Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 29, to delete “6 months” where it secondly occurs and substitute “12 months”.

This is significant legislation, not least because it arises from the only commitment in the programme for Government that would seek to close down three Irish businesses. This is the first instance in which a legitimate and lawful farming practice will be prohibited in this State. One could be concerned that this sets a dangerous precedent for other legitimate and lawful traditional farming practices purely based on the ideological views of a select cohort. I understand that the discussions between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the three farmers concerned have not been progressing, much to the farmers' disappointment. The three farmers have sought to meet with the Department in recent weeks and wrote to the Minister's office directly on 17 November expressing their outstanding concerns but received no response. The Minister reiterated in the Dáil on 4 November his intention to provide for a fair and reasonable scheme of compensation for the three farmers concerned. No one of sound mind, however, would consider what is proposed to them in the closing down of their business as fair or reasonable.

These amendments were also sent to the Minister's office directly by the farmers but went unanswered. That is neither fair nor reasonable treatment of any farmer. As discussed by the committee during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill in July of this year, the basis on which the Department's proposal to calculate the compensation entitled to the farmers, taking into account their earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation, uses the worst five-year reference period. This would give the farmers a pittance in compensation. Farmers have asked that a longer reference period be used in order to reflect fairly and accurately the cyclical nature of their trade. The farmers have provided the necessary financial information illustrating this to the Department. Why is the Department opposed to considering this when it is clear that the fur trade operates in a cyclical nature and on an average of seven to ten years? Committee members raised concerns about staff being entitled only to statutory redundancy and asked that the Minister and his officials commit to reconsidering this. These concerns seem to have been ignored by the Department officials, who have reaffirmed that staff will be entitled only to the bare minimum statutory redundancy. It is completely unacceptable that these workers should be punished through no fault of their own and just because they now find themselves unemployed at the hands of the Government. Will the Minister, for once and for all, consider giving these workers a redundancy package that is fair and reflective of their services? The farmers concerned have been left in limbo while the Department drags its heels and while there remain huge disparities in agreeing the terms of the phasing out of the practice of fur farming that would constitute fair and reasonable compensation for those involved.

The amendment takes into account that workers will be needed for the winding down process of each farm. We feel that the amendment should be added to the Bill.