We will now hear a presentation from the Farm Retirement Group for Justice. I welcome Mr. Guerin and his colleagues. Before asking him to read his presentation I wish to draw his attention to the fact that while members of this committee have absolute privilege the same privilege does not apply to him. Members are reminded of long standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or mention an official by name or in such a way that makes him or her identifiable.
Farm Retirement Group for Justice: Presentation.
Mr. Sean Guerin
My name is Sean Guerin, chairman of the Farm Retirement Group for Justice. I thank members of the committee for affording us the opportunity to set out our grievances, of which there are many, and the grave concerns of others as we see it with regard to the implementation of the early retirement scheme by the Department of Agriculture and Food.
I am accompanied by other members of our committee - Mr. William Nugent, vice-chairman, Mr. Eamon Donovan, secretary, Mr. Bertie Wall, PRO, Ms Anne Dillon, treasurer and Mr. Stephen Liffey, joint treasurer. I also thank the clerk for inviting us to attend and making the appropriate arrangements for the meeting. I ask Eamon to read out our submission.
Mr. Eamon Donovan
My task is to present to you, in written form, our concerns as a group of farmers who have joined an early retirement scheme but more importantly to try to convey to you the deep hurt, anxiety and despair among many people in relation to the implementation of the early retirement scheme. People are hurt because they feel totally let down by the scheme sponsors and their treatment by officialdom in the Department of Agriculture and Food - or "mistreated" would be a more accurate way to describe it. They suffer anxiety because they do not know what to expect next as the goalposts have been changed so many times to suit or cause advantage to others and disadvantage to them. They despair because no one wants to know or listen. Apparently, the standard answer from all concerned when asked a pertinent question about the scheme is, "You signed up, didn't you" and "how much did you pay into the scheme?" It should not be necessary for me to point out to anyone in this House or anywhere else that a person of retiring age today or nine years ago paid a great deal to society through the sweat of their brow as well as contributing through the tax system. Thus, they helped to make this country what it is today.
All participants in the scheme now have the added worry and fear of what the mid-term review of the CAP has in store for them, their families and their property. This presentation is set out in two parts. It deals, first, with anomalies and, second, with the proposals in relation to the mid-term review. I will start with the unjust anomalies as we see them.
We in the campaign for justice and fair treatment for participants in the EU farm retirement scheme now formally request the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food to investigate the implementation of this scheme. Many and various individual case studies are now available to illustrate the utterly unacceptable plight in which a great many of the participants of this scheme now find themselves. We are now left with no other option but to set up this campaign to progress the salient aspects of our complaint and to seek redress for the injustice meted out to individual farmers and their families. Many participants have sought professional legal advice on the Department of Agriculture and Food's methodology and manner of implementation of the scheme. The result has been that many members of the legal profession in Ireland find the administration and implementation of the scheme totally confusing and do not wish to undertake any further work in relation to the scheme.
To illustrate our complaint, it is necessary to outline the regulations in questions and refer to certain of the provisions of the scheme for early retirement of farmers. I refer to Council Regulation 2079/92/EEC of 30 June 1992 instituting a Community aid scheme for early retirement from farming, as amended by Council Regulation 1257/99/EC, Articles 11 and 12. The objectives of the scheme can be summarised as follows: provide an income for older farmers between the ages of 55 and 66 who decide to stop farming; encourage the replacement of such older farmers by farmers able to improve, where necessary, the economic viability of the remaining agricultural holding; reassign agricultural land to non-agricultural uses where it cannot be farmed under satisfactory conditions of economic viability. Its interpretation must be teleologically and purposefully based. The recital to the regulation clearly set out this purpose.
I draw the attention of members to two statements contained in every regulation, namely, "This regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities” and “This regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable to all Member States”. “Binding in its entirety” means that the regulation bestows rights and obligations upon those to whom it is addressed and member states must observe it in full and as written. “Directly applicable in all Member States” means that without the need for national implementing measures, the regulation takes immediate legal effect right across the EU on the date specified. It must therefore be a legitimate expectation of every individual citizen of the EU that the terms of a regulation include in its effects legal certainty, equality, proportionality and a legitimate expectation of fair and reasonable treatment.
It is a fundamental element of this complaint that the Department of Agriculture and Food has significantly changed the conditions and effects of the scheme on an ongoing basis, making changes to the conditions and requirements to be met by the applicants. In a number of specific instances, changes to administrative and implementing measures have taken place after successful applicants have with considerable effort and expense met the original qualifying criteria, causing as a consequence the most extreme distress, financial loss and devaluation of private property family assets. These numerous cases of individual family hardship and deprivation can on request be instanced in specific detail. Summaries are included in this complaint.
