We are joined by representatives of the Agriculture Appeals Office to discuss its annual report for 2003. On behalf of the joint committee I welcome Mr. Paul Dillon, director, Mr. Gary O'Donnell, appeals officer, and Mr. Oliver Molloy, appeals officer. Before asking Mr. Dillon to commence his presentation, I wish to draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege the same privilege does not extend to witnesses who appear before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Agriculture Appeals Office Annual Report 2003: Presentation.
Mr. Paul Dillon
I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before the committee this afternoon to discuss the Agriculture Appeals Office annual report for 2003. The agriculture appeals office was established on 13 May 2002 on the introduction of the Agriculture Appeals Regulations 2002. The office provides an independent appeals service to farmers who may be dissatisfied with decisions of the Department of Agriculture and Food concerning their entitlements under designated schemes operated by the Department. The Agriculture Appeals Act 2001, along with the regulations, sets down the functions of the director and the appeals officers, the decisions that may be appealed and the procedures to be followed in respect of agriculture appeals. For convenience, the legislation is included as appendices in the report in pages 27 to 40.
The establishment of the Agriculture Appeals Office put the appeals process for Department of Agriculture and Food schemes on a statutory basis. Under the Act, appeals officers are independent of the Department. In line with the office's mission, which is to provide an independent, accessible, fair and timely appeals service for Department of Agriculture and Food scheme applicants and to deliver that service in a courteous and efficient manner, our office aims to be client-friendly and to deliver a timely service.
The first full year of operations was 2003, an important year in terms of the development of the office and its functions. Some 1,143 appeals were received across 18 different schemes. This report sets out the major developments during the year in pages 2 to 5 and a statistical breakdown of the office's work in pages 6 to 10. A cross-section of the cases handled during the year is included in the report in pages 11 to 23, as well as recommendations to the Department of Agriculture and Food in page 24 and a reminder to scheme applicants of the recurring mistakes that lead to penalties in page 25.
One of the main features of the office is the right of an appellant to an oral hearing where an appeals officer brings together the appellant and the Department officials to hear both sides of a case and to ask questions. Of the 1,143 appeals received in 2003, some 655, or 57%, involved oral hearings. Oral hearings are held in locations close to the appellants to ensure them better access to the appeals procedure. There are a number of key features to an oral hearing. It is held in private, the format is as informal as possible and the appellant has the right to representation but must attend the hearing in person. Oral hearings were held in every county in 2003. Conscious of the need to be efficient, the office aims to group oral hearings so that an appeals officer will hold a number of hearings on the same day in a particular region. Appeals officers are allocated regions of the country and these regions are rotated on a regular basis. Following consideration of all of the facts of a case, comprehensive decision letters are issued to both the appellant and the Department.
In line with the ongoing commitment to e-government, the office began development of a website in 2002, which went live in 2003. As well as being a source of information, appellants can download the "Notice of Appeal" form and lodge appeals on-line at our e-mail address. Publications such as the annual report are also available on the website, as well as general information and a "frequently asked questions" section.
In conjunction with the Office of Public Works, the fit-out of permanent accommodation for the Agriculture Appeals Office was completed in 2003. These offices are in Kilminchy Court, Portlaoise. The office moved to its new premises in October 2003. The office is staffed by ten appeals officers and five support staff. The Agriculture Appeals Office is central to the Department of Agriculture and Food's commitment to customer service. It is interesting to note the relatively small proportion of cases that ended up with the office compared with the number of applications the Department received in 2003. I direct members to the graphs at the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7. Of 628,000 applications for grants from farmers, 99.8% went through the system without needing to resort to the appeals system in 2003. Although the number of appeals generated by REPS may seem high when compared to other schemes such as the special beef premium scheme or the suckler cow premium scheme, it should be remembered that REPS is different to other schemes in that it involves a five-year contract with commitments across eight different measures of an agri-environmental plan.
