Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 May 2001

Vol. 536 No. 2

Order of Business. - Agriculture Appeals Bill, 2001 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Mr. Ellis

I express the appreciation of the whole agricultural community of the efforts of the Minister, his staff, the Garda and the Defence Forces during the recent foot and mouth disease crisis. Their efforts have prevented a catastrophic situation arising so far as this country is concerned and they should be commended. Despite the recent relaxation in animal movement and the reopening of livestock sales I ask the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to review the position at an early date as the new regulations are posing major problems in some areas, especially in my constituency.

I welcome the fact that we will now have an independent appeals system for dealing with problems concerning payment of agricultural grants. Down through the years the Department has done its utmost to try to treat farmers as fairly as possible but in some cases many of us have considered that some farmers have been harshly treated regarding grant refusals and the penalties imposed.

Given the proposals in the Bill, all the various schemes operated by the Department will come under the auspices of the new appeals board. It is important that the independence of the appeals board be beyond question. Whoever is appointed as director general and the various appeals officers would have to be autonomous. The director should come from outside the present Agriculture House system. That is not to denigrate anybody within it, but if independence is to be maintained the director and those who will take strategic policy decisions should be totally independent and not have any pre-fixed ideas as might be the case with somebody who had already been involved within the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Everybody accepts that the appeals system operated by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs is fair and totally transparent. The proposed new appeals system will deal with agricultural grant problems and where difficulties arise with issuing various licences by the Department it will become the arbitration medium.

Speed will be of the essence. We do not want a situation where appeal cases take 12 or 18 months to process. In some cases appeals have been ongoing for two or three years. The Department is not always at fault. In some cases it is at fault but in others the applicant is at fault. That a time limit is to be placed on the processing time will ensure everybody prepares their cases properly and quickly and that a fair tribunal of inquiry can take place. The facility for oral hearings is important. In some cases applicants may need the assistance of a third party. It will be open to them, under the new appeals system, to take along whomever they wish to help prove their case. Some people have a fear of going into examinations such as this. An appeals system which did not allow for third party representation would be wrong. It is imperative that third party representation for the applicant be allowed. That the Department will have to make available to the applicant all documents regarding the case is important. If all documents were not made available, such as is made available with regard to court proceedings, the applicant could be ambushed at the appeal hearing by the departmental officials coming in with new documents which it may not be possible to answer on the spot and the appeal could be lost.

The appeals officers will have to adhere to tight procedural guidelines. They will be able to consider all documentation. An individual's history could be important and all dealings the Department has had with individuals down through the years should be made available to the appeals system. There are records on every farmer. If somebody, for some unknown reason, makes a mistake and is penalised it will be found on checking that it is a genuine mistake. In the past, most of the problems with people who have been in default have been with those who have been in continuous default. The number of persons who have had one off cases that have not been fairly examined by the Department has been limited. It is imperative that the independence of the appeals system is maintained. The decision process must be speedy and accurate. Given that so much of a farmer's income is derived from subsidy payments and various national and EU schemes, they depend on it for cashflow and for their livelihood.

The new appeals system will be responsible also for dealing with appeals in regard to various licences. I hope there will be discretion for those with problems. If people need extra time to resolve problems with various licences I hope it will be allowed. I hope that where extra time is needed to improve buildings or handling facilities it will be allowed. It would be unfair to give, say, a month's notice to carry out some major improvement work for handling facilities. There should be minimum and maximum periods within which work, as recommended after an appeal, should be carried out.

This is a positive move in regard to agriculture and the agricultural industry. I hope the independence of appeals officers will be maintained at all times. The best way to maintain that independence is to appoint a director for the new body from outside.

Mr. Crawford

Like Deputy Ellis I am happy the foot and mouth disease problem is well under control. I concur with his recognition of the Minister, his staff, the Garda and everyone else concerned. There are individual complaints and I will comment on them later. In general there has been a tremendous national effort by everybody, including the football groups and many others who sacrificed so much. It was the first time in years that the importance of the agriculture industry, and especially the livestock sector, was recognised by everybody. All those people deserve congratulations, including the Minister. We recognise it was a traumatic time and that there was much pressure on everybody.

However, there are still major problems I want to mention. The permits system for the sale of livestock, which starts today, is a major improve ment. We should not get too deeply involved in technicalities. Some of the regulations that are being introduced are excessive and will prove very difficult to police. However, individuals might get caught on minor technicalities. When we bring in orders or legislation we need to ensure that they are workable and capable of being policed and we need to follow through on them.

As Deputy Ellis said, we need to get marts operating normally as quickly as possible. My colleagues and I fully supported the Minister's decision to close the marts in the short term. However, there is not the expertise among farmers that there was some 30 or 40 years ago, when animals were bought and sold in marts or at the houses. Many people are asking that a means for weighing cattle should be found so that they could have a better idea of the valuation. I thought the changeover today would ease many of the worries but in recent days, the feedback has been otherwise.

As the Ceann Comhairle is in the House, I have a small gripe. I put down a question about the failure to file forms FMD 5 and 7 by departmental staff at local offices in recent days. This question was not allowed because it was part of a question down for the Minister in Adjournment Debate Matters last week. I put it down because it was not answered on the Adjournment. It was suggested by the Minister for State that the Teagasc offices could deal with these permits. The information was certainly not correct in the answer given last Thursday.

While I understand the system has worked itself out because of the new structures, it is important that answers to questions in this House are made truthfully and properly. The statement from the Minister says: "both of which are issued by the Teagasc offices". This refers to forms FMD 5 and 7 dealing with the transfer of closed herds and bulls, sheep and pigs on farms. This is an example of the Minister's officials not getting it correct. They were talking about the appeals system. Farmers, whose livelihood is at stake, have the right to appeal to ensure that the income to which they are entitled is given back to them if a mistake is made. In this case, it was the Department that made a major mistake and nobody, including the Minister and his officials, will suffer any loss of wages for a week, a day or even an hour. Yet farmers, who make any mistake in forms, can lose up to two years' income. Everybody is entitled to fair play and that was a very serious issue that resolved itself through different means but caused many problems to the individual farmers concerned.

The topic we are discussing today is extremely serious. To most farmers the headage premiums, area aid, REPs etc. can often mean 50% or more of their income and in a year like this one it could be 100%. I welcome the Bill and agree with its general objectives. I know that farm organisations and the farming community will be happy to see these arrangements in place.