We hereby point out a considerable distortion of the scheme by misuse, misinterpretation and point blank refusal by the Department of Agriculture and Food to mitigate the detrimental and deleterious effects of their administrative rules. This is a wrongful and unfair use of Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the scheme instituted in Council Regulation 2079/92/EEC. We point out in support of our case the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Variola v. Amministrazione Italiana Della Finanze, 1973, ECR 981, which clearly established that neither the national authorities nor the clearing authority in Brussels is entitled to change the purpose or effect of the regulation. We further point out the case of Commission v. Italy, 1973, ECR 101, a judgment which established a prohibition on member states altering, diluting, obstructing or obscuring the nature and requirements of a Community regulation. With regard to a legitimate expectation of fair treatment, we refer you to the Mulder and others v. Council and Commission and Heinemann v. the Council and Commission of the European Communities, 1992, joined cases C/104/89 and C/37/40. We further refer you to Article 10 (ex Article 5) of the Treaty of Rome, which states:
Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from actions taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks. They shall abstain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment or the objectives of this Treaty.
It is our contention that the Department of Agriculture and Food has ultra vires introduced conditions to the scheme in breach of a binding contract between the individual retiring farmer and the EU. We point out the following breaches by the Department of Agriculture and Food. There have been changes to the terms of the scheme, which create serious disadvantages for one category of entrant to the scheme as opposed to another category without any compensation for the injured party. Until March 2003 the Department of Agriculture and Food included as part of the mandatory criteria for the scheme a requirement to increase the size of the farm being leased, a minimum enlargement provision of five hectares of UAA land or 10% of the transferor’s holding, whichever is the greater, and keep the enlarged farm for the duration of the pension period. Part-time farmers may now participate as transferors or transferees; they were previously debarred. Both of the above caused great financial hardship and prevented many suitable young and elderly farmers from participating in the scheme.
Farmers who joined the scheme under Council Regulation 2079/92/EEC were given categorical assurances that milk quota attaching to the farm in question would return to the owner, or transferor, of the land at the end of the period of the retirement scheme. By way of explanation it must be pointed out here that a considerable number of farmers retired due to ill health, utilising the retirement period to await a suitable time for a permanent transfer of the farm to a suitably qualified son or daughter or other favoured heir. As a result of the change by the Department of Agriculture and Food in administrative rules governing the milk quota regime, a lessee of land can, for an artificially low price regulated by the Department insist on purchasing the milk quota at the end of the first five year period of the lease. Many lessees then refuse to renew the lease for the second five year period of the retirement scheme with the result that the lessor has all the expense of finding a new client and completing a new lease. Land without a milk quota is not an attractive proposition and would attract reduced lease value. If the second lease is not completed within a specific time frame, the Department of Agriculture and Food will impose penalties on the lessors.
Finally, at the end of the pension period's ten years, the farmer has the land returned to him or her at a fraction of the original value, minus the milk quota, which makes it of no value to an heir and in most instances not capable of generating sufficient income to repay farm borrowings undertaken to meet other EU schemes, such as the dairy hygiene regulations. We can give one example of a 27 hectare dairy farmer with a milk quota of 200,000 litres exiting the scheme with property values depreciated by €340,000. We refer the members to the Treaty of Rome Articles as previously mentioned. Another problem we have is further to COM (2003) 23 final, of 21 January 2003, Proposal for a Council Regulation in milk and milk products, Article 17(1) and (1)A, "special transfer measures". These involve protection of the legitimate interests of the parties involved - all parties - and grant compensation for the permanent abandonment of all or part of a milk quota.
Another change perpetrated by the Department is that there is no indexation of the scheme, which is a deliberate discrimination against a specific category of the community and, further, is a breach of the fundamental term of the scheme, that is, to provide an income for older farmers who decide to stop farming. There is further discrimination in the fact that if a farm is leased to a person not a member of the owner's immediate family, a son or daughter, the first €7,500 of the lease is tax free. If leased to a son or daughter this provision in the tax code does not apply.
We further point out that constantly changing interpretations of application and administrative rules have created and continue to create an economic discrimination as between citizen and farmers. Specific instances of same can be supplied, and names and addresses of individuals and amounts of income they have been deprived of can be provided on request.
The keeping of one cow to provide milk for a farming household, which was deemed acceptable, is now deemed commercial farming and not acceptable.
