Vol. 548 No. 4
5 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the steps he proposes to take to implement the changes in the penalties applying to European Union direct payment schemes, which were passed by the Agriculture Council in November 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4918/02]
I have been to the forefront in raising the question of simplification of the rules surrounding the penalty regime at the Council of Agriculture Ministers. A new EU Commission regulation was published on 12 December last, which will apply to the 2002 schemes and onwards. In line with our commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and also our quality customer service, my Department has published an information booklet, which is being sent to every farmer in Ireland this week. The booklet explains how the new regime will work. It will serve as a useful guide to farmers and their advisers. In addition, starting from next week, my Department, in conjunction with Teagasc, will hold a series of public information meetings for farmers. These meetings will take place in every county in Ireland over the next two weeks. The emphasis at these meetings will be on how farmers can avoid penalties and maximise their entitlements under the various schemes.
I am satisfied that the new arrangements, while not giving us everything we would want, will be of considerable benefit to farmers. The most significant improvements are: reduced penalties for late lodgement of area aid applications; no penalty for over-declaration of forage area; a farm based approach to bovine livestock inspections; and a fairer approach to penalties for non-compliance with scheme conditions. While there are arrangements for applying a penalty under the extensification premium scheme, this will only arise in the case of a forage over-declaration and even then a penalty will not be applied if the area found is sufficient to support the stocking density.
The changes in the rules governing EU direct payment schemes will be implemented through the processing of 2002 applications. The changes have already been incorporated into the terms and conditions of the relevant schemes, which issued to each applicant.
I thank the Minister for the continuation of his spin-doctoring. In November last or whenever the meeting took place the impression was that the position would ease dramatically. I advise his staff that when they attend these public meetings they wear bullet proof vests and helmets. Farmers are outraged. Has he any idea of the position in which farmers find themselves? They are bunged up with bureaucracy.
An edition of the Irish Farmers' Journal states that last November it understood from whoever told it that this situation had eased and the Minister has again tried to make out that it has eased, but the reality is different. The changes in penalties are more severe. The penalty rates have increased for irregularities and there is a new formula for calculating the number of irregularities on which the penalty rates are applied. Farmers are afraid to apply for schemes. Older farmers cannot deal with what is involved.
It was interesting that the Minister said the information is being sent to the farmer and his adviser, but who pays the adviser? The farmer must pay an adviser for everything he or she does, whether filling in forms or applying for a grant, and he or she must do so out of a lower income than he or she has had in years.
I know the Minister voted against what was proposed in November, but did he make any effort to point out how farmers are being treated as criminals for minor irregularities while staff within the Department can make irregularities and get off scot free? I have no problem with staff getting off scot free – anyone can make a mistake – but it is completely unjustified for farmers to be treated as rogues and as people who try to do things wrong. They sometimes lose two years' premium. I would like the Minister to clarify the position.
I acknowledge that these schemes are complex and mindboggling for many farmers. I was to the forefront in bringing this matter to the attention of Commissioner Fischler and at the Council of Ministers they agreed to seek to simplify the schemes and reduce the penalties as much as possible. They published a report on 12 December, but that did not improve the situation substantially and in some cases may have made it marginally worse.
It has made it worse.
In some cases, yes. One does not get a nil payment unless one has 20% incorrect animals on an application. That, in itself, is an improvement.
I decided that a number of farmers needed more help. Some 165 of the 169,000 applicants for the special beef scheme did not have a problem and got their payments on time, but more than 4,000 applicants had a problem with their applications. Some 2,900 of the 71,000 applicants for the suckler cow scheme had a problem with their applications. A small core of problems are encountered in applying for the schemes which pose a serious problem for the farmers concerned.
I have arranged information meetings and I am trying to find some other way of reaching those farmers – the most helpless in society, usually small farmers – who need additional care and attention. The emphasis at these information meetings is to ensure applicants avoid penalties and maximise their payments. No other government of a member state of the European Union goes to as much trouble to make sure farmers get their due entitlements.
The whole system is unrealistic.
There is an ongoing system under Dr. Jim O'Grady, the farming organisations and ourselves to examine ways to simplify the forms and get payments out to applicants.
This is a problem for farmers.
That is being done in the vast majority of cases and where it is not, we are trying to be as helpful as possible.
This is a most serious issue. The position is extraordinary.
