Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

We are trying to put in place a wording to reflect the conversation we had and to try to get the balance right between putting in place a fair system of valuation and assessment, which does not take a long time and ensures people get paid, but which is not a situation where the farmer chooses his or her valuer. In the vast majority of cases, I am sure there would be no problem with that but we do not want to leave anybody open to the accusation that he or she is choosing a friend to value his or her animals. Rather than trying to deal with these amendments one by one, I propose that we look at changing the section more fundamentally. I have a proposed wording which is not perfect but explains what we are at. It states that the Minister may, by regulation under this section, provide for the manner in which a valuer or an arbitrator is chosen to act in a particular case whether by lot, by agreement, by the applicant or by the Minister, or by another method the Minister may prescribe in a regulation; the time limits within which a valuation or part valuation process is to be completed; the consequences of failure to comply with the time limit provided for the regulations; and such incidental supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary for the purposes of regulation.

In other words, we are trying not to put a hard and fast structure in place. What is proposed in the Bill is that the Minister chooses the panel of valuers and the person from the panel who values. If there is an appeal, the Minister chooses the appeals officers and if it goes to arbitration, the Minister also chooses the arbitration officer. There was a sense that farmers may feel hard done by if an officer or a valuer who is chosen happens to be somebody with whom they have a difficulty. It may be more appropriate to deal with it under regulation than in hard and fast law. We are looking at that with an open mind before the Bill comes to the Dáil.