The Bill gives a statutory basis to a formal appeals process. The Minister states that it will be similar to the social welfare appeals process. However, it will be in the Department and will not be an outside body or office. Can the Minister explain his reluctance to establish an independent office? It was interesting to hear his colleague say that it should be totally independent of the Department and it should have someone from outside the Department as its principal.

Farmers would like to see a truly independent body. We are glad that civil servants from outside the Department are allowed to be part of it. However, why can people from outside the Civil Service not become members of this body? There are people in Teagasc and other qualified personnel involved in this area who should form part of the composition of the body. To use Deputy Ellis's words it should not be answerable to any of our friends in the Department. This is extremely important and should be considered.

I worry about how these people will be appointed. We had the debacle over the appointment of valuers to buy TB infected cattle etc. Although many people applied, some were not even given the courtesy of an interview simply because they may have been farmers in their own right. A dealer, a mart manager, auctioneers and other people were allowed to apply and got jobs; I wish them well. I have failed to get any explanation from the Department about the selection process. We have to be very careful about who is appointed to this very important appeals body.

Recently senior vets from my area were twice asked to apply for promotion and yet the jobs were filled without them being interviewed. These appointments must be above reproach. I welcome the general concept of the appeals body. People will get the chance to have their cases reviewed. In the past many people felt very aggrieved.

I do not have time for people who deliberately cheat the system. However a farmer should not be punished for some minor technicality if it can be shown clearly that he has made a genuine mistake. There have been examples of selling cattle a couple of days before their time or not having properly advised the two or three different offices of the death of an animal as farmers think that if they make notification once it should be sufficient. It is totally unacceptable that these people should lose their total payments for one or even two years. I hope the appeals body will recognise this issue. It is important that people from farm organisations or Teagasc or even politicians can accompany farmers or farm families to these appeals. This has happened in social welfare appeals and has been very beneficial. The oral hearing in this context is very important and welcome. However, under the Bill if the result of the oral hearing is not accepted, the only court to which one can go is the High Court. What farmer can afford to take this route? It is an impossibility for farmers and I ask that this provision be re-examined as a matter of urgency. In recent times we have heard of High Court cases costing £2 million, but at a minimum it costs a couple of thousand pounds to even employ a junior barrister. The system as set out cannot work and is impossible.

The appeals system will cover a very large range of areas, including area aid, headage and premium payments, the national beef assurance scheme and the provisions regarding dealers which were brought in through emergency legislation.

I and the Minister visited some of the Border checkpoints and the disease centres at Ballymascanlan and Clontibret. These centres were set up at very short notice and allowed the operators to bring down all the area aid maps so that those who wished could examine them. With modern technology there is no reason area aid maps are not available at centres throughout the country. It would mean farmers and their advisers, be they independent advisers or from Teagasc, could discuss any discrepancies or problems. Many of the problems which will have to be dealt with through appeals could be dealt with at that level as it is obvious from what I and the Minister saw at the emergency offices that first class information can be made available at very short notice. In terms of penalties, the provision of maps locally would solve the problems which farmers, particularly older farmers, have in reading maps.

I welcome the provision of a time limit, but from talking even with banks in the context of foot and mouth disease, some people would like to see the appeals process being dealt with in less than 12 weeks. However, I welcome that this mandatory period is set out as a maximum.

With regard to the legislation concerning dealers, as did some of the Minister's colleagues our party met representatives of dealers in recent days. They are very worried that while the legislation went through the Dáil some time ago, it is very difficult to get licences, and it is necessary to ensure this problem is dealt with as quickly as possible. Even when the marts re-open they will have a role to play in trying to get markets for our cattle, for example, in Lebanon, where I understand there is a possibility of markets now, and in other places such as Spain and the wider European market. It is vital that some of these problems are addressed.

On EU pension schemes and the associated paperwork, if there is even a slight problem with the paperwork, it is all sent back by registered post to the person concerned. In light of foot and mouth disease, and the delays in this regard, it is unfair that this issue is dealt with in this way. With modern communications some of these issues could be sorted out more easily and quickly to ensure farmers are not done out of payments. The same can be said about REPS and the national beef assurance scheme. It is vital farmers have a right of appeal and a right to go to the Ombudsman if necessary. Their right to farm in future is paramount and this should be considered in terms of the amount of paperwork. We have a very serious problem in so far as older farmers in particular do not have the same level of education or access to communications as younger farmers. Recently I was at the retirement function for a senior departmental official who said he was often pleasantly surprised at the extremely good efforts made by farmers and vets under very difficult conditions and that sometimes mistakes were made, but they were not made on purpose. Yet, people in his and other offices could make mistakes but were not held responsible in the same way.

Common sense must prevail in terms of appeals and the appeals body. Recently I brought to the notice of the Minister the case of a farmer who was looking after his invalid wife and who lost part of his herd through TB. The forms were filled in on a Monday, but because his wife had to be rushed to hospital on a Tuesday they were not delivered until after the infected animals were slaughtered. As yet, those people have not received any money. This is an example of where common sense has been thrown out the window. I was in that farmer's house and saw that woman, who is crippled, with the husband doing his best to look after her, and if the Minister was there he would understand, as should local officials, that an effort was not being made to fiddle the system. The animals were being taken from him under a TB regulation and he was working in full consultation with the Department. For personal reasons he did not get the form in until the following Monday. I was involved in filling in the form. This is an example of the Department going over the top and I certainly will not accept it. Hatchet men who have been brought in to ensure rogue dealers and others such as those recently named are controlled must concentrate on these individuals. In recent days a man contacted me who had sold an animal he did not realise had to be blood tested. That animal went through the system and was overlooked by Department officials in the mart. Yet it is the farmer, who has only 12 animals, who will have to go to court. Departmental officials employed to tackle rogues are taking the soft option of taking innocent farmers to court; I do not think this is the intention of the Minister or that it should be allowed by him.

Cecilia Keaveney

I wish to share my time with Deputy Daly.