Retired farmers were informed by the Department of Agriculture and Food when joining the scheme that land returned at the end of the retirement scheme would qualify for full forestisation premia, similar to all other farmers. Now they are informed that land will only qualify for half premiums and for a shorter period, yet another breach of the undertaking.
A husband and wife had two separate holdings, separate land registration folios, separate and distinct quotas attached to each farm and only half pensions sanctioned. Both lessees were suitable candidates under the rules of the scheme and, as a result of the extra land acquired as lessees, allowed both of their retiring farms to successfully join the scheme.
Utter confusion as regards the different conditions applying to situations of joint management and joint ownership has resulted in numerous people being deprived of full pensions and a majority of rural solicitors are now refusing to undertake any legal work as regards processing applications for the scheme and preparing leases for same.
There is systematic discrimination between citizens in receipt of different categories of retirement pension. If and when a spouse reaches the eligibility age for an old age pension - 65 years - whether contributory or non-contributory, the farm retirement pension is reduced by the amount of the old age pension. There is an arbitrary enforcement by the Department of Agriculture and Food of the requirement by which every spouse is of retiring age to qualify for the old age pension. This provision was not explained to a considerable number of early successful applicants for the initial scheme of early retirement, EEC/2079/92. This has resulted in a payment of a virtually non-existent EU farm retirement pension with the added disadvantage of the considerable expense involved in the application procedure and the massively devalued property and concomitant loss of earning power on this quota-less land.
In conclusion, we submit that the EU farm retirement scheme, as administered by the Irish authorities, is a shambolic caricature of the aims and objectives of the intended scheme. It was intended to be a comfort and provide an income for a vulnerable section of society who have worked and contributed to their industry, their country and society. It has now become a nightmare for a great many participants. We are prepared to provide precise details of the above complaints by way of individual circumstances and cases. These issues require urgent attention in that they affect the lives and families of the unfortunate participants.
We would appreciate the committee's support, and a detailed investigation of the operations of this retirement scheme is now called for. This is a matter of utmost seriousness for as many as 40,000 farming families, both participants in the EU retirement scheme and those wishing to retire but unable to do so. I thank the committee in anticipation for whatever assistance it may provide.
I know there are other submissions but members will get around to them later. We have a time limit on this meeting so I will call now on the various speakers.
In respect to the Fischler proposals, Chairman, are you going to deal with that afterwards?
We can include it in the discussion if that is agreed by the members. That is no problem but to read out the submission would take an enormous amount of time.
That is fair enough. I thank you, Chairman, for inviting this group in. I have met some members of the group in the past and I have taken up some of the issues they have raised with the Minister. On the face of it, it appears a little unfair and defies natural justice that one should sign up to a scheme, only for the goal posts to be changed as one goes along.
The reason the scheme was set up was very worthy and worthwhile, and it benefited people who took the pension and also assisted in the freeing up of land. It would appear, however, that the people who actually went on the pension may be about to lose out.
There are a couple of questions I wish to put, and they can be answered after other speakers have put their questions. The first regards the loss of the milk quota when participants were originally assured that it would stay with the land. When did that change come into being? It is not too clear from the document provided. I have taken the issue of indexation up with the Minister and the EU. I took it up with Mr. Fischler when we met him and he said he had no plans to change the farm retirement scheme but that the scope was there for individual Governments to improve it. Thus, it is an issue I will be following up with the Minister. There is a large number of people in the scheme and a large number who might enter it if it was a little more attractive.
What type of response has the group got from the Minister or the departmental officials? What feedback have you got from the IFA or other farm organisations you may be members of? Have you had any direct feedback from the EU? Individual cases were mentioned, and I would appreciate if those details were sent on to me, Billy Timmins, c/o Dáil Éireann, because I will follow up on them with relevant Ministers.
That basically covers the farm pension scheme. What the group is looking for, and they can correct me if I am wrong, is that at the end of the farm pension scheme you have the same rights you had when you entered the scheme with and that the pension should be indexed; due to inflation and whatever the amount of funding people are getting is not satisfactory. I think they are the two main issues with regard to the pension, and the group can confirm that for me.
To go on to the Fischler proposals, I have not actually read the group's submission, but I suppose we are talking about the same issue of losing the entitlements. If I may use a simple analogy, it is akin to the man who leases out his ice cream parlour, except the State wants to stop ice cream production so the guy using the parlour iscompensated but when the lessee pulls out, the owner has nothing left as he cannot produce ice cream.