The graphs on page 7 at 4(c) give a summary breakdown of the outcome of cases, and a fuller breakdown is on page 8. Graph 4(d) gives a detailed breakdown by scheme. Some 38% of all appeals were allowed, partially allowed or revised by the Department. Some 54% of appeals were disallowed. Unsuccessful appellants have the right to bring their cases to the Office of the Ombudsman. In 2003, 46 cases were referred to the Office of the Ombudsman, which issued no recommendations to change a decision of the Agriculture Appeals Office.We are committed to dealing with appeals within 90 days. In 2003 the average time taken to process an appeal was 74 days, which is below the target figure.
Looking ahead, the existence of the office is now well established, both within the Department and among the farming community. All scheme applicants affected by penalties are informed of their right of appeal to the office. We also get regular feedback from the farm organisations via the protocol monitoring committee, as well as direct contact.
We are now in the process of finalising our annual report for 2004. The advent of the single payment scheme will bring significant change for the office. The EU livestock and area aid schemes as we know them will be replaced by the single farm payment and this will lead to a reduction in the number of grant applications from farmers and a consequent reduction in the number of appeals from 2005 onwards. Following the establishment of the entitlements, the single payment scheme will come fully under this office's statutory remit and we are in the process of preparing the office to deal with these appeals.
As well as fulfilling the primary function to report to the Minister for Agriculture and Food, I hope this report will be of use to farmers, Oireachtas Members, Department officials and all other interested parties. I hope that the report and this presentation have been of use to the committee and I will be happy to address any queries.
Thank you.
I welcome the representatives of the Agricultural Appeals Office and thank them for their detailed and comprehensive report. It is well laid out and I compliment the office.
On the issue of accessibility, it is now possible to submit an appeal on-line. Can the progress of the appeal be followed on-line? If not, is this planned?
Page 8 of the report refers to the outcomes of the appeals submitted. An average of 38% were successful or partially successful. The figure is 38% under the ewe premium scheme, but 34% of appeals under the extensification scheme were accepted in full, while 6% were partially accepted. In light of the fact that these applications have already gone through the Department procedures and inspectors and have been reviewed on a number of occasions before reaching the appeals office, do you consider that the average is extremely high? If the Department's procedures were working correctly, appeals should have a very low success rate. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.
Page 24 of the report states that the recommendations made in 2002 were not fully implemented or implemented in a satisfactory manner. Could you give an update in regard to the 2002 recommendations? These were pretty straightforward. Many of them will have to be implemented in relation to new schemes and even under the single farm payment scheme, whereas some of the recommendations made in 2003 will probably lapse owing to the change in the structure. Nine very important recommendations were made in 2002. Ten recommendations were made in the 2003 report, four in relation to REPS and six in relation to livestock schemes. Perhaps you could elaborate on the success of those recommendations.
There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the Department to implement the recommendations of both 2002 and 2003 relating to the CMMS. This appears to be the single biggest difference between the appeals office and the Department and it will remain a critical element in relation to eligibility and cross-compliance. I would welcome some elaboration on that difficulty.
I too welcome the representatives of the Agricultural Appeals Board. Deputy Naughten has dealt with some of the points I would like to have raised. We were all glad that the appeals board was established. The need is self-evident. I congratulate the board on the work it has done and the fair play it has ensured. The fact that 38% of appeals were recognised in full or in part shows the need for the board. That need will continue despite the introduction of the single payment.
Sometimes application forms are difficult to interpret. Would you accept that point? If so, would you favour a simplified version of the application form? There is a significant difference in the application forms for the REPS II and REPS III schemes. The requirements are unnecessarily bureaucratic. Would you recommend a change to simplify the application form while not making it easier to get the money? The current forms are difficult even for technical people, advisers and professionals.
I thank Mr. Dillon for his presentation which, like the report, was precise and to the point while giving the information we need. How well has the website worked? How many of the 1,143 appeals were submitted on the web? It would be interesting to know the extent to which the farming community is using technology.
The report states that 99.8% of all applications went through the system without the need to appeal. Only 0.2% of applicants sought assistance from the appeals board. Surely there must be a disparity between those figures and the number of people who would actually declare themselves to be dissatisfied with the outcome of their applications to the Department. Are statistics available from the Department which would indicate a lack of satisfaction with the level of grant or payment and the number of cases which are appealed to your office?
