Helen Keogh
Question:7 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry his views on the need for a separate appeals system for farmers who are not satisfied with decisions on applications for premium and headage grants.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Grant Payments.
At present there are two avenues of appeal open to farmers who are not satisfied with decisions on applications for premium and headage grants. The first avenue is at local level. A farmer in any given county can appeal his/her case of the local office of my Department in writing or in person and it will be dealt with fairly and sympathetically. The second avenue is at headquarters level of the headage division of my Department in Castlebar. Any farmer who is dissatisfied with the response of his/her local office to an appeal can ask that it be referred to headage division in Castlebar where all elements will again be carefully examined.
These avenues of appeal provide a satisfactory appeals system within my Department. It is not possible to envisage a separate appeals system operating outside my Department.
My Department is the competent national authority for implementing the premium and headage schemes and must take all decisions relating to payment or refusal of payment under those schemes — it cannot delegate this function to a separate appeals body. It can, however, take into account — and does take into account — all elements of cases made on behalf of applicants by the applicants themselves, by public representatives, by the farm organisations or by the applicants' solicitors, accountants or agricultural consultants. It can and does also take into account the views of the Ombudsman in relation to any cases referred to him. As a result, I am happy that the system is perfectly adequate to meet their needs and that a separate new appeals system is not possible under EC Rules or necessary in Irish circumstances.
Will the Minister agree that his answer in the House today differs from his reply by way of a letter in response to my request that there should be a separate appeals system to deal with the appeals of farmers who are dissatisfied that their application has been turned down? In his earlier reply the Minister stated that these farmers could appeal to a local office and that this was adequate and satisfactory. I am pleased the Minister now accepts that there is a need for a separate appeals system. Will the Minister agree that if a farmer's application is turned down it is because of a decision made in the local office? Will he further agree that it does not instil much confidence to suggest that he can appeal to the local office which made the original decision?
The question is becoming over long.
Having regard to the fact that application forms are so complex under the reformed Common Agricultural Policy there is a large number of dissatisfied farmers whose applications are being turned down because of a simple mistake. Somebody in headquarters — as the Minister is now suggesting — should be available to consider sympathetically any applications which have been refused.
I had hoped for brevity and relevance.
As I stated in reply to correspondence from the Deputy — and a number of other Deputies — I am monitoring this scheme very closely because very substantial sums of money are paid to farmers in compensation for the constraints under the new reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy. I am very anxious that farmers get paid in full and on time. Some difficulties have arisen because of carelessness, in particular at farm level, as farmers do not always read the number from the tag but from the card, where errors may have been made. I have instructed Departmental officials throughout the country to deal sympathetically and to grant payments where unwitting errors are made. It is only in cases where there is a blatant attempt to defraud the system that there should be a hold-up in payment or disqualification from the scheme. I have put in place in the Department a system to ensure that every help is given to farmers. Under EC rules we are responsible to EC auditors as the competent authority. In addition, the Department, with Teagasc, held a series of information meetings nationwide to assist farmers to fill in application forms. I am continuing to make representations in Brussels to simplify further the application forms because, as the Deputy rightly said, they are still extremely complex.
Order, a number of Deputies is offering. I want to facilitate all of them but brevity is essential.
Has the Minister assigned an officer at headquarters in Castlebar to the specific duty of adjudicating appeals?
Yes. In the implementation of this scheme a senior officer was recalled from Brussels and assigned to headquarters in Castlebar to oversee its smooth implementation.
I understand the scale of rejection of applications is as high as 10 per cent and that thousands of applicants are being refused payment because of technical and minor errors. In view of the fact that fewer than 50 per cent of appeals through the appeals system which the Minister mentioned were upheld will he agree that they can no longer be determined fairly by his Department? Will he confirm the number of errors deemed to be detected by his Department?
In response to Deputy Connor's questions, I will restate my reply to Deputy Frank Crowley on Tuesday, 23 March. I said that a total of 99 per cent of all payments in relation to cattle headage and beef cow schemes had been paid; that 98.8 per cent of the suckler cow scheme applications and 91.8 per cent of the special beef premium scheme applicants had been paid on 23 March.
