Pippa Hackett (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will briefly respond on any EIAs required where demolition is carried out. Certainly, if an EIA is required, that is provided for in the legislation in terms of the compensation. My understanding is that will be covered.

On the calculation of the compensation, calculation of the recent profits of a business is normally used as a means of placing a value on such a company. Ordinarily, the average of only three years of recent profitability is taken into consideration, but we decided that, in this case, five years should be considered. The farm businesses have argued that it should be extended to ten years. However, the ten-year proposal is significantly out of line with the independent advice available to my Department, which advises a period of five years. The Grant Thornton report will be made available shortly. I do not have any more detail than that. Certainly, the farmers' proposal is based on a profitability cycle. The farm businesses say that a ten-year cycle exists in the fur farming business. However, my Department has not been presented with evidence of this ten-year cycle. I am not convinced that anyone purchasing or valuing a business, including a fur farming business, would be prepared to factor in a largely historical profitability statistic.

It is important to note that the compensation payable to farmers is not solely dependent on the earnings calculation. Where the profitability calculation shows a low level of profitability, or even a loss-making situation, there is to be a fallback position on which to value the business. That is the net book value of the company’s trading assets, and this makes up the compensation payable in the circumstances. I am not in agreeing with the profitability calculation based on a ten-year average. It is important to highlight that nobody is disputing the current legitimacy and legality of the business. There is an acceptance among the fur farmers that their businesses are being made redundant.

On workers, I take on board the concerns regarding the two-week statutory redundancy. The Department is still considering that point. I am advised by the Department of Social Protection that it has committed to putting together a plan or programme for the affected employees in advance of the prohibition. The plan for each individual will deal with unemployment, jobseeker's benefits, education and training options and opportunities for such. It will also explore what jobs might be available in their areas. A case officer will be assigned locally to be a focal point for the employees in their respective regions. Regarding training and upskilling needs, Department of Social Protection officials interface with education providers, including local education and training boards and Teagasc. Some such services and supports are already available.

I thank Senators for their comments.