As the report points out, REPS is a five-year commitment. What are the particular issues where farmers fall foul of the system and to which particular attention needs to be paid?
I thank Mr. Dillon for his presentation and welcome the representatives of the appeals board. I have accompanied several farmers to appeal hearings, at their request. We have been successful on some but not all occasions. Under REPS II planners have made mistakes which have cost farmers dearly. In one case a REPS planner included 15 acres of another man's farm. This sailed through the system for four years before it was discovered, at very heavy cost to that farmer. Some people cannot read maps and in many cases farmers leave everything to the REPS planner. This can be very costly for the farmer if a mistake is made. Can anything be done by the appeals office to ensure that planners are fully qualified or bonded to cover the cost of a mistake?
Mr. Dillon
In response to Deputy Naughten, we do not currently have an online system for following the progress of appeals. Farmers who send in an appeal by e-mail tend to send a request for an update a couple of weeks later, to which we generally respond by e-mail. We do not have an automatic system, but we are working on this matter with the technical people in the computer area of the Department. E-government is being rolled out continuously and steps are being taken to improve the system. A very small number of appeals are lodged electronically. We get a lot of hits on the website, but very few appeals are received by e-mail. Most are in paper form, sent by post or fax. Less than 5% are received by e-mail. Many farmers are accessing the Department's website for CMMS transactions, REPS and area aid. A certain group of these seems to be using the electronic appeals system — perhaps it is the younger ones who have computer systems. The vast majority of farmers use the normal routes.
The odd thing about extensification was the interpretation the agricultural appeals office took of that regulation, allowing for appeals to be decided to within two decimal places. That was the reason for the abnormal results for that year. For most farmers, extensification is cut and dried. They either make the figure or they do not. Arguments tend to centre on animals intended to be sold or which died and were not taken off the system, and so on. There may also be farmers who did not send in their forms. That was the peculiar thing about the scheme in that year. This will change with the introduction of the single payment.
On the implementation of the 2002 recommendations, the Department was slow rather than unwilling. That was the biggest problem. We decided that a means of giving a jolt would be to put a note into the report, which would draw attention to it. It worked. The recommendations were contained in the annual report for 2002. The first was that Department officials should produce a thorough report before the matter came to the appeals office. They are now doing that. The second recommendation was that when the Department notified a farmer of a proposed penalty, he should be given the full list of penalties. That is being done. The third recommendation was that when a farmer was penalised under a scheme and notified of his right to appeal, he should be paid the grant minus the amount of the penalty; in other words, they should pay the amount they claim he should get and let him fight about the balance. Some 99% are doing this. There are still one or two local offices which have not implemented the recommendation. We have drawn it to their attention.
The fourth recommendation was that the person doing the review in the Department should not be the person who made the original decision. That was particularly in the REPS area. They have now implemented the recommendation. The fifth recommendation was that if the Department asked the farmer to reply within two weeks, they should wait at least two weeks before notifying him of the penalty. A few of the offices were too quick off the mark and were not allowing the full time. They have corrected that. The next recommendation was that the Department should act on an appeals office decision within four weeks. They are doing that. The seventh recommendation concerned reconciliation forms for extensification. They did it late but they did it. It is now being phased out anyway.
The eighth recommendation concerned the farm to farm movement permit system. We recommended two perforated sections on the permit, one for the buyer and one for the seller. That is being done. The next recommendation was that a notice should be sent two weeks before the final date to any farmer who had not sent back his REPS application — the 1C form. The Department's response was that many farmers wait until the very last minute to send it in and that if they were to send out notices to all the farmers they would be flooding them with paper. They find that the best way is to wait until just after the closing date and then contact them. Our point was that the farmer might incur a late penalty, but the Department did not want to send out 40,000 letters to the farmers in REPS, most of whom had every intention of sending in their applications just before the closing date.