Again, I wish to know what response the group has received. I am aware of this and several other anomalies in the Fischler proposals. We have raised the issue here with departmental officials and privately raised them with the Minister and the EU of how the various anomalies can be addressed. I would like the group's view on how this particular anomaly can be addressed. I assume what they are basically saying is that the entitlements stay with the actual land and that the system has to be production based. The point was made about the person who has got the payments due to production not being able to produce it without the land they have leased.
It is very important that, whichever way the payments break down in the negotiations which are resuming today, they are tied in some way to production. I do not like the concept of entitlements being used as a bargaining chip or as a mortgage by another means. I thank the group very much. It is easy for us, or for me at least, to talk across to groups and say they have a hard case, that we are very sorry for them and whatever. There is an onus on us to actually address some of the issues raised. I have been following up on some of the issues raised over the last month or two and will continue to do so. I have some material to send back to the committee and will do so.
I ask the group to address the couple of questions I asked and to confirm their views on the Fischler proposals and the response they got to date from the Department or the EU.
I thank the group for its presentation. I met some of the members last week and we had a very useful and detailed discussion. I very much welcome that by way of the background for today's meeting, and I will try not to repeat the questions and clarifications that I got last week. There are just a couple of things that strike me as I read through the presentation. First, in terms of the goalposts changing, if people buy into a scheme they have a reasonable assumption that the conditions of that scheme will hold good until its completion. That in itself is very unfair and puts people on the back foot.
It is not just one aspect of the scheme that seems to have changed; there seems to have been changes and modifications all over the place which, unfortunately, seem to be quite negative from your point of view. Am I correct in assuming the lawyers have opted out because of the confusions that surround the group's questions? At two different points in its document the group refers to that and it is of considerable concern because if they are not willing to take up the case on the group's behalf it indicates there must be something fundamentally very difficult about it that they do not feel equipped to address.
How does the application of the scheme in Ireland compare with its application in other EU countries? Are there any differences? Admittedly, there will be differences in farming procedures and so on and different types of farming in other countries but the group might be able to indicate how it is applied in other countries. Is it more disadvantaged here and how does its application here compare with that in other European countries?
The group might elaborate on how it came about that it is no longer the case that when one has two separate holdings one could have two separate herd numbers and be considered to have two separate holdings. Can the group explain the anomalies within the issue of joint management or joint ownership?
I compliment the group on the way it has laid out its presentation. It is most informative. I note it is asking for an investigation into the implementation of the scheme and it has outlined all the reasons, the anomalies and contradictions, particularly as regards implementation of the schemes as per the Department of Agriculture and Food. That is within its rights and it wants us to investigate it. That is fair.
The group says the legal profession finds administration and implementation of the scheme confusing and does not want to take cases associated with it. The way it is outlined here shows it to be confusing in that apparently what is written in the regulation supersedes any domestic or national interpretation that is written and should be interpreted as such. That does not appear to be a case.
I am aware of the non-contributory and contributory pensions and their effects, much of which is probably due to their not being explained to farmers. I have dealt with several cases recently where people took up the scheme at the age of 58 or 59 and now that they are coming to pension age and receiving an old age pension, they are compelled to pay back large sums of money. This was not explained to them. It is difficult for people at that age to be asked to pay sums of up to €22,000. It puts enormous pressure on them.
Has the group sought legal advice regarding the application of the scheme here compared to its application elsewhere in the EU? I believe officials from the Department of Agriculture and Food should explain that to this committee. We would probably need legal advice on that because it deals with EU regulations as administered by the Government and the Department that appear to contradict each other. I would like to have a legal opinion on it. I do not know if other members here share my view but we would be failing in our repsonsibility if we did not investigate this thoroughly, particularly having regard to all the points the group has outlined and the way it has done so. It is also clear that the group has sought legal opionion and the legal profession is reluctant to become involved because of the confusion surrounding it.
We meet many retired farmers who complain about indexation, people who entered the retired farmers scheme eight years ago and find their incomes have been stalled at that date. Renegotiation of the scheme is very important because if we want young people to take up farming as an occupation and we need to encourage people aged 55 to go into retirement, we must givethem a viable income and ensure it is indexed annually.
There is no doubt about the anomalies, particularly regarding the regulations and their administration here. The members of the delegation and farmers like them have played a major role in developing the farming industry and have to be complimented on the tremendous work they have done over the years. I also commend them for their foresight in taking retirement and allowing young people to become a real benefit to farming and to rural communities. The delegation said that qualifying for only half premium for a shorter period is another breach of the undertaking. I have met people who, because of the way this scheme is implemented, were penalised for going into retirement. This is a major concern.
