Like other speakers, I welcome the legislation. When the Minister was debating this in the Seanad last February he indicated his pleasure at debating it there and also referred to his previous experience in the Seanad, hoping he would not have to go back.
This is an important Bill but I am concerned by certain aspects of it. Many speakers have applauded the setting up of the appeals office but I would like its officials to be drawn from the wider Civil Service rather than specifically from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The reason is that it could almost be a self-policing system resembling the old appeals office, where Members would have had to help people who had problems with REPS, which seemed to cause particular difficulties. There is a rigidity in many of these schemes because of EU rules and regulations but often that rigidity causes emotional trauma to farmers as a result of excessive penalties arising out of very small offences.
To illustrate how the appeals system works, I recently had a case involving a person I know well who lives close to me. He removed some hedgerow for safety reasons at the request of a neighbour. It was important he did so but he did not notify the REPS section that he was doing so in time. He was penalised and the local officer decided he had lost out on his REPS payment. When I asked the supervisor to visit the site, he agreed and could understand fully why the hedgerow was taken away for safety reasons. The person has gone through the appeals process in Wexford and, interestingly enough, the supervisor recommended that in this case the payment should be allowed. However, the supervisor was overturned by the appeals section.
The man involved is emotionally upset by the whole process, which I understand. Although we are setting up an appeals system that will have a wider embrace, will those involved be more objective than was the case in the past, where the appeals section included Department officials?
If the Minister is unhappy with certain officials and has the ultimate power to demote, will that produce excessive zeal on the part of the appeals officer or will promotion chances be enhanced? It is like the situation in the Department of Foreign Affairs, where the internal audit system is fine but often if that audit system is operated by the same officials there is a natural tendency to protect one's own people, who may even be superior to one within the organisation. I would prefer if at least the director of the appeals office was drawn from outside the Department, as he or she could then look at matters in an objective way.
The Ombudsman has done a lot for people who have had problems with different schemes but he is the person of last resort. He can assess all the data relevant to a specific case and will research it thoroughly to its ultimate conclusion. I am pleased that if someone is unhappy with the appeals office he can still have recourse to the Ombudsman as his last resort. Without the Ombudsman we would have a lot of difficulties – look at the nursing home subvention cases recently highlighted by the Ombudsman. We introduced nursing home legislation but it was never intended that family assessment and pension entitlements would be reduced by one fifth, regardless of whether the Department of Health and Children arbitrarily took decisions. We as legislators introduced the legislation in 1990 but when the Department of Health got its hands on it, it introduced regulations. If it were not for the Ombudsman highlighting those recent cases and going back over the past, there would be no redress within the health boards in terms of nursing home subvention levels.
The Minister should convey to the Minister for Health and Children that it is high time he advised the health boards about the family income assessment aspect of this matter. The boards are waiting for that instruction so they can pay people who have been penalised in the past. I have tremendous appreciation for the work of the Ombudsman.
Will the Minister clarify whether this appeals officer will focus entirely on the premium issue or will he have a wider role regarding farm retirement? Deputy Flanagan, who is a legal man, has pointed out the difficulties in filling in forms. We all know about the farm retirement scheme and how farmers have to lease their holding. Quite often they get the maximum payment, yet changes are introduced by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development such as the recent change regarding dormant milk quotas – many farmers sold off their milk quotas and would have retained their land. I recently dealt with a case where someone leasing for five years went back to lease for a further five years. However, it is difficult now to get a person to lease land without a quota. There is a lot of land available and a farmer would get £10,000 for leasing his land with a quota, that is on top of his farm retirement pension. Then he is suddenly thrust back into a situation where he is depending on the farm retirement pension and he has a few months to find another lessee. If he is unsuccessful he is told by the Department he can turn his land into an ecological reserve, as the terminology goes. That means leaving one's land fallow and doing nothing with it for five years. A farmer is encouraged to, and has to, part with his quota because of regulations which are introduced and which ultimately impact on him, penalising him.
There was never a better climate for introducing changes. As the Minister knows, with the foot and mouth disease crisis the Department got the chance to introduce changes, which it possibly did not feel it had the heart to do in the past or which were opposed by farming organisations which did not want those changes – for example, tagging sheep. We had the unfortunate situation where sheep brought into the country from other countries had tags removed, and we are aware of the sequence of events that followed. When that is introduced we will have a level playing pitch, but the agricultural appeals board may be busy again because of the changes and problems that may result.
I am concerned that if the appeals process fails the farmer has redress to the High Court, which can be very expensive. Is it right to send him in that direction? That should be examined. Deputy Flanagan remarked that a lower court should possibly be considered in that context if a farmer has a case to prove.