The first recommendation in the 2003 report was about the livestock scheme. The report recommended examining the possibility of using CMMS confirmation of transaction. The Department ruled this out on the basis that the volume was too big, that there are so many farm to farm movements and so many transactions in CMMS that they would not be able to send a separate letter to the farmer for every transaction. They have committed themselves to issuing regular profiles and they have recently started to do so. It is a kind of halfway house.
The next recommendation was that Department officials responsible for issuing formal notices should ensure that they are clear and comprehensible. We have had discussions about lay-outs and there are improvements, mostly on the REPS side. The third recommendation was to do with Department officials quoting the wrong year or the wrong EU regulation. That has been corrected through better training. The next recommendation was that extensification should be calculated to within two decimal places. That has been done.
Inconsistency between the treatment of restricted and non-restricted herds for the purposes of the special beef premium scheme was the subject of the next recommendation. The Department has revised policy on that and alleviated the position. The following recommendation was to examine cases where milk quota was double counted for stocking density purposes. That is a very convoluted matter. They have looked at it but I am not sure they have been able to do anything for the dairy farmers involved. It is tied up in the EU regulation as to whether they can use 31 March or 1 April as the reference date.
On the REPS side, the recommendations were that where planners were notified of changes to the scheme, the participants should also be notified. This is something which happens 20 or 25 times a year and the Department's view is that rather than sending out technical details to the farmers involved they should be sent to the planners. Our point was that if there was little communication between the farmer and the planner, or if the planner, even with the best of intentions, did not get the point across to the farmer, there could be a loss to the farmer and he could be penalised. We did not win that one. It is still there.
The next recommendation was that the Department should define the time lapse acceptable for notification and submission of amended plans where land is transferred and a new applicant is submitting a new plan. Some offices used to state that it had to be received within six weeks, others would take it within nine or 12 weeks. We were trying to standardise it and to have all planners and farmers notified of the time limit. The land should be farmed all the time in accordance with REPS. There should not be any break in continuity. The Department is keen to be flexible and does not want to put a time limit on it. There are many cases — family transactions and so on — which take a long time to sort out. There can be a gap between the retirement or death of a farmer and another person taking over and it might be unfair in some situtations to impose a time limit. Persons taking over a farm should not be automatically required to refund all moneys paid in the previous four or five years if they fail to submit a plan within a specified timeframe, for instance, six or 12 weeks. Perhaps, therefore, there is merit in the recommendation.
The third recommendation as regards REPS was that the Department should examine delays in notifying results of compliance inspections which are audit inspections as opposed to the more regular inspections. The issue is under examination. One of the main reasons for the delays is the way in which files are handled and processed in the Department. There is room for manoeuvre in this regard.
The Deputy's final point related to clawback. I concede that the Department changed its policy. If a farmer is deemed to have been paid money under REPS which the Department believes should not have been paid, how much will be clawed back and how will it be done? Under REPS III, the procedure has been changed completely. Under the new system, the clawback is proportional to the amount overpaid. As such, not all of the money must be repaid. This was a major concession.
As regards the reluctance of the Department to implement the CMMS recommendations, volume is the main reason for its reluctance to provide for notification of every single movement. Farmers should regularly check their profiles. We noticed many farmers who received four or five profiles each year for extensification purposes were not checking them. As a result, when they checked the profile as they approached the limit, they found the profile included an animal which should not have been included. The problem then is how to remove the animal from the profile and whether it is already too late. The Department's point was that it would prefer to issue regular profiles rather than having a system in which every CMMS transaction would have to be notified individually to the farmer. The reason is the sheer volume of transactions, of which there are millions every year. One must also consider the cost of postage and handling and so forth. This was the main reason for the Department's reluctance to implement the CMMS recommendations. I hope I have covered the issues adequately.
Mr. Dillon's response has been perfectly adequate.
Mr. Dillon
Senator Callanan raised questions concerning application forms, the difference between REPS III and REPS II and my views on whether the system was bureaucratic and if there was room for manoeuvre. There is room for improvement. We have met representatives of the Department several times to discuss the transition from REPS II to REPS III and how to make improvements. The Department is exercised about the draft annual reports issued by the office. We always give it an opportunity to comment on our recommendations before publishing our reports. As members will note, some of them include comments from the Department.