I am pleased to welcome this short but very important Agriculture Appeals Bill designed to implement the commitment given by the Government to the farming community by improving the system for considering appeals. Coming from a rural constituency, I have come across individuals and families who have felt very hard done by, by the Department. On seeing the relatively large amounts these people stand to lose as a result of genuine mistakes on their part or on the part of the Department, I have always contended there should be a strengthening of the rights of these clients to challenge the Department in regard to their entitlement to benefits under any of the direct payments schemes.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has a large amount of interaction with the people it serves. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister, Deputy Walsh, for the numerous press releases and information leaflets he continually forwards to me which ensures that I am kept as well informed by him of the solutions as I am kept aware of the problems by my farming organisations and farm friends. I know customer service plans and programmes and the charter of rights for farmers have been important during the term of this Minister. It was important but not surprising, therefore, that the commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to establish on a statutory basis, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, an independent, accessible and properly resourced appeals unit whose remit will include all FEOGA schemes paying directly to individual farmers would be delivered upon. I congratulate the Minister, not just for the Bill, but for his positive response to the representations already made to him. I am sure these will lead to improvements on the Bill which was originally introduced in the Seanad.

While I do not wish to undermine the appeals unit in place for headage and premium schemes since 1995, I strongly believe there is room for improvement in any system, and this Bill will no doubt lead to improvements. The Bill accepts the basic premise that mistakes are made and this is the basis for devising an appeals mechanism. Importantly, it puts the entire operation on a statutory basis, thereby reinforcing the independence of the service. I have heard many people complain about the independence of the service and perhaps the Minister will revisit this aspect in his concluding remarks. It will increase to 28 the number of schemes being dealt with. This will eliminate the limitations on the workings of the existing appeals officers given that they only had the remit for headage and premium schemes. It will also open up the areas covered to include a provision for the input of an appeals office into the Minister's decision-making on whether to refuse or revoke a certificate of approval under the national beef assurance scheme. In response to the issues raised during the debate on the Diseases of Animals (Amendment) Bill, a provision will be included for an appeals system for dealers, which is welcome. Given that the aim of the latter is to improve the operation and regulation of dealers to restrict the rogue dealers, this is an opportune time to put in place strong regulations to deal with people whose activities not only work to the detriment of the vast majority of legitimate dealers but who through their irresponsible greed have put the entire industry and the country at risk. It is vital that the new appeals office will be able to examine appeals where the Department is proposing to revoke, suspend or refuse a dealer's registration. In every sense we want fair play for all our citizens – justice being done and being seen to be done.

The Bill seeks to extend the coverage of appeals to include the rural environment protection scheme, the early retirement scheme and other important schemes which deal with on farm investment. I welcome the fact that the Minister has not been prescriptive on the outer limit of the appeals office and has stated that the list of schemes can evolve as the direct payment scheme evolves. It is intended that this appeals system would be built upon and have an identical organisational status to the model of the social welfare appeals system which is in operation since 1990. This complies with the recommendation of the all party Oireachtas sub-committee on SMIs report, 1999, which sought a properly resourced, accessible and independent appeals system similar to those operated by the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. While I have some concerns about the work load which tends to lead to the turn around times in the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs being in some cases unreasonable, I note the Minister envisages, but does not stipulate, a turn around time of 12 weeks. It is important that this be adhered to as closely as possible. Often a lack of full information being given at the time can slow down a process but should all information be in order at the start there needs to be a deadline concept. I say this to ensure that, should undue delays occur, there will be a reason. If the reason is staffing, it would be good if it was flagged and then the problem addressed rather than have appeals fall into a never-never land. I trust the Minister might keep aspect this in mind.

It is essential the appeal is heard as if the case was being heard for the first time, as stipulated in the Bill. Too often when people are unhappy with a decision and look for a review they merely receive a restricted response based on the original decision. I welcome the introduction of oral hearings in private and a broad approach being taken to what is for the appellant a most serious issue. I recall years ago a person's disappointment when in a leaving certificate examination he did not receive the results he thought he deserved. When he paid for a recheck he received the same result. He was asked what had he expected, because the marks were just added up again as opposed to the paper being remarked. An appeal must be a proper appeal. It must not be just a paper exercise and one must have a chance to make a case. One must feel he or she will be taken seriously and there must be a presumption of accuracy and reasonableness attached to the decision which will be communicated in a user friendly manner to the appellant. I trust the spirit of the Bill will meet this demand. If it does, there should not be any difficulty in achieving a sense of finality to a given topic.

I am pleased there is recourse to the High Court and scope for internal review should new information come to light or the director considers the decision was wrong because of error of fact or law. Given that the Ombudsman's ability to investigate appeals officers' decisions is being preserved, this must adequately catch all reasonable angles that may arise.

A small but important factor is that there is no application fee for the appeal, which is very inclusive. Often a large fee would be attached to appeals, which leads people to think twice before making an appeal. A person with a genuine problem should not be put off by an application fee. Ultimately it would be better if there was no cause for an appeal in the first instance. Many mistakes are made by applicants due to the complexity of forms. One must always keep in mind that our adult literacy problems are acute, thereby giving another reason individuals find forms hard to comprehend. I know from my experience that farmers sometimes have difficulty in filling up extremely complex and long forms. One would almost need a degree to fill up some of these forms. The adult literacy problem was dealt with in the Committee on Education and Science, but perhaps sufficient action has not been taken at interdepartmental level to try to address this issue. Statistics indicate that a large proportion of the farming population is elderly. Following the death of their husbands, some wives find themselves in charge of the farm and relevant sub-applications and they have difficulty with the forms. Often it is the other way round when the male farmer has relied on the wife to fill in all the forms. When she dies, he must fill them in. The surviving spouse is often not familiar with the procedures and this leads to mistakes being made.

These mistakes are not deliberately made but may have serious consequences in terms of income for two years following the event. I am similarly aware of cases whereby elderly people whose partners have died during the year may be down a couple of sheep when an inspection takes place. These people may not have been in charge of the farm and are probably not capable of running it. If an inspector discovers that a couple of sheep are missing, they may lose their main source of income for perhaps two years, at a time when they are extremely vulnerable as a result of the death of their spouse.

In my constituency many of the issues relate to mountain sheep who may have fallen into a shuck or bog hole. It is difficult to prove that those sheep existed or to establish where they have gone. It is for these genuine cases that I have sympathy. I emphasise that in no way do I stand over deliberate massaging of figures and forms. Since the Minister has acknowledged that mistakes are being made at official level, we must also recognise that there can be human error on the farm side, for which severe financial penalties have been incurred by farmers. I assume the Minister cannot do very much about the penalties if they are governed by European directives, but I hope that in opening up the appeals system, when genuine errors are found, there can be some way of lessening the penalty.