I thank the group for its presentation and I encourage this committee to investigate thoroughly all the points raised.
I call on the spokesman first to reply and then I will call on any member who wishes to contribute.
Mr. Guerin
To which questions do you wish us to reply first?
Those raised by Deputies Timmins, Upton and Ferris.
Mr. Stephen Liffey
With regard to the questions that Deputy Timmins has raised, the rules regarding the milk quota changed two years ago. When we first went into the early retirement scheme we could lease our quotas for as long as we liked and we could do it annually through the creamery or we could take out a long-term lease with a neighbouring farmer. We are now in the third year of the new rules. By ministerial order, the Minister for Agriculture and Food introduced the change in the rules whereby people would either use it or lose it on that basis. People who were leasing their quotas at that stage had an option to use their quotas or let some of their heirs, or someone to whom they would like to leave the farm, use it. They could sell it on the open market with the farm, or to the lessee, or to the creamery at a fixed price which has reduced dramatically in recent years. People in the early retirement scheme were tied into it and could not get out. Using it was not an option because one could not go back to farming. For relatives who wished to inherit the farm, it was not an available option because some of them were not eligible under the scheme. One could not sell your land and the milk quota on the open market if one was leasing. This is an injustice.
The person who was leasing the quota could, in turn, take it at a nominal fee which was 10% to 20% of its value. He or she could produce it on his or her farm for two years and then sell it on the open market with the land for five times the price, or maybe more, at which he or she purchased it, even though he or she had leased it for two years. The farmer who produced that milk and created the quotas by producing milk in 1983 and 1984 was deprived of that right because he or she was in the early retirement scheme. This is a major penalty. When that person comes out of the scheme at the end of a ten year period he or she will be minus the milk quota. When we look at his or her return from the early retirement scheme, the sale of the quota and the value of his or her property, we realise that person has lost a lot of money over the ten year period.
The income generating capacity of the farm for the future is impossible to estimate. Has it any value if the farmer cannot afforest it? With the new Fischler proposals, he or she cannot establish new quotas or premium rights of any description and his or her milk quota is gone. What does such a person do with the farm?
Farm organisations have not been sympathetic. These organisations are governed and run by active farmers who have milk quotas and lands leased. Human nature being what it is, we cannot expect them to have great sympathy for people like us who have taken up the scheme.
Deputy Ferris made the point that we developed the pre-1980s quotas. The major development in the creamery business happened in the 1960s and 1970s with major inputs into the industry, particularly in the processing sector. At one time we got back our milk in churns and gave it to the calves; now it is powdered and exported. The market for casein and other products was developed. It was the milk producers who made a strong contribution to those developments and now they are being forgotten. The farm organisations have not backed us to the extent we would have liked. We feel they are on the other side.
I draw the committee's attention to a letter appended to our submission. I received it last night from the chairman of the rural development committee from 1992 to 1996 who negotiated the early retirement scheme. His comments are interesting and I recommend that the committee read them. There is no doubt the scheme has done much good. It has been helpful to certain people, particularly those who wish to retire and lease to family members. However, where people leased to non-family members, they have been greatly disadvantaged.
Ms Anne Dillon
With regard to the milk quota, in 1997 the Department of Agriculture and Food started to claw back 10% of the quota and gave no compensation for this. In 1998 it was increased to 20% and again no compensation was paid. This affected farmers who were not in the retirement scheme and wanted to sell their lands. However, it also affected farmers who were in the scheme with the result that when they sold their farms, they were 20% down on their milk quotas. This immediately devalued the lands and they lost the money for the milk quotas. That case is currently in the courts. That was particularly harsh.
I want to point out that we are discussing this issue against a background where agriculture has declined rapidly. Figures recently published in an EU research paper, Fifty Years of Figures on Europe, show that in 1958 employment in agriculture as a percentage of total employment in Ireland was 38.4%; in 2001, it was 7%. That is the extent of the decline.
We are talking about potentially 40,000 people who are retired or want to retire from farming. Nobody will be attracted into the present scheme as it is administered and because of the restrictive clauses that now operate. The indexation issue was raised by Deputy Timmins. When the scheme was started in 1992 this was an issue and still is. Farmers are seen as a strong lobby group, but failure to win on a key issue such as indexation indicates we are not as strong as we think. The scheme is now a poverty trap and was always likely to become one if it was not index linked to inflation. The point blank refusal to consider this when every other pension is index linked needs to be investigated.
