Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I am not going to accept these amendments at the moment, but this is an area we are examining. I am trying to get the balance right in ensuring that one has a genuinely independent valuer. One of the good things about rural Ireland is that people know each other. They are likely to bump into the valuer in a pub or outside the church. That is a strength but it is also a potential weakness because when one has a social relationship with the person who is coming to value one's herd, there may be undue pressure on that person to give a favourable valuation. We are trying to ensure, therefore, that there is a separation in terms of picking someone who is genuinely independent. Everyone on the valuation list is professional in what they do and how they do it, so I do not want to over egg this potential issue.

There are essentially three processes here and in the context of these amendments we have to talk about the full section. If somebody is being compensated for his or her herd or for an animal that has been destroyed, there is a valuation process which hopefully will be acceptable to the farmer and the Minister, so that the money gets paid out. If the initial valuation is not accepted either by the farmer or the Minister, it can be challenged. There is an appeals process, including a panel of valuers on the appeals panel, one of which will be chosen to do a second valuation. If on the basis of that second valuation there is not agreement either from the Minister's or farmer's side, then it can go to arbitration.

In section 33, which is linked to this section, we are saying that the Minister will appoint a person or persons for the arbitration panel as well. My gut feeling is that we have gone a little overboard. Whether it is the initial panel, the appeals panel or the arbitration panel, all of these people are being chosen by the Minister and the farmer has no input in terms of choosing an appropriate person. For example, somebody may be chosen to value a herd with whom the farmer has had a falling out, although nobody knows about that. If a farmer is likely to have someone coming onto his or her farm who may have some past history, we do not want to allow that situation. Having said that, however, I do not want a situation where the farmer always chooses the valuer because that is not healthy either in the initial valuation, the appeal or in arbitration. At some point, if farmers feel they are being unfairly treated in the initial valuation they should have a role in choosing somebody from a panel, perhaps in the appeals process. Therefore, we will examine that matter and I will come forward with a proposal on Report Stage to try to improve the situation.

We may be overly suspicious in that there is no role for the farmer in choosing the person from a panel. Farmers are basically assigned someone who does the valuation and if they do not like it they are assigned a second person for the appeal. If they do not like that they are assigned somebody for arbitration. In one of those three mechanisms it would not be unreasonable to give a farmer some say in choosing from a panel of three, four or five people.

There is another point we will examine because it makes sense to do so. It should be possible to consider an automatic valuation process initially. That could, potentially, provide a quicker valuation which would not have to put the Department to the expense of a farm visit for a valuation, looking at dead animals or whatever. If a farmer has a certain number of animals of a certain weight and size, and a certain species, it should be reasonable to extrapolate the likely value of those cattle. Perhaps it should be an option for a farmer to accept that valuation or else have somebody come to undertake a full inspection and valuation on that basis. We are therefore examining all those things and we might come back with something that is a bit more balanced.