I ask the Minister to ensure that all relevant agencies support our farmers in filling out the forms and in the follow-up required to comply with schemes. It is often the case that schemes such as REPS are drawn up beautifully and then the farmer is left to deal with the situation himself until there is a sudden inspection and it is found that something untoward has happened, or some requirement has not been complied with. I do not believe there is enough follow-up between the agencies and the farmers in all cases, given the form-reading ability and knowledge of elderly people as to how the system works.

I am still concerned about the tagging issue, which I have raised on several occasions. A further case was brought to my notice last night, involving the loss of one tag from one animal in a consignment being sent to a meat factory. The animal was rejected at the factory but, according to the regulations, could not go back to the farm. By the time the matter is sorted, the animal will probably have lost about £100 in value, because it is not the property of the people looking after it, so why should they bother? There seems to be a real problem, whether it is due to the quality of the tags or whatever, and I am not sure how it can be solved. Perhaps it is a matter of allowing some discretion to the local appeals officer to recognise genuine cases and that farm organisations such as the IFA and the ICMSA should be able to establish whether the farmers involved are genuine or otherwise.

I compliment the Minister on his handling of the foot and mouth disease. I get conflicting representations every day, with some people wanting the Minister to keep up the pressure and not to relax the precautions, while others claim the threat is past and that the restrictions should be eased. It is difficult to strike the right balance. The two suspect cases in the North last Wednesday could have gone either way. I am very disappointed with the level of precautions being taken by the Northern authorities. As a regular traveller through all six counties of Northern Ireland, I have yet to be stopped by an agency there, the Department of Agriculture, the army or the police. If I can travel as freely as that, so too can other people. That contrasts sharply with the great work being done by the Garda Síochána and the personnel of our Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.

The Celtic tiger is the only animal under threat from foot and mouth disease in this part of the country. Many people have been very patient with the restrictions which have been applied. I urge the Minister to consult the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs in relation to the farm assist scheme. All extensification aid and direct payments should be brought forward for payment as promptly as possible. Interest-free loans would get many people out of difficulty. I hope the Minister will consider these and other relevant issues in looking at any possible easing of the restrictions. I congratulate him on the work of his Department and on this Bill in particular.

Mr. Daly

I thank Deputy Keaveney for sharing time with me to allow me to contribute to this debate. I join with other Deputies in congratulating the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the Minister of State at that Department on their actions during the recent foot and mouth disease problems. The work of the Department officials is greatly valued by farmers and the community in general in avoiding a situation which could have catastrophic consequences for the livestock industry. The crisis has brought home to people the value of our agricultural sector in terms of the employment of 125,000 people and an income of some £2 billion from farming last year.

Against that background, this legislation is necessary. Direct payments now represent a substantial part of farmers' incomes. Where difficulties arise in relation to some of these payments, it is only right that an adequate appeals system should be put in place to enable farmers to question the decisions of officials. The Minister's commitment to bring in this legislation was part of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. It will provide a fair system to have grievances examined independently and to have matters rectified if an injustice has been done.

I wish to make a few points on the proposed appeals procedure. We have had experience of the social welfare appeals system, which has been the subject of complaints about delays. Since there will be a backlog of appeals awaiting attention under this legislation, it is important that adequate staff is provided by the Department to enable speedy decisions to be arrived at.

I support the points made by other Deputies about the over-complicated forms being presented to farmers. I have seen an application under the farm retirement scheme being returned to a farmer because of some very minor technical errors which could easily have been clarified by a telephone call, instead of causing further delay in resubmitting it through all the various offices and processes. Excessive complication should be eliminated from the schemes concerned and the forms should be simplified.

I also wish to refer to the deductions which are made, especially in the farm retirement scheme, where a pensioner qualifies for the normal old age pension. There is a fairly substantial reduction in this case – I am not sure whether it relates to a retirement pension or social welfare pension. This needs to be remedied. I urge the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to discuss the matter with the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. People look forward to their retirement and old age pensions. It is totally unjustified to have the pension decimated because a farm retirement pension is also payable. Farmers are being encouraged to enter this scheme to facilitate the transfer of farms.

The regulations which the Minister is preparing should be completed as soon as possible. There has often been long delays in putting in place the regulations which are part of legislation. The community is looking forward to effective legislation. I welcome the legislation. Farmers hope it will be effective in dealing with some of the problems experienced with the schemes.

Mr. Flanagan

I join previous speakers in offering my good wishes to the Minister. I congratulate him on the manner in which both he and his officials have handled the recent foot and mouth crisis. They engaged in a lot of hard work in difficult circumstances and the Minister has done well as captain of a good team and deserves credit. We have turned the corner on the foot and mouth crisis and I look forward to the Minister's further advice and guidance on the lifting of restrictions.

The reason I wish to speak in support of this Bill concerns the matter of the siting of the office. I note the Department in a briefing stated it was the hope of the Minister that the office would be up and running as soon as possible. To facilitate this I urge the Minister to consider siting the office in Portlaoise. There are a number of advantages to this, not least of which is the success of the beef unit in the town. It is on the map as a location where farmers can transact their business and have queries answered. The civil servants there have fine offices, good working conditions and they have forged a very positive relationship with members of the rural community.

It is important to maintain a certain integrity in the administration of the agriculture industry. Consideration should be given to a pooling of resources which would facilitate senior officers of the Department from headquarters in Dublin who may wish to visit the beef unit and the appeals office in Portlaoise. The town has all the modern infrastructural developments required. There are frequent trains to the town, it is just a little over an hour by road from Dublin and it is a central location that would suit farmers travelling from all parts of the country to have their queries and appeals dealt with. As soon as the legislation is signed, or before that, the Minister and his officials should turn their minds to the physical location of the office. I urge that they consider the town of Portlaoise favourably. I have discussed this matter with the other TDs who represent the constituency. I know Deputies Moloney and Fleming have been in contact with the Department and we agree on this. The selection of Portlaoise would facilitate an early establishment of the unit with good working conditions. In the briefing note that accompanied the legislation specific reference is made to accessibility. I cannot think of a town with more favourable access from any part of the country than Portlaoise.

It is important that the oral appeals procedure is contained in the Bill and a timeframe should be placed on the appeals. This consideration is important and allows for an appeal of an independent nature. Once a farmer lodges an appeal matters should not drag on. I contrast a neat workable timeframe with the situation that has been allowed develop in An Bord Pleanála where the whole appeals procedure is fraught with difficulty giving rise to appeals gridlock. The situation in the planning appeals board is intolerable. Although there is a statutory timeframe, An Bord Pleanála can issue, as in recent times, global notices to all applicants stating that appeals which should have been heard within three months will now be heard within nine months. That leaves the appellant in a most invidious position.

