Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Mar 1992

Vol. 417 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Agriculture and Food and Industry and Commerce Matters.

Mr. D'Arcy

This very serious problem has been ongoing for some considerable time and, unfortunately, has yet to be resolved. The Minister stated last November that he was going to speed up the payment of beef premiums and gave a guarantee that they would be paid by Christmas. However we were soon told that they would be paid by the end of January. Then on 4 March the Minister stated that practically all payments would be made by the end of this month. He also stated on that day that there were 14,000 problem cases where mistakes had been made. These are the cases that I would like to address in my remarks tonight.

I should point out that approximately 500 to 600 of these problem cases are being dealt with by the office in Enniscorthy and that no attempt has been made to make payments. I am not blaming the staff because they cannot cope but I should point out to the Minister that farmers in the Wexford area are entitled to their money which has been made available by the European Community. The Minister's Department seem to have made no effort to assist the local offices in making these payments.

The Minister further stated in his speech on 4 March that he had asked his staff in cases where innocent errors had been made to pay the grants and only in those cases where a deliberate attempt had been made to defraud should they initiate an investigation. I should point out to the Minister that there are 500 files in the office in Enniscorthy and that that office are now dealing with sheep grants and not with these cases. Is the Minister prepared to give a direction or to provide some assistance to allow these payments to be made given that these farmers are entitled to this money which has been made available by the European Community? It seems that the system in his own Department has broken down and that he is unable to pay this money. For the next three weeks at least his staff will be engaged in processing applications for sheep headage payments so these files will not be looked at.

Given that it took the Department five months to make payments to 60,000 applicants, I wonder how long it will take them to make payments to the other 14,000. I appeal to the Minister to pay out this money immediately and to show some sympathy for those farmers who find themselves in this situation.

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr. Walsh)

First, I thank the Deputy for raising this matter again in the House. I should point out to him that every effort is being made and that I have asked my officials in the Department to pay promptly all those applicants who made innocent errors in submitting their applications and to get the money out to them as quickly as possible. The difficulty is that the regulations governing the operation of the beef premium scheme have been laid down in considerable detail by the European Commission. Applicants for premium are required to observe a whole range of obligations, including the need to keep the animals for which premium is applied for a minimum period of two months from the date of application or until inspection if later. Applicants must of course accurately state the number of eligible animals on their holdings.

The penalties for failure to comply with the various requirements are also defined precisely. These could involve losses of up to two years premium depending on the degree of non-compliance. I have no discretion in relation to the application of either the obligations or penalties prescribed by the European Community for the beef premium scheme.

I am clearly committed to ensuring that all legitimate applications are accepted and paid promptly. With this in mind a departmental task force was set up earlier this year to consider the problems associated with the male beef premium. The task force recently presented an interim report to me dealing with problems arising in the case of the 1991 scheme. The recommendations in relation to these problems have been accepted by me and as a result payment will be made in the coming weeks in a large number of cases involving innocent error. This should reduce considerably the number of problem cases involved in the 1991 scheme. There is no doubt that some farmers will still be refused payment because they have made substantially incorrect claims in their applications. As matters stand, the full penalties set out in the EC regulations will have to be applied in these cases.

I consider the penalties to be extremely harsh. Because of this, on the first occasion I attended the European Council, I availed of the opportunity to speak to Commissioner MacSharry about the problems connected with the operation of the beef premium scheme in Ireland. He has asked that the Commission should change the rules of the scheme so as to simplify its administrative arrangements and make the penalties under it more commensurate with any offences committed.

I expect to receive the final report of the task force very shortly and I am confident that this will provide a solid basis for dealing with the 1992 scheme. The recommendations in the final report are expected to propose a revised application form which can be filled more easily and more accurately by farmers as well as proposing a campaign to help farmers in completing those appications. These initiatives should result in fewer problems with the scheme in the future. In other words, we will have more user friendly application forms.

In relation to the specific matter raised concerning the Enniscorthy office, I will ask my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, who I am sure is familiar with that office and location, to take a look at it to see if we can free the system.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I will take a look at the matter for the Deputy.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Abattoirs Act, 1988 forced the county councils to appoint vets to fulfil the terms of the Act. However it will also allow the county councils to charge for the services of these vets once regulations are made under the Act. While Carlow County Council have spent £70,000, money which they cannot afford to spend, on vets and related expenses they are unable to recoup this money because the Government have failed to introduce regulations four years after the passing of that Act.

When I first raised this matter on 17 May 1990 the then Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy, said that "further regulations are at present being finalised and are expected to come into operation in the near future". Seven months later, on 5 December 1990, I raised the matter on the Adjournment when the present Minister, Deputy Walsh, said "the regulations are receiving priority at present and I hope to introduce them in the near future". When I raised the matter on 15 May 1991 under the grievance procedure the then Minister of State, Deputy Kirk, said "these regulations are in the final stages of preparation and I hope to introduce them shortly".

It is now almost 12 months since I raised this matter for the third time in May 1991 and county councils all over the country need this money. I do not want to hear the Minister use phrases such as "in the near future", "shortly" or "very soon". If the Minister cannot name a date I suggest that he either withdraw the Abattoirs Act or else compensate the county councils for the money they have spent already, if he is not in a position to introduce regulations which will allow them to charge for these services.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Browne,

Wexford): I thank my colleague for raising this issue. The Abattoirs Act, 1988, provides for standards of veterinary control and hygiene at local abattoirs supplying the home market which will be on a par with those applying at export plants in order to ensure that the domestic consumer can be assured of a quality product.

