Dinny McGinley
Question:6 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food his plans to reduce the amount of bureaucracy and red-tape involved in farming; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14061/02]
Other Questions. - Agricultural Scheme Applications.
Emmet Stagg
Question:48 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food , in regard to the commitment given in An Agreed Programme for Government, the specific action it is intended to take to agree a series of proposals with farming organisations to tackle red tape; the specific areas of red tape he intends to deal with; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13985/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 48 together.
I have devoted considerable effort to simplifying scheme applications and to improving my Department's level of service to farmers. I have introduced several measures using information technology to facilitate farmers in making their direct aid applications. These include the pre-printing of personal details – name, address, herd number and so on – on application forms, the use of bar-codes on bovine animal passports – this eliminates in most cases the necessity to list tag numbers on application forms, the provision of herd profiles to assist farmers in filling census forms for the extensification premium scheme, automatic processing of entitlement to slaughter premium without the necessity to sub mit applications and removal of certain notification requirements in relation to bovine schemes where the information can be obtained from databases.
I have been to the forefront in pressing Commissioner Fischler to simplify the direct payments regulations and to provide for a more proportionate penalty regime. As a result, some major changes have been introduced in the scheme provisions starting this year. EU regulations now provide for reduced penalties for submission of late area aid applications involving only permanent pasture, a reduction in the level of inspections in respect of bovine livestock applications from 10% of applications to 5% of farmers submitting such applications, no penalties for over-declaration of forage area where the area found is sufficient, no penalties for over-declaration of forage area for extensification premium purposes and more flexibility for amending and withdrawing applications.
With due respect to the Minister, one almost gets a headache listening to the replies when talking about red tape. Will the Minister agree that in every walk of life, including personal, industrial or sales services, efforts are being made to be more user-friendly and that the agricultural area is the only one which is becoming increasingly difficult? Will he agree that compliance costs are increasing while benefits remain static? Is there any way a case can be made for a cut-off point, say, €5,000, so that people who get direct payments would not have to comply with the same system as those who get greater payments? I believe people will decline from making claims due to the red tape involved.
I would remind the Deputy about the one minute time limit on questions and answers. As he has exceeded the one minute limit, I will call on the Minister to reply.
Has any appeal been heard to date by the independent appeals office?
A couple of questions have been tabled on the appeals office.
In regard to red tape, there is a certain amount of bureaucracy and red tape. There is certainly much disquiet, complaint and vexation about this. The facts are that €1.4 billion is spent on payments to farmers throughout the country, making up approximately 56% or 57% of their income. There is a requirement for accountability on control and so on but one does not want to overdo it. The Department has a protocol in regard to payments. There are regular meetings of the protocol body with the farming organisations. They have introduced simplification measures which I outlined and they will continue to do so. Under the review of the Common Agricultural Policy, decoupling and area based payments will wipe out much of the requirement for individual livestock payments and get rid of much of the red tape. However, there is a downside to this. The Deputy asked if smaller farmers could make applications without having to go through so much red tape. There is such a requirement but the EU imposed so many conditions that many farmers did not respond.
Will the Minister agree that the ideal situation would be to have an office in each county specifically designated to deal with forms at a pre-application level to ensure they are correct? This would allow a greater freeflow.
The Minister gave a commitment to this House that the provisions of the Agricultural Appeals Bill would be implemented. However, it has been indicated that oral hearings will not be allowed despite the commitment to this House that the model used for the agricultural appeals system would be identical to that used in social welfare appeals? If that is the position we have been seriously misled and there has been a serious derogation of commitments given on the floor of this House. I accepted the commitment because it would allow for oral hearings, with non-legal independent advice, which would help people in processing appeals.
In regard to the appeals office, that is the subject of Question No. 12, which I will be pleased to answer.
I certainly gave a solemn commitment to this House that there would be a facility for oral hearings. I was pressed by Deputy Penrose on that matter and it is my understanding that it will happen.
On the question of payments generally, the degree of accountability and requirement on applications to meet certain commitments, the facts are that recent countrywide meetings were very well attended. Surveys were carried out both by the main farming organisation and the Department.
There was a relatively low response from farmers to these schemes. The response, in so far as there was one, showed that about three quarters of farmers were satisfied or very satisfied with the way the Department deals with these matters. Department offices throughout the country are staffed by people who are humane and friendly, a customer friendly service is extended and I expect that to continue. Having said that, I am still of the view that we can simplify applications further and be more helpful to applicants.
Does the Minister agree that the annual filling out of these forms is a terrifying ordeal for most farmers, particularly those in the west where many are in their 60s or older and do not understand these computerised forms? They are certainly not customer or user friendly. Is the Minister aware, as I have been told as recently as today, that to apply for a single agricultural grant to build an outhouse it is necessary to fill out 32 forms, whereas in 1973 you needed to fill out only one? The Minister has stated that there is advice available, but there are fewer people to advise farmers now than ever before. Does the Minister agree this has implications for the referendum coming up before the end of the year? How can he expect the farming community to vote for the Nice treaty when they have the idea that all these problems are emanating from Brussels? It is a serious state of affairs and absolutely nothing has been done.
That is enough.
There is one last point I wish to make.
There may not be time for the Minister to reply.
With one slip of the pen, a farmer may be penalised for life. The Minister should do something about that before he puts the farmers out of business in the west.
The Minister stated in his reply that the name, address and herd number are now on all forms. In light of the fact that the data is now being collected in Bandon, will the Minister have printed out on the forms the tag numbers of the cattle? That would simplify the system a lot more.
Has the Minister taken a decision or is he prepared to take a decision to change the penalty system whereby, at present, a clerical error is considered in the exact same way as fraud? In relation to the levels of bureaucracy in agriculture, does the Minister agree that much of the interpretation is coming from the Department of Agriculture and Food here and that if this continues and persists the agricultural community will not support the Nice treaty? Europe is being blamed for what the Department is implementing.
The Minister promised that bureaucracy would be curtailed, but the agreement he made last September in Brussels is bringing in more draconian measures than ever. Does he accept that if a farmer makes a genuine mistake, he should not be penalised, just as, I am sure, a mistake by a Department official is not penalised? We have it on both sides that common sense should prevail. The number of applications that have come in for farm air pollution grants or other grants is down dramatically on what was expected simply because the whole system is so bureaucratic. As my colleague, Deputy McGinley, has said, there is so much form filling to be done that you have to employ a consultant to apply for an ordinary farm building grant. You can build a house anywhere in the country, but for a farm building you have to employ a consultant. It is bureaucracy gone mad.
I am aware of the necessity of hav ing conditions apply to grants and in many cases farmers complain about those conditions. They regard them as overpowering, especially for farmers who are not used to book work because they want to be out on the farm. Nonetheless, the Department and Teagasc go out of their way to help with public meetings, meeting farmers directly, and with information booklets. Following recent public meetings around the country we are assessing feedback received and addressing the most serious complaints. At all times we are subject to the EU because it is the EU which pays the vast bulk of the money. We have to go then to Europe and say that there are changes we want made and we will continue to do that. I have given a commitment before and I give a further commitment that, with the farming organisations and the protocol on payments, that will continue to be done. I also make the point that in the vast majority of cases there is not a problem and in the cases where there is a problem, the vast majority are the result of late applications, nothing else.