Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002

Vol. 549 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - On-Farm Valuation Scheme.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this matter and the Minister of State for being present to reply.

Will the Minister of State honour the agreement with farmers under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to pay them for independent on-farm live valuation of reactors under the TB and brucellosis schemes? Payment is being refused and valuation inspections only take place where the number of reactors exceeds six. This agreement was made under the PPF and has not been honoured to date by the Government. This is regrettable and many farmers are losing out substantially as a result. This cannot continue at a time when farming is under severe pressure. It adds to the dismal performance of many departmental schemes. It is regrettable that departmental officials are making up the schemes as they go along. The Government's failure is at the expense of the farmer.

Valuation officers are supposed to be independent and capable of making an independent valuation of animals on farms. It is unfortunate their independence has been removed because the Department insists these people operate under weekly price guidelines. That is a restriction which removes their independence. Not only do the guidelines cause frustration for farmers on whose farms inspections and valuations take place, the inspectors must take the brunt of abuse caused by the Government's failure to adhere to the terms of the PPF. This is another failure the Department has managed to lay on another source.

More than 50% of breakdowns in herds take place in one, two or three animals. There is no on-farm live valuation in these cases which means the animals are taken to the factory. As the Minister of State who comes from the west knows, many of these animals are small store cattle or weanlings whose value is almost nil apart from the grant. In other cases they could be suckler cows which also have a very low value placed on them by factories. We know in the majority of cases that farmers are disappointed with the price paid by factories. It is only the grant that gives them any worthwhile compensation in these instances.

The Department also gave an undertaking that wildlife control would be tackled in tandem with the commitment under the PPF and that 27 officers would be appointed to deal with infected wildlife in the area of a herd breakdown. This has not taken place. Advertisements have only been placed in recent days and only the overall scheme rather than the appointments is being put in place at present.

The Government has failed on three counts to honour the commitment given under the terms of the PPF. Will the Minister allow on-farm valuation for all livestock reactors and will he put in place the wildlife control personnel promised? It will not take place until the autumn or winter of this year which means another year will have passed before it will have been implemented.

In addition, it is important the Minister and the Department act on the terrible news from Britain about another suspected case of foot and mouth disease.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachta as ucht an cheist seo a ardú. I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to put on record exactly what is happening and how, once again, another commitment of the Government is being honoured.

The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, PPF, provided for the introduction of an on-farm market valuation scheme for the TB and brucellosis schemes. Numerous meetings took place during 2000 and 2001 between officials of my Department and farm bodies on the detailed arrangements for the introduction of the new scheme and broad agreement was reached in early 2001.

Among the main features of the system are valuations to be carried out by suitably qualified independent valuers by reference to guidelines.

Are they to be independent?

I will answer that in a minute. I did not interrupt the Deputy and I would appreciate the same courtesy in return. Other features of the system include a ceiling of €2,540 to apply to payment in respect of any single animal, except in respect of one pedigree stock bull per farm where a ceiling of €3,175 applies. Where the farmer or the Department does not accept the initial valuation, this can be appealed to another valuer on the panel. Following completion of the on-farm valuation process, the reactors are removed. If there is no agreement following an appeal, the matter is to be referred to an arbitration panel whose decision will be final. Graduated penalties will apply to the final compensation payment made to the farmer where he or she unreasonably delays the removal of reactors or where a voluntary post-movement brucellosis test was not carried out as well as for other breaches of the regulations.

The on-farm market valuation scheme has been introduced on a phased basis since February 2001. Initially live valuation was available for depopulations agreed after 1 January 2001 and breakdowns agreed after that date involving herds with pedigree reactors and herds where there were 12 reactors or more. From 1 July 2001 the threshold was reduced to six.

During the phasing-in arrangements, eligible farmers were offered a choice of live valuation or the existing fixed reactor grants scheme. In the period from February 2001 to date, more than 1,800 farmers have opted for live valuation which has been carried out by independent valuers selected from the panel of valuers established for this purpose.

They are neither independent—

This is the interesting point and, if the Deputy is good at mathematics, he will find an interesting statistic in the following. Approximately 90 valuations have been appealed, 80% of which have been by the farmer and 20% by the Department. Only 72 appeals out of 1,800 valuations have been made by farmers.

What choice have they?

Deputy Burke should not interrupt. He took more than his allotted five minutes. At this hour of the night, it is grossly unfair to staff of the House to keep proceedings going beyond the allotted time.

The choice is to go to the arbitration panel which will shortly be convened to decide on the 15 cases awaiting arbitration, 67% of which are from farmers and 33% from the Department. Ten of the cases are from farmers. Therefore, the system as applied has worked well.

Further meetings with farm bodies took place in January and February 2002. A further meeting with the farm bodies is being arranged for next week with a view to resolving the outstanding difficulties – I know the Deputy is in favour of partnership in this regard – thus enabling the full roll-out of the scheme to apply to all breakdowns from an early date.

Barr
Roinn