Will the office at least be partially successful?
Mr. Dillon
We hope we will. We have had some success to date. Exercises such as this meeting help to reinforce our argument with the Department because they provide publicity for our recommendations and point out how improvements can be made at little cost to the Department. In some cases, the Department will argue that our recommendations would generate considerable costs. For example, it considers prohibitive the cost of issuing notices to farmers as required under the recommendations on CMMS.
The appeals office has been successful in making improvements to some of the forms and schemes and there is no reason to believe the Department will not continue to take on board some of our recommendations. While we do not expect it to accept all of them, we hope it will give them serious consideration.
Some of the requirements of the REPS III form are spurious, to say the least. It is impossible to meet them. This has deterred some farmers from joining the scheme.
The OECD report on literacy skills in Ireland found that 25% of the adult population had poor literacy skills and could not comprehend the instructions on the back of a paracetamol box. The proportion of the farming population with poor literacy skills is likely to be similar to that of all other sectors. Has the appeals office taken cognisance of these figures in terms of the structure and format of certain forms? Even in the past week I have received a number of telephone calls from people who cannot get through to the single farm payment unit to ask questions about how to interpret the wording in the area aid form which must be submitted in the next fortnight. The way in which the form is formulated can lead to a great deal of confusion which could be eased by taking steps to simplify it. Will Mr. Dillon comment?
Mr. Dillon
One of the issues which frequently arises in appeals cases — some members will also have experienced this — is the difficulty farmers have with application forms due to poor literacy skills. We will always have a certain amount of sympathy for farmers in this position because many of them are too embarrassed to seek help and do not want to be seen to admit they do not understand the details of the scheme. We always take cognisance of this factor when deciding on appeals.
As regards form design and lay-out, we will take on board members' comments and make a case to the Department for simplifying forms, as Deputy Naughten suggested. We have pointed out some areas which could be made simpler and will reinforce our views in this regard in the light of the Deputy's comments.
As regards the difference between the customer satisfaction rating the Department cites and the number and outcome of appeals, I am not sure I can fully answer Deputy Ó Fearghaíl's question. I understand many farmers will accept they made a mistake or have not fully complied with a scheme when their penalty is explained to them. As a result, they do not pursue their appeal. This may account for the difference between the customer satisfaction rating and the number of farmers who follow through to the appeals office.
One of the yardsticks I use for measuring the effectiveness of the appeals office and whether we are fair is the number of cases taken to the Ombudsman who closely examines all such cases. In 2003 the Ombudsman scrutinised 45 or 46 cases, while the figure in 2002 was 28. To date, the Office of the Ombudsman has not found that we handled any case badly or arrived at a wrong conclusion. While it has argued with us about the merits of a few cases and we have made our case, it has not told us we made a wrong decision.
In addition, if a farmer believes the appeals officer or director has erred in law, he or she can go to the High Court. To date, no case has been taken to that court, despite the amounts involved in some cases. Over five years a REPS case could quickly reach €40,000 to €50,000 in terms of the clawback a farmer faces as a result of a decision made by an appeals officer or me. If a farmer thought he or she had a good case, it would be worthwhile for him or her to go to the courts.
His or her money would be quickly whittled away in the High Court.
Mr. Dillon
To date, no such cases have been taken, although it is only a matter a time before someone goes to the High Court, given the significant sums involved and the fact that livelihoods are at stake. While we receive complaints from farmers about the outcome of appeals, they rarely complain that they have not been given a good hearing. In most cases, they are satisfied that they receive a good hearing. I am concerned to ensure the proper procedures are followed and farmers believe their cases have been properly considered.
Senator Scanlon asked about REPS and oral hearings. When a farmer makes a mistake, it can cost him or her dearly. We raised this issue with the Department several times and it has advised us that it has in place an approval system for planners which it uses all the time. Before a planner is added to the Department's approval list, he or she must process a set number of plans which must be thoroughly checked and fully audited by the Department. If he or she makes mistakes and receives the equivalent of a yellow card — a warning for a specific decision — the Department requires him or her to return to training.
