Avril Doyle
Question:4 Mrs. Doyle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number of farmers on the stop list for premium payments; and whether there is an appeals system in place.
Ceisteanna-Questions. Oral Answers. - Grant Payments.
Jim Higgins
Question:34 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he has satisfied himself that his Department's computer system is capable of coping with the punctual payments of livestock grants; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Jimmy Deenihan
Question:45 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if the penalties which are at present imposed on applicants who make incorrect entries for premia, headage and other EC payments will be reviewed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose taking Questions Nos. 4, 34 and 45 together.
Generally payments are not refused because of incorrect or insufficient information being supplied by applicants other than in cases where it is found that a false declaration has been made. The problem is that failure to complete properly an application form leads to delay in processing an individual case for payment. An undue amount of staff time is taken up pursuing additional or correct details. By way of example, some 40,000 or 50 per cent of the June 1993 special beef premium applications were deficient in one way or another and required furether correspondence from the Department. Our experience is that, in a high percentage of cases, several reminder letters have to issue before any response is forthcoming. As a result, staff time which would otherwise be devoted to making payments is taken up with query cases often to the detriment of farmers who have taken the care to submit correct applications.
Detailed statistics are not maintained in relation to the number of cases under each scheme where payment is delayed, reduced or ultimately disallowed. In practice, many problem cases are eventually paid but farmers who are careless with their application or who fail to supply all necessary details will at best suffer delay in receiving payment and, at worst, receive reduced payment or none.
Because of the considerable expenditure involved, the EU Commission lays down very specific conditions for the filling of forms and complying with other requirements. However, penalties have been eased in the CAP reform arrangements following representations from the Department and greater tolerances are now allowed before total loss of payment occurs. We are continuing to press the Commission for greater flexibility and expect further progress on that front. I must, of course, make it clear that false declarations will continue to be severely penalised.
My Department is continuously monitoring all aspects of the schemes with a view to keeping administrative procedures as simple as possible within the constraints of the EU Regulations and to ensure that penalties are seen to be fair and reasonable. Help sheets are available with all scheme application forms and, in addition, assistance is available to farmers by way of information seminars held throughout the country by the Department in conjunction with Teagasc and through the Teagasc CAP consultancy service.
There are appeal arrangements within my Department open to farmers who are not satisfied with decisions on applications for premium and headage grants. In accordance with a commitment by the Government in the context of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, I am at present considering ways of improving these arrangements and, in particular, of putting in place a more formal appeals procedure.
Earlier this year I announced a £4.8 million investment to develop and upgrade computer facilities and other resources, particularly in local offices of my Department, with the objective of achieving the optimum delivery of my Department's services to farmers, with special emphasis on the timely payment of headage and premia grants. Given the very substantial increase in the volume of applications in 1993 and the new integrated control system introduced under EU regulations, I believe that the record level of payments achieved speaks for itself. The additional resources which I have obtained from the Government will result in an even higher level of payments being achieved in 1994 and subsequent years. My objective is to secure a streamlined system for the delivery of all direct payments to farmers which is as simple as possible while remaining consistent with EU regulations. Considerable progress has already been achieved and with the additional computer resources being put in place, I am satisfied that my objective will be fully realised.
That comprehensive reply deserves more study than I have time to give it today. Does the Minister accept that there is total chaos in the delivery of payment under the headage and premia schemes? How many farmers are on the stop list? The Minister should distinguish between false and inaccurate declarations. The vast majority of them are inaccurate, not false. Could we have more user-friendly application forms? Even forms filled in with the aid of Teagasc advisers are returned under the heading of false declaration. How can farmers win if the Teagasc adviser does not get it right?
Will the Minister give farmers a printout of the state of play of various payments? There are a few dozen schemes where payments are made in one-third and two-third instalments. A farmer is unaware of what he has been paid for what year, what he is due and what he can expect for the balance of any year. They cannot tell financial institutions or merchants where they stand with these payments. Will the Minister put a system in place which will ensure farmers receive a balance sheet or updates? That would relieve pressure from the beleaguered agricultural offices around the country.
Hear, hear.
The June 1993 special beef premium applications posed particular problems and it was decided to carry out a sample analysis of 400 cases. The results were as follows: No identify cards — 129 cases or 33 per cent; invalid tag numbers — 121 cases or 30 per cent.
Inaccurate, not false.
It is a problem in terms of processing. There was no date of birth in 39 cases or 9 per cent; duplication of applications, 31 or 8 per cent; problems at inspection, 13 or 3 per cent; wrong application form, 13 or 3 per cent; no signature, 3 per cent; female cards, 2 per cent; other problems, 5 per cent; the number of problems now solved represents 4 per cent. In the Programme for Competitiveness and Work the Government committed itself to maintaining and improving existing procedures for dealing with complaints arising from decisions in individual cases and, where these channels are exhausted, to put in place arrangements under which farmers will have the right of recourse to formal appeals procedures.
The recent appointment of regional HEOs to co-ordinate the work of local offices in their regions adds a new element to the procedures for dealing with complaints. In future problem files originating in local offices will be directed to the regional HEO for examination. If he or she cannot solve the problem the file will then pass to Castlebar or Portlaoise for further examination. Consideration of a proposal involving the appointment, probably in the Dublin head office, of a number of appeals officers to deal with appeals under headage and premia schemes is at an early stage.
I will examine the feasibility of having printouts. As the system is further computerised that may be possible, but I will not give a commitment on it. However, I will investigate the idea to see if it is possible to put an appropriate arrangement in place.
How many farmers are on the stop list and disqualified for payments for two years?
I do not have the statistics with me.
Will the Minister give them to me?
I will if they are available.
The time for dealing with Priority Questions is clearly exhausted but I can take the last remaining Priority Question in accordance with our amendment to Standing Orders.