In the drafting of regulations for this Bill the Minister should include an acceptable and reasonable timeframe. A farmer would not expect his appeal to be dealt with in a matter of weeks, but a period of two or three months would be reasonable. At present the appeals unit in the Department is less than satisfactory. It is tolerable only because this legislation has been contemplated. The Department probably feels it is better to wait until such time as the independent office is up and running. The present circumstances, where appellants have not been informed that their appeals have been heard weeks ago, much less about the result, is not good enough.

The most important aspect of any appeal is that there should be sufficient information given to the farmer. Irrespective of whether the appeal is successful, it is important that the appellant know the reasons. Full and detailed information is essential. If an appeal is unsuccessful the appeals office should set out the reasons fully so the appellant is in no doubt as to why it was unsuccessful. If there is to be confidence in the system and real meaning in the concept of transparency, it is essential that full and detailed information is provided.

The relationship between farmers and bureaucracy has never been greater. It is an unfortunate aspect of farming that so much of the industry is dependent on paperwork, forms, European rules, guidelines, criteria and conditions of eligibility that was not envisaged by generations of agricultural producers. Advice and information is crucial in maintaining a positive interest by farmers in the agricultural industry. Nothing induces more anxiety than the constant returning and non-acceptance of application forms and raising queries and seeking further information about grant entitlements. There should be a way to codify or co-ordinate the system, or to assist the farmer by providing information. There could be a roadshow, a mobile farmers' advice bureau, that farmers could visit occasionally in their locality to discuss matters of importance.

Like Deputy Daly, I was presented recently with a blank application form on the current round of the farm retirement scheme. It is a complicated document. Assisting the public with these forms and providing information was the bread and butter of Deputies. Public representa tives do this now at their peril, such is the detailed information required. If there is a difficulty, it could cause a problem in the Deputy's clinic with the notice stating that no liability is attached to any information supplied or forms filled. Perhaps all public representatives should display such a notice because of the nature of form filling and the way in which agricultural forms in particular are left untouched for months before it is revealed that the application is valid only from the date on which the accurate information is supplied. I know of cases where the accurate information could be supplied only after some months because of the omission of a minor piece of information by the person filling out the form. There should be greater flexibility and more common sense in these procedures. Farmers and others completing the forms do not have degrees in public administration, management or accountancy. Mistakes and omissions will be made, not by wilful neglect or fraud, but through persons being unfamiliar with filling in the type of forms required today. A roadshow, or information bureau, could be set up at marts, for example, offering expert help.

The Minister said he would deal with certain amendments to the emergency legislation on the Committee Stage of this Bill. The vexed sensitive issue of tagging may give rise to undue hardship. The eradication of fraud should be, and is, the priority of the Minister and the Department. Double tagging is unacceptable and must be dealt with by the full rigours of the law. I know of a farmer who, through no fault of his own, possessed animals that had tags corresponding to tags on animals in another part of the country with a similar tagging regime. Under current regulations, the farmer had no choice and an order for confiscation and slaughter was issued. He has received no compensation. Farmers may, in good faith, purchase animals which have problems with their tags and they are not entitled to compensation. Also, there is no alternative to slaughtering animals. Having been tested and found healthy, they are slaughtered immediately under the law. There must be a better way. If the animals were kept from the food chain commercially, this valuable commodity might be slaughtered for another use. No one benefits from this harsh system. The application of these regulations is unduly harsh. I do not suggest that the law should not applied, but there are the options of criminal sanction, fines or imprisonment, rather than slaughtering the animals.

During the course of another debate on agriculture I raised with the Minister a problem relating to section 12 of the Land Act, 1965. Many of the sections of the Land Act, 1965 are of little or no consequence in the Ireland of the European Union. Agricultural practices and land use has changed since its enactment. Section 12 has no practical effect and the effect of section 45 has changed since 1965. I hope the Minister's Department will urgently update these provisions because the current structure causes unnecessary concerns for many agricultural practitioners. It imposes a unnecessary burden of extra paperwork and file keeping. I wish the Minister well in setting up the appeals office and impress on him the advantages of siting it in a central location, easily accessible to farmers, senior departmental officials and himself as he travels to and from Dublin. Perhaps he might consider Portlaoise.

Mr. Killeen

I wish to share my time with Deputy Aylward.

Like other speakers, I welcome this Bill which, hopefully, comes at the end of a time that has been very difficult for the Minister and his Department, the foot and mouth crisis, through which they have come with flying colours. As other speakers did, I commend the Minister, his officials and the other members of the community who contributed to the success in that area.

We all acknowledge that there is an urgent need to improve the system for considering appeals under the direct payments schemes. In doing so, we also need to acknowledge the great progress that has been made in ensuring speed and efficiency of payment under a myriad of schemes. Three or four years ago, most speakers would have complained bitterly about the delay in payment under various schemes. Thankfully, we have moved on from that. On that basis, this appeals system has enormous potential and will improve the lot of the farmer very significantly.

Since 1995 there has been an appeals unit in the Department for headage and premium schemes. This Bill puts it on a statutory basis and, more important, widens the range of schemes which can be dealt with under appeal. The Minister commended the competence and impartiality of the existing appeals unit. That is fair to say, although it hardly enjoyed widespread support among farmers which this new appeals system will. It needs to be seen as quite independent of the Department. The Minister has ensured that will be the case.

The provision for an oral appeal will be hugely important. When people have an opportunity to put their case in person, or have it put professionally for them, they tend to feel that the point which the initial officer might have missed, and without consideration of which he based his decision, will be considered in the new set up. I also welcome the fact the Minister is committed to having matters dealt with speedily under section 84. A target of 12 weeks would be excellent, although it might be quite difficult to attain. That the appeals system is based on the social welfare appeals system means that it will be familiar to all of us. That system has been in operation since 1990 and has gained a huge level of acceptance. That it is based on that appeals system will ensure it has a degree of independence which should aid its effectiveness and its acceptability.