I am not in a position to answer the Senator's question about bonding or qualifications as these are matters for the Department. We do not get involved in them, although we are involved in their effects. In many cases, when farmers spread too much fertiliser, they point out that their planner did not tell them how much they could spread. Such cases arise time and again. If a farmer does not carry out building work included in the REPS plan within the five year period, he or she will be penalised when his or her case comes before the inspector. At that point, he or she may state that, having discussed the matter with his or her planner, it was decided — without first informing the Department — that the new building was not necessary and that stock numbers were reduced instead. These things do happen. In such cases the Department has a warning system and a penalty system in place for planners. I will bring to their attention the points made, that planners should be bonded and that there should be more stringent qualification requirements.
In this case, the planner was yellow-carded but that was of very little benefit to the farmer.
Mr. Dillon
Bonding is the key factor. I will bring the matter to the Department's attention.
I thank Mr. Dillon for answering the questions asked. He has enlightened us a great deal.
My question is somewhat similar to that asked by Senator Scanlon about the planner being at fault or making a mistake. In a number of early retirement or REPS cases which involved the changeover of land ownership, farmers have been penalised for delays outside their control caused by solicitors or missing title deeds in Dublin Castle or other places. While I accept the appeals office has a job to do, such delays are often most frustrating for young farmers who have inherited land from their father or uncle. Is it possible to gauge how many of the appeals received are due to the slowness of the legal process? The Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights is trying to introduce change through the Law Reform Commission. I am interested in this issue.
A farmer has informed me that a penalty is incurred under REPS by farmers who store grain if a bird flies into the grain store when the inspector is present. Some penalties appear to be overly severe on farmers. We must adopt a more realistic approach to the infringements which should result in penalties.
Are oral hearings held for the benefit of the appellant or the official? I hope it will be seen as an effective exercise, especially for the official who may need clarification. I would like to hear a comment on this issue. Is it possible to overturn the original decision?
Elected representatives who make appeals on behalf of farmers receive a letter stating "John Browne's application will be processed and he will be informed of the outcome in due course". The public representative does not receive the same information as the farmer. Is it possible to change the system in order that we will also be informed of the outcome of the appeal board's decision?
I apologise as I have to attend another meeting.
Mr. Dillon
Delays with solicitors and legal title frequently arise in installation aid cases. We have made this point to the Department. The Department puts a limit on the length of time available to a farmer to submit his or her application, get his or her folio sorted out and so on. We have asked it to reassess the matter to see if is possible to be more flexible and to do away with some time limits. If a young farmer is qualified to take over, we do not see any reason he would not be entitled to receive installation aid. The Department is examining that matter.
Regarding mistakes made by the planner, it is a question of whether the planner is bonded, what insurance cover he or she has and so on. We will raise the matter with the Department and ask if it will make this a requiement.
Perhaps I should ask the two appeals officers whether oral hearings are held for the benefit of the official or the farmer. I would like to think the purpose is to elicit information from both the farmer and the departmental official in order that the appeals officer can make up his or her mind. The oral hearing allows each side to hear the other side and answer questions in order that the information can be collated.
The hearing must be held in private and the farmer is allowed representation. He or she does not have to put his or her own case, somebody else can put it for him or her but he or she may be asked a question. He or she cannot hide behind his or her lawyer or veterinary surgeon but can have somebody speak on his or her behalf. He or she will be allowed to question rather than cross-examine the departmental official. If he or she disagrees with something in the Department's statement about what happened on the day of an inspection, he or she is entitled to say why he or she disagrees with it.
It is a new hearing as such. The departmental official, the appeals officer and the farmer are not limited to the grounds of appeal submitted. It is as if the case is being heard for the first time. Each party, the farmer and the departmental official, can make a full case and what is said is taken into account by the appeals officer who is obliged to make up his or her mind after consideration of what has been said. He or she has to give the matter due consideration, give weight to the different arguments and determine on the balance of probabilities what the decision should be. If necessary, he or she can visit the farm. For example, if there is a dispute between a farmer and an official as to whether a watercourse is properly fenced, an appeals officer may decide to look at it. The main object of the exercise is to gather all the information required in order that the appeals officer can make the best possible decision.