Previous speakers mentioned the location of the office, different aspects of which I want to discuss, as well as matters relating to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Everyone focuses on decentralisation from Dublin to rural locations, which is understandable. In Newcastle West, we put forward our case for that. Has the Minister ever looked at decentralisation out of cities? There is an office of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in the centre of Limerick, where farmers cannot park when they go to do their business. There is an office in Newcastle West which provides a token service from one official on half a day each week.
Many of those working in departmental offices come from rural locations. Has the Minister considered decentralisation of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development's office in Limerick to the heart of the Golden Vale? It may be worth looking into as there may be enthusiasm within the staff. I flagged this issue in a local newspaper, as a result of which I received numerous telephone calls from members of staff anxious that such a move should happen rather than travelling back and forth into the city each day.
Another element of this Bill that has been referred to is the REP scheme. Perhaps the Minister can clarify what happens to a farmer who pays a fee to a REPS planner, whether from Teagasc or a private consultant, if defects are subsequently found in his application and he is penalised. Does this Bill make it compulsory for REPS planning people, including Teagasc, to have appropriate insurance to cover such an eventuality? Those whose REPS plans are independently drawn up from outside and subsequently are penalised often find themselves in an unfortunate situation. If an insurance mechanism is not provided for in this Bill, it should be considered.
Farmers have a certain amount of dealing with the premium unit of the Department of Agri culture, Food and Rural Development in Portlaoise. The staff there are customer-friendly and helpful, as are staff of the Department generally. Overall, the Department plays a dominant role in Irish society and has a network of offices around the country. It sometimes seems there are deviations within this sector with which the Minister may not be happy and which have been highlighted in recent times as a result of the foot and mouth disease crisis. We have heard about the unorthodox practices of the past and about the temptations that existed. The agricultural climate is open for important changes. The consumer is an important part of the agricultural network. We are conscious of consumers when we speak of animals and premiums.
I realise the Minister hopes to model the agricultural appeals system on that of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, which has worked efficiently since 1990. It is considered to be an autonomous and independent unit of the Department, as it should be. Autonomy leads to a degree of success when cases go to appeal, so the consumer appreciates the work that has been done. As I said earlier, those who work in the appeals unit of the Department were drawn from the wider civil service. The Minister should not form the agriculture appeals unit exclusively from within the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development as he may find a level of objectivity outside it. I realise the Minister is concerned to recruit those who have an appreciation of the agricultural sector, but I believe there would be far more independence and autonomy if he recruited from within the wider civil service and I hope he does so.
The appeal aspect is very important for farmers. There is a level of bureaucracy which may be compatible to those who have green certificates and to younger farmers who are computer literate, but there is a cohort of older farmers, many of whom dropped out of educational establishments at a young age, who find paperwork intimidating. I appeal to the Minister to be sensitive to the needs of older farmers when formulating an appeals mechanism, as their mistakes are often quite genuine. I hope the mechanism which exists within social welfare, whereby people can call on a friendly public or legal representative to assist them or present their case at oral hearings, can be similarly applied to agriculture.
The environment in which appeals are carried out can make people nervous. I presume that agricultural appeals will be carried out throughout the country, as is the case with social welfare. Whether appeal hearings are held in hotels or in offices, I ask the Minister to be conscious at all times of the importance to the consumer of privacy. This can be forgotten at times, even within the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, by those who work in offices and are not intimidated by queues. As I pointed out to the secretary of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs last week, young people in offices for the first time often find themselves intimidated when they are questioned about their name or address by officials while queuing and those behind often ask them to hurry up. Everybody is entitled to privacy in which to present their case.
This is a good Bill, but I have made certain points regarding where I think it could be modified and further improved. An appeals mechanism exists already, but it is restricted as people police themselves. It would be far more objective if somebody from outside came in to assist. Like other speakers, I think a period of retrospection should be considered for REPS cases and other cases following the introduction of this legislation. Those who are unhappy with the appeals mechanism as it has existed up to now should be given the chance to present their case. The Minister's hands are often tied by European Union rules and guidelines, some of which have a rigidity which is not compatible with Ireland. The penalties that exist are unjust and unfair.
Modern farming is full of concern as people worry for the future. If we introduce a more stringent regime, we are bound to have difficulties. I hope this Bill helps to address such difficulties and that farmers will feel they have another layer of service to which they can appeal, so that their rights are vindicated. If necessary, the Minister should specify that a farmer may be accompanied at an appeal by a legal representative or other person to present his case. This legislation is perhaps silent in that regard and perhaps my proposals are impermissible. I ask the Minister to comment on that in his final remarks.
I wish the Minister well and, like other speakers, I compliment him on his fine work on foot and mouth disease to date. I understand he was praised in Dublin Castle last night by no less a man than Cardinal Connell, so it can be said that he has received a blessing directly from the Vatican.