Relevant Matter
Matters involving public funds
Public Policy Area
Agriculture
Period
1 May, 2024 to 31 Aug, 2024
Specific Details
Cooley Peninsula Sheep Farmers
Intended results
To highlight that many of farmers who had engaged with the Department were clearly of the understanding that when the High Court challenge that was being taken was dealt with, the Department would then, again, (subject to the Court decision) enter into further negotiation.
To note that a review group was set up following the announcement of the then Minister for Agriculture on 20th July 2021. We note that this review group was superseded by the Cooley farmers' legal action - which, as you know, went to the Supreme Court.
To also note that the Supreme Court, by unanimous decision, found that the interpretation of "compensation" by the Department was inaccurate and they should have taken all losses into account, to include consequential loss.
To emphasise that it is somewhat disingenuous of the Department now to seek to rely upon a time limit when the Supreme Court has held that the Department's interpretation was clearly wrong. Indeed, the interpretation that many of IFA members have taken, and indeed have sought, was that consequential losses needed to be taken into account when finalising compensation.
To draw attention to a letter by the Principal officer in the Departments Animal Health Division, which he sent to farmers in the Cooley peninsula in June 2001 where he acknowledges “a number of flock owners in The Cooley area expressed dissatisfaction with the values” .
In that letter he also acknowledges “that in the context of the F&M situation on the Cooley Peninsula with which all concerned had to deal at speed and under considerable pressure, it was perhaps inevitable that some anomalies would arise”.
To highlight that farmers were willing to and did engage with the Departments own process, only to have this deferred and the opportunity to conclude not provided. We are fully satisfied that many of the farmers relied upon the statements made by the then Taoiseach, other Ministers and Department officials, that the matter would ultimately be reviewed.
To ask that the Department does not hide behind legal technicalities at this stage and reviews the various outstanding claims, to take into account consequential loss. It is also disingenuous and infuriating for farmers in Cooley to be told in correspondence that they were satisfied with the levels of compensation provided when they did not partake in the legal proceedings issued by some farmers at that time.
To emphasise that farmers chose in good faith, having cooperated in full with the cull in the greater national interest, to pursue their grievances through negotiation with the Department represented by IFA.
To highlight that the approach adopted to-date by the Department in resolving the issues for these farmers following conclusion of the legal proceedings, proceedings which were used by officials at that time to suspend negotiations with IFA on behalf of these farmers, challenges how events may play out when issues of this nature arise in the future and has severely damaged the trust of these farmers in their political representatives and the Department of Agriculture.
To highlight that the files of a large number of farmers also show categorically they were not satisfied with the levels of compensation provided and were actively seeking increased payments through all avenues available to them.
To require the Minister, who now has an opportunity to right this wrong and ensure all farmers on the Cooley Peninsula, who suffered the extraordinary psychological and financial impact of having their entire flocks culled to protect the country from an extension to the Foot & Mouth outbreak are treated fairly, equally and consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court.
Name of person primarily responsible for lobbying on this activity
Francie Gorman IFA President, Tomas Bourke IFA Senior Policy Executive, Donal Callaghan IFA Animal Health Policy Executive
Did any Designated Public Official(DPO) or former Designated Public Official(DPO) carry out lobbying activities on your behalf in relation to this return? You must include yourself, and answer Yes, if you are a current DPO or a DPO at any time in the past. (What is a Designated Public Official?)
No
Did you manage or direct a grassroots campaign?
No
Was this lobbying done on behalf of a client?
No
Lobbying activity
The following activities occurred for this specific Subject Matter Area.
Informal communication (2-5)
Designated public officials lobbied
The following DPOs were lobbied during this return period on this specific Subject Matter Area. These DPOs were involved in at least one of the Lobbying Activities listed above, but not necessarily all of them.
As returns are specific to a Subject Matter Area the above Lobbying Activities may be associated with multiple returns.
Amii McKeever
Adviser to Minister (Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine)
Charlie McConalogue
Minister (Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine)