suggestion that my Department has in any way reneged on understandings or agreements made with the IFA on behalf of flockowners. I am satisfied that my Department has dealt fairly and honourably with this issue throughout. The current package is a good one for those concerned and I urge them to accept it. Once flockowners signify their acceptance of the package my Department will move with all possible speed to begin the process of depopulating the flocks in question. There is no justification for any further delay on this issue and continued adherence to clearly unreasonable demands can only work to the detriment of the flockowners concerned.