The old age pension is treated as a retirement pension for the purposes of this scheme. In no other state is this the case. However, if a spouse retired on a public service pension, such as a retired garda or nurse, it would not affect the spouse's entitlement to the farm retirement pension. There is discrimination here between pensioners which we fail to understand.
Deputy Timmins also referred to the administrative rules. We outlined in the nine cases the kinds of changes that have occurred. The principal ones affecting us are those for the milk quotas and now the other quotas. There is the possibility that this will be copperfastened in the mid-term review. We claim the quota has to stay with the land. The lessee obviously gets the benefit of those quotas while they lease the land. However, the quotas with full value return to the owner of the land so that they can be passed on to the favoured heir. That would be our solution. A derogation or an exception needs to be made to these proposals to cover those in the farm retirement scheme.
One of the issues that amazed us as we investigated this, was that there are a myriad of schemes and rules governing the various activities within the CAP. Sometimes groups of civil servants seem to draw up the rules for one scheme and operate it, forgetting how the rules of another can be affected. This is the issue with the milk quota regime. It has torn the guts out of the farm retirement scheme and has created a disaster where massive property devaluation has occurred. Nobody joining the farm retirement scheme could have possibly envisaged this.
Deputy Upton raised the issue of reasonable expectation of fair treatment. We have had at least 12 different EU court cases on this issue and every single case has been won. We have just won the Mulder case on the milk quotas. However, there are several others dealing with different issues of reasonable expectation where people joined the scheme, had a reasonable expectation of being treated in a certain manner and subsequently were not. On each occasion, whether in relation to employment in the public service or the private sector or in joining an EU scheme, where the rules changed fundamentally over the period of the scheme to the disadvantage of those who joined initially relative to those who joined later, we believe there is a solid case to be made. We may be forced to go down that road eventually if we do not achieve some progress in righting the wrongs of this particular scheme.
The area of joint ownership and management is something of a quagmire. Previous speakers have mentioned that members of the legal profession are avoiding this area. That is because, having drawn up leases for their clients, they subsequently find that the rules have changed or a different interpretation has been placed on a provision of the scheme. Naturally, in such situations, clients are returning in a very aggravated frame of mind to the solicitors concerned, who are then caught between a rock and a hard place.
We have a copy of a letter from the Department of Agriculture and Food, addressed to the Office of the Ombudsman, stating that the Department is not obliged to discuss, explain or clarify its administrative rules to anybody. In response to an earlier question as to what feedback we have had from the Minister and the Civil Service, the example of arrogance which I have just given summarises essentially the type of feedback we have had. We have met with civil servants who simply said: "These are the rules. This is what we are obliged to operate and this is how we will operate. You are knocking your heads against a stone wall. Goodbye, and stop bothering us." That sums up the attitude we have encountered. We have sent a formal complaint to an office in Brussels which deals with complaints from citizens. That was despatched three weeks ago and we are awaiting a reply. I hope I have covered most of the issues raised.
Thank you, Mr Wall. Deputy Carty is next.
I join in welcoming the delegation. Much of what I had intended to say has been covered already. Do I understand correctly that, although this is an EU scheme, the manner in which it is administered in other EU countries is different to that in Ireland? Where a lessee holds quota rights, will he be in a position to use those rights when he gives up his land? At a meeting some time ago with departmental officials, I found that difficult to understand. On my reading of the situation, if a farmer has not enough land, the quota rights are not of much benefit to him. The rights should really go with the land rather than the lessee.
I will be very brief. I welcome the delegation, especially Eamon O'Donovan from my own county, Waterford. I also acknowledge the presence of a great Waterford hurler from another era, Tom Cheasty, whose skills would be most useful to us in the Munster hurling final.
The basic concept of the farm retirement scheme was good. Without repeating the points already made, I am acutely aware of some of the problems which have arisen in relation to which I have already addressed a number of queries to the Minister. The issue of joint ownership and management is giving rise to a great deal of trouble. The delegation is quite correct in stating that both accountants and solicitors are avoiding any involvement in dealing with applications under the retirement scheme. The scheme was even more complex previously and it is still very complex.
I believe the time has come for this committee to invite the officials to a meeting to deal with the issues which have been raised and the enormous problems which are being created. The people involved are the same people who built Irish agriculture to its present state of development. In many instances, they have to lease their land while waiting until a "favoured heir" - I like that term - is ready to take over, only to find that the entitlements have gone in another direction. I do not consider that fair or just. I ask our chairman to arrange for departmental officials to discuss these issues with the committee. In my county, as in others, enormous problems are being created in relation to what was originally envisaged as a very good scheme.