The farmer should not feel under pressure. I know many do but they should not. They should be put at their ease and the meeting should be as informal as possible. There is provision to take sworn statements but we have never done that yet. I do not envisage it would happen, unless one had a strong belief a person was telling lies. The aim is to put the farmer at ease to get as much information from him or her as possible, and to get as much information from the official as possible. Each side can hear the other's view and answer.
Did the Vice-Chairman ask another question?
As public representatives, we can lodge an appeal for a farmer when our assistance is sought but we often do not hear the outcome of the case. The farmer will hear the outcome in due course. It would save us making telephone calls to the Department if we were also informed of the outcome.
Mr. Dillon
I have reminded administrative staff that any time they receive inquiries or representations from Oireachtas Members, they should always reply at the same time as the farmer receives a letter from the appeals officer. There is now a flagging system in place. When a decision letter is issued, it is sent to the person who made the representations as well as the farmer and the Department.
That is very helpful. I thank Mr. Dillon.
I attended a number of oral appeal hearings where I found the appeals officers to be most courteous, helpful and thorough.
In one case, a farmer received assistance from Teagasc in drawing up his plan and making his annual application which was in on time in year five but there was an outstanding debt of €1,100 which he could not afford to pay. He proposed that the money be deducted from his REPS payment for the fifth year. It is not clear if the Teagasc office deliberately held back the form because of the amount owed or misplaced it. It was sent back to the farmer about three months later. I have come up against a stone wall on this matter as far as Teagasc is concerned. Can the appeals office help in any way in this case?
I compliment the director and his two associates on attending today's meeting. I have had the pleasure of attending an appeal hearing which was handled most professionally and in a fair way. The farmer concerned and the Department were given an equal opportunity to put their case. The farmer may not have received all he was looking for but he got fair play. It is a step forward by the Department of Agriculture and Food. I wish other Departments which have an appeals system would take a leaf out of its book and treat people with the same courtesy.
I welcome this great step forward. This is a time of change and many people may find the new system somewhat difficult. Have you any role in the farm retirement scheme? Recently we produced a report on the anomalies within the scheme. Will your office have any part in addressing some of the anomalies?
We all know the closing date for the return of area aid forms and the mountain of work for the planners and the Teagasc people. Because of the rush, mistakes will be made this year. Could a recommendation be made to the Department to extend the date?
I would favour that. I am not sure that our wish would be granted, but Mr. Dillon and his colleagues might enlighten us.
Mr. Dillon
Senator Scanlon referred to the difficulties a farmer encountered in dealing with Teagasc. We will certainly look at the case. If the farmer has the right of appeal, we will give it every consideration. There is no reason to believe that he would not get a full and fair hearing from the appeals office.
I acknowledge the comments made by Deputies Carty and Wilkinson, which are very helpful. We have not had any formal role in the early retirement scheme other than pointing out to the Department areas where we think minor improvements could be made. We make recommendations in the cases we come across. We have had no direct role as a result of the report to the committee.
Senator Callanan referred to the closing date for the receipt of the area aid form. I will relay his request to the Minister and ask her to take account of the committee's strong feeling on it. I agree that many farmers are working to meet the deadline. Planners and Department officials are snowed under as well. Deputy Naughten mentioned that farmers have trouble getting through to the help line. That is a symptom of it.
We are very grateful for the positive comments on the conduct of the oral hearings and the appeals officers. Those comments are very helpful.
I concur with the comments of my colleagues. The Department was seen as a maze of bureaucracy until the establishment of the appeals board. I have not attended an appeal but I have spoken by telephone to board officials in Portlaoise who have always been very courteous. I thank Mr. Dillon and his colleagues for the presentation and the manner in which they responded to our queries. We look forward to working with you in the future and continuing to meet at committee level.
I advise members that the select committee will meet at 3 p.m.on Wednesday, 18 May to consider the 2005 Estimates for the Department of Agriculture and Food.
The joint committee adjourned at 12.55 p.m. sine die.