Trumper Report (Hansard, 30 May 1968)

§ Mr. Oram

Mr. Trumper was employed by a private group of farmers in Kenya. I have, however, received a copy of the report from the hon. Member and have given it very careful consideration.

251W

Mr. Trumper recommended:

(i) "That the Kenya Government Valuer should be instructed to meet a representative of the British Farmers to disclose the method of valuation he is using and, if possible, to reach agreement on a code of values to be used in the remainder of the programme."

I understand that at the request of the Kenya National Farmers' Union, a meeting between British farmers and the Kenya Minister of Agriculture was held to discuss Land Transfer problems, and the Kenya Government Chief Valuer was present to answer questions about valuations and to discuss the system of valuation. The basis of valuation has since been thoroughly examined by a British Government Valuer and I hope to make a statement in the near future.

(ii) " A breakdown of offer figures."

This point was investigated previously by the Caren Working Party in 1966 and has since been fully discussed with the Kenya Government who have, however, been unwilling to change the procedure half-way through the programme. They maintain that as sales are on a walk-in/walk-out basis, the practice of making a single offer is more appropriate. I am informed that the Kenya National Farmers' Union have, in any case, reconsidered their request for a breakdown.

The period for consideration of offers has been extended from 21 to 28 days.

(iii) " That the valuation should be a single figure instead of a range within which an offer is made."

I believe it is in the interests both of the Kenya Government and the farmers that the valuations should be made on the basis of a narrow range of figures within which negotiation can take place.

(iv) "That an appeal procedure should be devised."

The possibility of an appeal was fully examined by the Caren Working Party on Valuation in 1966. and their conclusion, which was accepted by both Governments, was that since there is no compulsion to sell, there is no justification for an appeal procedure. In refusing an offer to purchase by the Agricultural Development Corporation, a farmer is not giving up his only chance to realise re-mittable sterling, since it is open to him to arrange a private sale through the Land Bank.

(v) "That fresh offers should be made to those who had previously refused."

To re-open negotiations in the case of those who declined offers would be inequitable, and would delay interminably the completion of the scheme. It would also call into question the competence and integrity of the valuers, in whom we have complete confidence.

(vi) " That some thought should be given to the public relations aspect."

Both my Department and the High Commission are fully alive to the public relations aspect and have spent a great deal of time explaining the Stamp Land Transfer programme to the European farmers of Kenya. Although there is a vocal minority of farmers 252W who claim to have been unfairly treated, there is a much more substantial number who regard their treatment as fair and even generous.