One of the great problems is that the farming organisations are not in favour, as has been pointed out. We have heard it stated here on many occasions that many of the farming organisations were not considering the position of non-active farmers. To define the term "non-active farmer" is another question. Many are non-active for good, personal reasons, but that has not been taken into account.
I thank the delegation for a very comprehensive presentation - one of the best I have seen during my term to date in the Oireachtas. The points made by the delegation are borne out by my experience in County Kildare. Over a number of years, the retirement scheme has been one of the most difficult schemes to join and, of late, it is nearly impossible to get out of it. Certainly one cannot disengage from it, except in a very painful manner. As I interpret today's presentation, the message is that the Department of Agriculture and Food is administering the scheme in a very negative way to the disadvantage of those participating in it and that it is being run differently in Ireland by comparison with other EU member states. If that is the case, it represents a very serious allegation and we are duty bound to take up the request to investigate the matter. In addition to meeting officials from the relevant section of the Department of Agriculture and Food, I suggest the committee should produce a report on the present situation. I believe that would be helpful.
I welcome the delegation, including my fellow Limerickman, Mr. Bertie Wall and Ms Lee who is also present. I believe we have a strong duty towards these farmers. As has been stated, the farming organisations have gone in a different direction and this committee is the only source to which these people can turn. That is straight talking. As has been said, the farming organisations will only represent those engaged in active farming.
When people buy into a scheme, they should be entitled to come out of it with the same rights as they had on entry to it. If I were to lease my pub for five or ten years, I would expect to get back the pub and the licence attached to it at the end of that period. I see no reason for any different treatment of a farm in the context of the early retirement scheme. I find it particularly difficult to understand the treatment of milk quota. The delegation has asked for this committee's support for a detailed investigation of the operation of the retirement scheme. I believe we will give that support wholeheartedly. Circumstances such as old age, health, death of a spouse and so on must be taken into account. I will certainly give my full support, and I believe my colleagues will also.
I welcome the delegation. I fully agree with the comments of previous speakers. It is simply not acceptable that officials in any Department should state they will interpret the rules as they see fit, without redress. That is arrogance of the highest order. I agree with the previous speakers that the only people who can answer those questions are the officials. I strongly support the call to invite them here so that we can question them.
I apologise for my late arrival. I commend the deputation for the manner in which it gave its presentation and the detailed submission it gave us in writing. I agree with the points made by previous speakers about the early retirement scheme. Its purpose and spirit was admirable, but somewhere in the past eight or nine years the scheme has turned into a monster that was created by officialdom. While I am not being critical of any section of people, it is now very difficult to administer the scheme. Coming from a rural area, I have witnessed the pain caused for those wanting to become involved. In an era of accountability that is simply not good enough. If this scheme is to carry on in the spirit intended it needs an urgent review. I agree with other members who have called for a renegotiation with the officials who administer the scheme in the interest of fairness.
Mr. Guerin
We were asked if we had met the departmental officials. Yes, we had a meeting with the officials prior to Christmas. We were amazed when these things were highlighted. One point that was brought up was that when we were joining this scheme we were advised to retain one hectare and keep a cow on that for the family house. When we questioned that and asked the officials what we should do with this hectare of ground, they told us we could grow cabbage on it. That was an insult to our committee that day.
Another question was asked of the officials that day. What happened to the old age pension money that was offset against the farm retirement money? The answer we got was that that was put into area aid headage payments and something else. That was never intended. I do not think we are getting a fair deal from the Department.
We were asked what was the story with regard to the administration of the scheme in other countries. As most of the Deputies and Senators are probably aware, a regulation sets the minimum standard that has to be observed in every country. It does not set a maximum or medium standard; it sets a minimum standard. Only France and Ireland required this retirement pension because in Ireland there was no retirement pension for farmers. In France there was a small pension and this was an improvement on it. All other countries paid much better pensions with much more generous allowances and much more generous conditions. The only countries that entered this scheme were France and Ireland. At the moment we are getting details of the administrative rules of the scheme in France. We are not in a position to answer that question today, but we will be and I will send on the details as soon as I get them.
It would be helpful if we had them before we meet the officials if possible.
The minute I have them, Chairman, you will have them.
