Vol. 492 No. 1
3 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the number of cases awaiting an appeal hearing in his Department, as of 1 May 1998, for livestock schemes, REP schemes and other schemes; the approximate length of time to have an appeal heard; and the overall result of these appeals over the past 12 months up to 1 May 1998. [13636/98]
My Department's headage and premia appeals unit deals with appeals against decisions under the arable aid, livestock, headage and premia schemes. The unit holds an oral hearing if it is satisfied the case cannot be decided on the basis of the written evidence. The headage and premia appeals unit had 474 cases awaiting examination on 18 May 1998. The approximate length of time to have an appeal concluded is seven months.
The total number of cases received over the past 12 months to May 1998 was 590 of which 387 were concluded. They were dealt with as follows: successful — 26 per cent or 99 cases; unsuccessful — 63 per cent or 247 cases; and decisions revised by local office following receipt of appeal — 11 per cent or 41 cases.
The number of cases awaiting a hearing by my Department's REPS appeals committee as at 1 May 1998 was 238. Of these cases, 42 have since been heard by the committee. The remaining cases are awaiting results of on-farm inspections. There is the minimum of delay in hearing the appeal once the inspection report has been submitted.
It can take four to five months on average from the date of formal receipt of the appeal to the hearing by the REPS appeals committee. Over the past 12 months the appeals committee dealt with 190 cases. The penalty was upheld in 93 cases and overturned or reduced in 97 cases.
I put it to the Minister that his Department is adopting a get tough policy. I am not making a case for people who do not adhere to the rules but in regard to the genuine cases handled in the Department. Am I correct in saying that the Minister recently removed the flexibility for compassion which can be shown by his experienced staff? There is concern that, if farmers make the slightest mistake, they will be severely punished. It is my understanding that a directive has been sent to livestock offices to the effect that such flexibility has been removed.
In so far as appeals are concerned, does the Minister of State agree that there is something unfair about the system in that it is the Department which adjudicates on its own actions? There is nothing independent about the appeals procedure. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the people involved but the public perception is that the Department judges itself and that those in farming are excluded from the appeals procedure. That is seen as very unfair. Furthermore, it is unjust that a decision on an appeal should take between six and 12 months. There is something wrong with the system if that is the case.
I accept the Deputy's point that there should be a better appeals system. Many problems arise from people not replying on time or because of a dispute over a case. An oral hearing will take a little longer. However, I accept appeals should not take as long as suggested by the Deputy. Nonetheless, of the 1,079 cases which were appealed, 369 were decided in favour of the applicant. That is a substantial number which reflects the appeals unit's openness to change where it is needed.
The unit is governed by regulation and it must be carefully monitored in that it is not our money which is being dispensed. The censure of the Commissioner or the Court of Auditors must be avoided to protect the Exchequer against disallowances of EU funds. As the Deputy is aware from the time his party was in Government, the audit can be conducted in a haphazard fashion with files being chosen at random and, if there is something wrong with one of them, the Department and the taxpayer being fined by disallowance from certain funds. We must exercise caution.
Some people have flagrantly disobeyed the rules governing REPS, a scheme of benefit to farmers and which can improve the nature and atmosphere of the countryside. It can also continue to give an additional income to farmers. I want to see abuses ended.
The staff in the appeals unit are flexible and such instructions as the Deputy mentioned have not been issued. Any warnings given to people to correct matters are given on the basis of instructions issued by departmental planners. In many cases, such corrections were not carried out but, in other cases, the high incidence of successful appeal cases — 361 out of 1,079 — shows the flexibility which exists in the unit.
The flexibility about which the Minister has spoken has been withdrawn from his staff.