Those apply to cases passed. Will the Minister please qualify his remarks as the percentages do not apply to the disputed cases?
In the case of the special beef premium scheme there was about 8 per cent outstanding at 23 March but a much higher level has now been paid.
Will the Minister agree that the system of EC payments to farmers is totally unsatisfactory? The Minister must know this, because anyone who reads the Order Paper every day realises that almost 80 per cent of the questions put down to the Minister concern farmers' entitlements to grant and premium payments, which proves that this system is unsatisfactory. Is the Minister concerned about this? Has he noted the enormous number of questions relating to grant or premium payments? What steps has he taken to reduce the incidence of farmers having to go to their public representatives to try to get their entitlements?
As I stated in my reply to Deputy Molloy, I have gone to very great lengths to ensure that farmers are paid in full and on time. We have also organised a series of very well attended public information meetings. I will continue to make whatever amendments are necessary to the application forms to ensure that they are in as simplified a form as possible. In addition, Teagasc, at my request, have devised a programme of assistance for farmers to help them in this regard. I feel as strongly as everybody else about this matter because the payments involved are very large. Over £400 million was paid last year and in two years' time that will increase to £600 million. Farmers are entitled to those compensatory payments and every measure possible will be taken to ensure the smooth running of this payment scheme. We are implementing the scheme but the vast bulk of funds come from Europe. It is of no advantage to the Exchequer or to any national institution to have a hold-up in the payments. Farmers are deprived of a considerable cash flow when there is a hold-up in payments.
Was a circular issued to livestock offices in the past week stating that all premia payments will be made through the Portlaoise office in future? If so, will the Minister agree that this will lead to confusion and greater hardship on farmers? I am sure he is aware that the local officers help farmers to fill up forms. Will he confirm if this is the case and that it is his intention to centralise premia payments in Portlaoise?
The short answer to the Deputy's question is yes. On foot of a Government decision on decentralisation and due to consistent representations from my colleague, Deputy Hyland, it is envisaged that in the very near future the special beef premium payment will be paid directly from Portlaoise.
That is absolutely absurd.
No issue causes as many problems in rural areas as the debacle in regard to headage, beef and other premium payments. I have a technical question for the Minister. If a mistake is made in one application in the batch sent to Dublin from the local office why should all payments in that batch be held up? This leads to frustration at local office level because the farmers ask staff why their payments are being held up and cannot be given a satisfactory answer. There is also a problem because of lack of staff. It is totally unacceptable that people who applied for premiums last June have still not been paid and it is very difficult to accept that 99 per cent of payments were made. Obviously that refers to 99 per cent of applications sent for payment and not 99 per cent of applications. When will the procedure be simplified so that those whose applications are passed for payment will get their cheques within a reasonably short period? The bank managers are sending their clients to the office to find out when the payments will be made. If we go to the social welfare officer we will be——
The applicants themselves, the farmers, have a major responsibility to see that this scheme runs smoothly. They should take greater care in filling up the application forms and get the assistance of Teagasc, their accountant or someone familiar with the procedure. The amount of money involved is considerable and it would ease the situation greatly if this was done. We have offered every possible assistance in this regard.
Formerly, in the computer division if there was an error in one application in the batch, the entire batch was rejected. That matter has now been resolved and only the specific application is now rejected. That is another improvement.
I appreciate that.
We will be sending our constituents to the Minister's clinics.
The Minister referred to public information programmes. Will he agree that public information programmes do not have a retrospective benefit and that the main problem is dealing with the existing backlog of rejected applications? Would he, even at this late stage, give an indication of the proportion of applications which on appeal have been overturned by the appeals officer?
Mr. Walsh
All cases queried in the past year have been examined in detail and that examination is still in process. I have asked senior Departmental officials to seek to ensure that all applications with instant errors be allowed. It was laid down in European Community regulations that not alone would there be a rejection of payment for one year but for two years, which would be very severe on farmers who innocently took the numbers of ear-tags from the blue cards rather than reading the tag numbers. I am satisfied that in every eligible case where there was no intent to defraud the application will be allowed.