We are very strong on the idea that the rights have to remain with the land. While the land is leased obviously the rights to quotas, the benefits from quotas and the payments those quotas will attract are with the lessee. At the termination of the lease at the end of the retirement scheme, these benefits have to go back to the farmer so that the farm can be passed on to the favoured heir, whether it be a son, daughter or other relative, and keep its value. The important point is the value of the holding. If the quota is taken from the holding, the value of the property is devalued immensely in its intrinsic value, saleable value and earning capacity. The value of the asset - the land itself - is devalued.
We certainly cannot paint all civil servants with the same brush. There are obviously great variations in the way civil servants will treat individuals. Some are quite helpful; some do the minimum and some treat us with disdain. In fairness, I have to say the latter category is very much in the minority.
One of the most startling points that came out of a meeting with eight senior officials in Portlaoise in October or November of last year related to the money which they proudly declared they had saved by not paying farmers - for example, as in the case I outlined. We have a situation where a husband and wife with two separate farms, two separate folios and two separate herd registers always managed the two farms separately. In fact they were in two separate counties. The regulations clearly state there is a pension per holding, not two pensions per holding - they clarified that. In this case the Department refused point blank and have paid two half pensions.
Arising from that discussion at which Deputy Ferris was present, one of the officials declared that the money saved had been put to other schemes. We wonder just how legal that is. Headage schemes, forestry and other schemes were mentioned. Anybody who knows how the EU operates knows that money is allocated specifically for each scheme, is budgeted for each scheme and is audited for each scheme; money that is not spent has to be returned. This was declared by senior civil servants.
So there are many other aspects that need to be investigated and we would wholeheartedly endorse the sentiments expressed here with regard to this committee taking on board an investigation of the scheme. We would support and welcome that and find it very heartening.
If the officials were to attend, would it be possible to also issue an invitation to the representatives who are here this morning?
No, the committee members will have to pose those questions.
While I know they cannot pose questions, could they be here as observers?
There would be no problem for them to be in the Visitors Gallery.
It would be important for them to be here as observers.
Have members of the deputation sought legal opinion on all the points they have raised?
We have looked at the various EU court decisions to see if any of them would be applicable. We find that about five or six of them are applicable to the manner in which the scheme has been administered here and the disadvantage that has been created especially in the areas of legitimate expectation, fair treatment and the interference with private property rights. Those are the three main legal areas. What we have done is send it off to this office as a complaint and we have been informed that this office will investigate all aspects, including the legal aspects. That was the reason we mentioned in passing the highlights of a number of legal cases so that they would register with them and they would take them up under those headings.
We have not taken legal advice because this is a spontaneous group that has arisen in the past six months in desperation more than anything else. In effect, we are just getting our act together. We are about to start collecting membership and put in place a formal structure and organisation.
I am raising this matter because if we are asked to investigate something and if it is said that the regulation as being interpreted and implemented by the Department is inconsistent with the regulation, we will need our own legal opinion in order to pursue these cases. If they had their own legal opinion, that would have been handy but not essential.
The theme coming through is that this group feels isolated and forgotten with nobody to carry its banner. I support the proposal of Deputy Ó Fearghaíl that we as a committee should see if someone on the committee could produce a report. I am sure there is funding available to get legal advice and the committee should decide how to produce a report. Somebody should be delegated responsibility for it. It is a good idea, which should be pursued.
We will consider all aspects and forward details of the observations and the presentation made today to the Department of Agriculture and Food. We will invite the officials to the committee at the earliest opportunity, which may be in early July. We will certainly do whatever else needs to be done thereafter. I thank the Farm Retirement Group for Justice delegation for its attendance. I agree with Deputy Ó Fearghaíl who said that the presentation was as good as any the committee has received from any group; it was a thorough submission. The delegation will be welcome in the Visitors' Gallery when the officials are here, whenever that might be. A member of the committee wishes to raise a final issue.
A number of farmers have approached me in recent weeks regarding REPS payments in Sligo. There has been no district superintendent in the area for some months. Many farmers, whose REPS documents are in order, are waiting for payments which cannot be made without the signature of a district superintendent. No such official is in place and people in the Sligo area are depending on officials to come in from other areas. Farmers are suffering many delays and some concern, unfortunately, as they are waiting for their REPS payments. Can this matter be brought to the notice of the Minister?
The clerk of the committee will certainly write to the Minister on behalf of the committee, if all members agree. The concern raised by the Senator will be brought to the attention of the Minister and his officials immediately.
The next meeting of the joint committee, on Wednesday, 2 July, will involve a presentation by Mr. John Malone, the Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture and Food, on the Department's statement of strategy between 2003 and 2005, which was published last week. Copies of the statement have been circulated.
The joint committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 2 July 2003.