Many speakers said the REP scheme needs to be the subject of scrutiny and they welcomed its inclusion in this Bill. For many farmers, it is one of the most important schemes. For the environment and ecology of the country, it is, undoubtedly, the most important scheme. Unfortunately, it is sometimes beset by difficulties. A vexed question frequently concerns the relationship between the farmer, the REPS planner and the Department. I do not know how this can be addressed by the appeals board because I am sure the contract in law is between the farmer and the REPS planner. If the difficulty which is thrown up happens to be in that area, I do not know how the appeals board will be in a position to deal with it. Quite frequently we, as politicians, find that the farmer is very severely penalised for what is, in effect, an error on the part of the planner. For example, only in recent days I came across a case where a farmer's plan was submitted late. In his view it was an error on the part of the planner but he will end up paying back a five figure sum to the Department. He would have to go through the courts and pursue the planner to deal with that matter. In setting out the regulations, the Minister will need to ensure, if at all possible, that sometimes fraught relationship is addressed.

A number of speakers referred to these difficulties. Deputy Penrose referred to a case where a huge penalty was imposed on a farmer because he removed a few blackthorn bushes. He had to remove them to repair a fence which he was required to do under the REPS plan. This is a frequent occurrence in the Burren where Dúchas often creates difficulties and prevents farmers from carrying out works which they are required to do under their REPS plan. Recently, a farmer was taken to court for undertaking the very work required under his REPS plan by a different arm of the State, by Dúchas. In addition, he had to cope with a very severe penalty.

There are also problems with the farm retirement scheme to which a number of Deputies referred. I know of a number of cases where farmers have had to pay back huge amounts. In one case, a farmer had to pay back in excess of £50,000 because earnings from his part-time work exceeded those of his farm. Because the scheme is EU-financed, there is a particular difficulty in that area. There is also the difficulty referred to by Deputy Daly when the farmer's spouse qualifies for the old age pension. They find, usually unexpectedly, that the farm retirement scheme payment is reduced by that amount. I suppose one could say that if they read the conditions of the scheme when they entered it, they would know that would happen. I am aware of at least two cases where there is an added complication in that one of those concerned is a carer and because of their involvement in the farm retirement scheme, they are perhaps losing out quite badly. I do not know if it will be the job of the appeals board or within its competence, but it is an area, as Deputy Flanagan said, where a modicum of common sense would go a long way towards addressing some of the problems and, hopefully, that will be the case.

We all welcome the fact that there will be no ministerial or departmental authority to intervene in the decision-making process and that the decisions will be binding on the Department, otherwise the appeals board would have no teeth. The chief appeals officer, or the effective chief executive officer of the body, will have a hugely important task, particularly in the first couple of years, in setting out his stall and in establishing a body which is able to address the appeals referred to it. The Minister intends to set out the appeals procedure by regulation and that allows a degree of flexibility. As he indicated, the regulations are virtually completed. I urge him to bring those regulations before the Oireachtas joint committee for debate.

Some people will think that the fact a legal appeal can only be made to the High Court might be setting the bar a bit high and there might be a case to allow a farmer address a concern to a lower court. I am sure the Minister will address that when he concludes the debate. I thought removing the entire appeals process from the ambit of the Ombudsman might have been the best idea but the fact the case load from the Department to the Ombudsman will be hugely reduced should enable that office to operate more efficiently in other areas. That the appeals office is answerable to the Ombudsman has an advantage in a sense, or the Ombudsman will have an advantage in that a huge amount of documentation will be available which, to be fair to his office, frequently would not have been available to him in making determinations on agricultural matters heretofore.

The Minister referred to his intention to introduce an amendment on Committee Stage to provide for an appeals system for dealers under the Diseases of Animals (Amendment) Act, 2001. That is perhaps the most important legislation he has brought before the Dáil in his term in office and it is only fair to provide for that appeals system here as he undertook to do during that debate.

One of the aspects which interests me about the appeals mechanism is how far back cases which can be referred to the appeals board can go. I have been here for eight or nine years and I can think of matters which arose during my first year which were a year or two old at that stage which could usefully get an airing before an objective appeals board. I trust such issues can be referred. If it is the case that relatively old issues can be referred, it will hugely increase the case load in the short-term but it might be possible to allow them to be referred and perhaps allow a different time scale for dealing with them.

The Minister also provided for an appeal in the case of the national beef assurance scheme which is useful and sensible. He also included a stipulation that the reasons for a decision must be given to the appellant.

More than anything else, that would ensure people were fully aware of what was involved and would be able to consider it in that context, even if they were not exactly overjoyed by the decision.

Another issue I want to address is the question of fairness and proportionality in terms of penalties. I took it from what the Minister said that the Commission has or is about to set up a working group to address the issue. Unless progress is made in that area, the entire appeals process could be seriously hamstrung by EU regulations and ultimately rendered virtually useless. That would be very damaging. However, I trust that the working group which has been set up at EU level to examine the Common Agricultural Policy and other issues will ensure that the appeals mechanism will be afforded some degree of flexibility in making decisions.

Mr. Aylward

I thank Deputy Killeen for sharing his time. I join in congratulating the Minister, the Minister of State, the officials and all the people involved in the recent fight against the potential spread of food and mouth disease. Our thanks and gratitude is due not just to the farming community but to people generally for showing a spirit many might have thought did not exist. The contribution made by all the people in the country should be recognised.

I welcome this legislation. I have lobbied the Minister over many years at parliamentary party and other meetings on the penalties imposed in relation to claims for subsidies and premia. A commitment was given in the programme for Government to provide for a statutorily-based system of appeal, and this legislation is now before the House. I recognise the role played by the existing appeals unit in the Department since 1995, although it was limited in that it dealt only with headage and premia. Despite best intentions, the simplest mistakes often led to the severest of penalties being meted out. Listening to my colleagues on either side of the House speak on this legislation, what strikes me is how much we have in common. Farming activities may differ greatly from county to county, but the problems are the same; draconian penalties have been imposed on people because they made the simplest of mistakes when filling out complicated forms.

The Bill reinforces independence and fairness by setting up an appeals office with proper structures which covers all 28 schemes. Deputy Flanagan suggested a location for this new office. I could suggest several suitable locations. I have spoken to the Minister in the past about decentralisation to Kilkenny, and will have a word with him again later.

Some schemes that were not previously covered will be covered under the new system, in particular the REP, farm retirement and area aid schemes. We can all give examples of just how severe the penalties were. In the context of the early retirement scheme, there have been prob lems with land registry and with Land Commission decisions. Where problems arose as a result of farmers taking in good faith advice given in good faith to them by Teagasc officials acting on behalf of the Department, the officials were not prepared to come forward and support the farmers in making their cases to the Department. Although that happened in a minority of cases, it is to be regretted.