Under the Act each premises is required to undergo annual inspection and licensing by my Department. Since 1 September 1989 the regulations under the Act laying down the requirements for the construction and operation of abattoirs supplying the domestic market have been in force.

The day-to-day supervision of the abattoirs will be under the direct control of the local authority veterinary inspectorate who will conduct the ante and post-mortem examinations to establish the fitness of meat for human consumption and apply the health mark to fit meat.

Part V of the Act, which provides for the collection of fees by local authorities in respect of veterinary examination of animals, cannot be commenced until regulations are introduced to provide for the ante and post-mortem examinations of animals. A further complication has arisen in this regard as an EC Directive has been adopted which sets standard charges to be levied in all slaughtering premises. The implementation of this Directive will mean that the fee structure provided for by the Abattoirs Act will be superseded. For cattle and pig slaughtering this will mean a higher fee and the fee for sheep will be slightly reduced. The fees will be regularly reviewed to ensure that the real value of the income from the fee is maintained.

The introduction of the fees is linked to the introduction of the veterinary examination regulations. These regulations are complex in that they have to state precisely how all stages of the ante and post mortem will be conducted and specify all the grounds on which animals may not be passed as fit for human consumption. Since the drafting of the regulations commenced they have had to be redrafted on two occasions to take account of the extension of EC standards to meat being produced for sale on the domestic market. The regulations are now in final form and will be introduced shortly when final legal clearance for the draft is received.

I appreciate that local authorities who do not have local by-laws for the inspection of meat have not received the expected revenue and I regret the difficulties caused. There are no funds available to provide financial assistance to them over and above the revenue they will receive from the collection of fees.

I want to assure this House that I am having the completion and introduction of these regulations treated as a priority and that the delay is attributable to the complexity of the regulations and the need to accommodate changes in EC legislation, during the course of their preparation.

I would also like to assure the public that because of the high standards of our domestic butchers and the pride they take in the quality of their product they should not have concerns about the wholesomeness of the meat they purchase. The application of the operational standards ensures, that the product is produced under the best possible conditions.

Mr. Allen

I want to raise the unacceptable situation operating at present where the Office of Consumer Affairs do not have an office in any area outside Dublin. Up to recently, the director had offices in Cork and Galway but he was forced to close them because of inadequate financing from the Department of Industry and Commerce. The explanation for this, when I raised the matter some years ago, was that the director had received a financial allocation to run his services and could run them as he pleased. I was told that the decision to close the offices was made by the director alone; that was a monumental cop-out at a time when so much lip service is given to the rights of consumers, here and in the European Community.

It is very unsatisfactory because at present anybody who has a complaint must submit it in writing to the office in Dublin or, alternatively, travel to Dublin. In practice, a big percentage of people cannot put the details of their complaints comprehensively in written form, I know it is a problem with many of the people to whom I speak. They would prefer to have an opportunity of meeting the director or his staff face to face. I ask the Minister to give an adequate financial allocation to the Director of Consumer Affairs to enable him to extend the service to its original level, in other words, to have offices in areas outside Dublin. Dublin is not Ireland and the centralist thinking in the Government must change as people outside Dublin must get the rights which they deserve.

The Minister should allocate sufficient finance to the director to deal adequately with the complaints he is receiving and to extend the service into the cities and towns in the provinces.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I thank Deputy Allen for raising this issue. The Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs have statutory responsibility for certain consumer related functions as laid down in the Consumer Information Act, 1978, and subsequent legislation. The director is independent in the day-to-day performance of these functions.

Until July 1989 there were two inspectors from the director's office based in Cork and Galway, one in each centre. However, a decision was taken by the then director to transfer the regional inspectors to headquarters in Dublin. This decision was taken in the interests of operational efficiency and optimum deployment of resources. The decision was also influenced by the fact that the director considered the operation of regional offices to be limited in their effectiveness for the following reasons: lack of support, training, briefing and supervisory services for the officers; costs involved in bringing the officers to Dublin for briefing and training; regional offices were not open to the public; complaints and inquiries which they received from the public were referred to Dublin for advice regarding follow-up action. At the time, the director felt that he could not justify the re-opening of the regional offices unless they could be staffed by two or more people.

On the question of the possible re-opening of regional offices, I have to say at the outset that no proposals in that regard have been received in my Department from the current Director of Consumer Affairs. I am, however, aware from discussions with him that it is a matter which he is looking into and may well wish to do so if it proves to be practicable. It must be understood that this would probably require the allocation of additional staff as not all the staff required could be provided out of existing resources. In addition, there would be accommodation and overhead costs although presumably these would be offset to some extent by way of savings in present travelling costs.

On the matter of the funding of his office, I would point out that his overall funding has increased from some £148,000 in 1990 to £188,000 in 1992. Furthermore, the office's travel budget which is used primarily for inspections was increased from £63,000 in 1990 to some £97,000 in 1991 and has been maintained at this level for 1992. Also in August 1990 seven additional staff were assigned to the office raising the total complement from 23 to 30.

In the context of the difficult budgetary situation which has prevailed over recent years I would respectfully suggest to the Deputy that the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs have fared quite well.

If the director ultimately decides that it would be practicable to open regional offices and puts forward proposals to that effect the matter will be considered as sympathetically as possible but taking due account of prevailing budgetary constraints.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 12 March 1992.