The Minister, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I remember the chaos in the Department of Social Community and Family Affairs when we first arrived in this House. Dealing with that Department was frustrating. I have often mentioned that it is the Department that has most improved over the years, due to improved efficiency and the provision of an appeals system which was open and transparent and which allowed oral appeals. That did more for the Department's reputation than anything else.

Perception is all-important. The system must be seen by farmers to be fair and just. The severity of penalties imposed on the most vulnerable was very difficult to take, particularly in light of the evidence in recent months that rogues and cowboys roamed the country for many years and got away with murder while poor old farmers were disqualified and lost their benefits for years because they made an innocent mistake when filling out a form. Given those comparisons, this Bill is all the more welcome, particularly as all the schemes are now included. I particularly welcome the aspiration towards a time limit of 12 weeks to turn over cases, although there will be complicated cases that will take far longer than that.

Will it be possible to bring cases before the appeals board retrospectively? Most Deputies who deal with agricultural matters hope provision will be made for genuine cases to get a proper hearing, perhaps an oral hearing, before this appeals group, and that they will be able to bring competent people with them to put their case.

I agree that we must sell this system to farmers, through the marts, agricultural offices and advisory services. It is important that this be done as simply and as efficiently as possible. I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to that.

I congratulate the Minister on his efforts at EU level to bring to the attention of the Commission the severity of penalties imposed, especially in the case of innocent errors. They have caused great pain and distress to individuals and dissatisfaction generally in farming circles at a time when the star of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development is riding high. It is appropriate that the good work of recent months be seen to continue. Factors that cause great distress and dissatisfaction should be addressed. I am glad that as a result of the Minister's efforts all the schemes under the CAP will be simplified and that, regarding the severity of penalties, the Commission has agreed to set up a working group of all the states, including Ireland which, I hope, will have a satisfactory outcome.

I emphasise that while this legislation may seem insignificant, it is important to many people. It is important that the appeals office is up and running as soon as possible. This legislation was promised and everything takes time but I am glad this will be in place in the near future so that we have a system that is seen to be honest, open, fair and transparent. People should feel they have the right to go somewhere to present their case and air their grievances, and such a system will be in place to ensure those cases are heard fairly.

Mr. Finucane

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.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I would like to share time with Deputy Michael Kitt.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I welcome the Bill to a certain extent. I compliment the Minister and Ministers of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the officials of the Department for their work during the foot and mouth disease crisis of the past three months. A tremendous amount of work was carried out in the Department and by officials throughout the country.

I had firsthand experience of the work by officials from the Department, Revenue and Teagasc, and by gardaí at Rosslare Port. Tribute must be paid to all those who have done a magnificent job in this area. Tribute must also be paid to the rural and urban communities for the way they came together in a true spirit of patriotism to help protect our important agricultural industry. They recognised its importance and the large numbers in urban and rural areas involved in the agriculture and food sector.

There was much talk about grant payments today and when the Bill was debated in the Seanad. Grants payments have been made more speedily in recent years resulting in far fewer complaints. Department officials, the Minister and previous Ministers must be complimented on improving the rate at which payments are made to farmers. There was much criticism of delays in grant payments in previous years. Members sought, by way of parliamentary questions and other means, to encourage the Minister to put in place a more farmer-friendly system. That is in place in all the Department offices. Deputy Finucane mentioned the office in Portlaoise. I mention Johnstown Castle, which has one of the most farmer-friendly staff in the country. I always find them very helpful.

I discussed the new appeals system with the Minister on different occasions and am probably one of the few Deputies who has serious reservations about it. It will result in our giving away more of our powers, as once the appeals system is in place, neither I nor any other Deputy will be able to table a question to the Minister on why a grant payment due to a farmer in Wexford, Kilkenny or elsewhere has been delayed or reduced or to seek answers in respect of grants payments on behalf of farmers. We will have to depend on the appeals system to deal with that. That is regrettable in some ways as we seem to be giving away more and more of our powers. In these politically correct times, it seems to be popular to set up an independent appeals board – it seems it is only the politicians who cannot make a decision in so far as some people are concerned. It appears the appeals system will be with us. The introduction of it has been agreed by the partners in Government and that seems to be supported by all political parties. I hope the appeals system will be open, transparent and helpful to farmers. We are living in changing times, particularly in the agricultural sector. The foot and mouth crisis has brought some of the farm organisations on board in the making of decisions that probably would not have been heard of a number of years ago.

Premium payments account for a major proportion of farm income. Many farmers have made genuine mistakes when completing forms in the past and were subjected to severe penalties and loss of income. I am glad the Minister, through his negotiating skills in the EU, has managed to be appointed to a working group that will examine this area. Small errors can result in major penalties and severe hardship for family farmers. Such errors are usually made by small farmers who cannot afford the loss of income that results from such errors.

I am aware the Minister has been examining the possibility of simplifying application forms. One would need to be a lawyer or an accountant to complete some of the forms issued in recent times. We heard much talk of Teagasc encouraging farmers to become computer literate, but many older farmers will continue to complete their forms as they have done down through the years. If one puts an "x" in the wrong section of the form, one's payment could be lost, and that possibility should be taken into account. I ask the Minister to seriously examine the introduction of more simplified forms. In the context of the review within the EU, I hope less severe penalties resulting from errors in the completion of forms will be imposed in future.

Under the new legislation, the agricultural appeals office will be established on a statutory basis to deal with farmers who wish to challenge decisions of the Department regarding their entitlements to grants under any of the Feoga schemes. Direct payments to farmers, including REPS, early retirement, installation aid, livestock, headage and premia schemes, and arable aid schemes, will come under the appeals office. The Minister said the appeals office will be based on the social welfare appeals system. That system is working reasonably well, but there is a delay in hearing appeals. It has taken four or five months for some cases to be taken, which is far to slow. That delay may be due to a staffing or some other problem. I ask the Minister to ensure that the appeals office, when established, will have adequate staff.

The Minister mentioned a 12 week turnaround for the payment of grants, which I welcome. If there are long delays in such payments, farmers become frustrated and annoyed waiting for them to come through and hope that, if a payment is rejected, the appeals office will reverse the decisions made in the Department.

I ask the Minister to consider allowing a farmer attending the hearing of an appeal to bring a person with him, whether his wife, public representative or someone else who would be able to argue the case on his behalf. I attend many social welfare appeals on behalf of constituents and I am aware many other Deputies do likewise. The appellant is generally nervous and sometimes feels he may be ambushed and not get a fair hearing. In the case of social welfare appeals, an appeals officer from Dublin or elsewhere and one or two local social welfare officers may be present, which amounts to three against one in some cases. I do not know how many officers will attend such agricultural appeals. I ask the Minister to consider allowing the person attending the appeal to bring along another person to support him. I do not mean a solicitor or barrister but some other person who would be of advantage to him.

The Bill provides for oral hearings, which is welcome. Such hearings will be held in private and the person concerned will be advised of the decision, which is important. Under the existing system farmers are often not given an explanation as to why their appeal has not been allowed. I ask the Minister to ensure they will be given a full and satisfactory explanation of the reason for not allowing an appeal.

The siting of the appeals office was mentioned. While the main appeals office will probably be located in Dublin, does the Minister intend to establish regional offices? Having regard to the many Department and Teagasc offices around the country, he should consider establishing regional offices, as that would make it easier for people to attend them.

We are all familiar with hardy annuals in terms of constituents who bring their cases to our attention. Some constituents call to me to complain that their appeals were not heard by the Department. I ask the Minister if a system of retrospection will be allowed whereby farmers will be allowed to raise old sores, so to speak, complaints they had with the Department, with the new appeals office. They should be allowed to do so and I ask Minister to consider providing for that.

Will the chief appeals officer, when appointed, be called before one of the committees of the Houses to give a rundown on how the office is working and to enable Members question him or her on it? If not, there will be a serious problem in that the public representatives will not be allowed to raise questions in the Dáil about farmers. They should be allowed to question the chief appeals officer on an annual basis on how the system is operating.

Mr. M. Kitt

I thank Deputy Browne for sharing time with me.

I welcome this Bill which provides for a statutory appeals mechanism. I found the appeals system that has been in place since 1995 to be good but, obviously, farmers and people in the agricultural sector want to see it placed on a statutory basis, as will happen now. I welcome the fact that the Minister is extending the mechanism to include not only the direct payment schemes but other areas also.

The Minister would need to possess the wisdom of Solomon to decide between the different viewpoints of people urging him to be vigilant about the foot and mouth crisis on the one hand and others asking for certain restrictions to be lifted on the other. In that context I thought of what Rudyard Kipling said about keeping your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you. Perhaps the Minister is finding that the two points of view being put to him are too strong, but I pay tribute to him for his work to date. I also pay tribute to the staff in his Department, his Ministers of State and the people of Ireland who rallied to deal with the foot and mouth crisis.

Like previous speakers, I look forward to the day when the Minister and his committee can reopen the marts. As the Minister will be aware, that is important in the west, where store producers are keen to see the marts reopen. I hope they will reopen by the end of the year. I am sure the Minister and his Department are dealing with that important issue.

I was happy to hear reference made to the farm retirement scheme and the REP scheme. Like other Deputies, I find it hard to understand how occasionally farmers who have joined the REP scheme, which fosters organic farming and is suitable for smallholders, can get a payment in the first year, be penalised for two years and have the payments resume again. Obviously, it is an area which must be investigated and I hope this new appeals body will deal with that.

The other issue more frequently brought to my attention is the farm retirement scheme. I have often raised with the Minister the issue of people receiving inquiries regarding overpayments. It appears that, according to European regulations, a farmer can only avail of the farm retirement scheme as a supplement to the old age pension. Many farmers do not notify the Department that they are receiving the old age pension when they apply for benefit under the farm retirement scheme.

I hope the Minister will emphasise the change he has introduced in the scheme. One major change is that a farmer can now avail of the farm retirement scheme from the age of 55. A farmer who joins the scheme at that age and is not entitled to any other pension, other than the old age pension, can draw the full pension for ten years without any reduction. Obviously, farmers run into difficulties when they are notified about reductions due to overpayments and, as the old age pension increases due to significant rises in social welfare benefits, they must either repay money or are informed they no longer qualify under the farm retirement scheme because the old age pension has increased by that amount. That issue must be stressed to a greater degree in dialogue with farmers inquiring about the farm retirement scheme.

The social welfare appeals process has been cited as the precedent for the new appeals system. There is a need to appoint extra staff in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to operate the apppeals system as a large number of appeals can be expected. Already there are delays in the social welfare appeals system. I would like if queries could be dealt with at local level. In the Department of Education and Science, for example, there will be welfare officers and psychological services at local level. Obviously, local government and the health boards are good examples of decisions being taken at local level. Decisions should be taken at a local level in so far as possible.

Many farmers have questioned me about the farm development services. A great deal of investment has been made in new marts and the Teagasc offices in many areas are being refurbished. Galway, the second largest county, could do with a great deal of investment in farm development, as I am sure Deputy Ulick Burke will agree, so that farmers can deal with the officials in private. I hope facilities can be provided.

On the question of the delays, the Minister mentioned a turnaround of 12 weeks although he could not give a precise deadline. That has to do with staffing, as I said. If early decisions could be dealt with at local level, it would significantly help people with these problems.

The Minister mentioned in his speech the appeals system for dealers. Like many of my colleagues, I have met with many dealers. They probably were resisting all of the Department regulations about registration and having their premises approved, but they must understand that they cannot trade in animals or poultry if they are not registered. We all know that there have been rogue dealers, and this has been one of the real worries in the battle against foot and mouth disease, but the farming community know that dealers have been instrumental in helping to maintain the price of stock throughout the country. When the Minister is introducing the regulations, he should take that into consideration. In the majority of cases, dealers act in a bona fides manner. In addition to making a living, they are also helping maintain the price farmers get for their animals.

The Bill makes mention of the appeals officer. The Minister stated that there will be a chief appeals officer, a director of agricultural appeals and that there is also the question of other officers. Irrespective of where the appeals will be held, it is important that the process is quick and that there be provision for an oral hearing because that has been one of the great benefits of the social welfare appeals system. I would not suggest appealing cases to the High Court because that would prove an expensive route. Therefore I hope that between having the appeals system and an oral hearing, such as that available under the social welfare system, we will be able to deal with such problems without the need to go to court.

The Minister also mentioned the representations he received in regard to the national beef assurance scheme. This is an important scheme. Nowadays everybody is talking about assurance, reliability and traceability. I congratulate the Minister on the Bill and hope it will be given a speedy passage through the House.

Debate adjourned.