Agriculture Appeals Bill, 2001: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. T. Hayes

I welcome the Minster's comments on the BSE problem which we discussed earlier.

The degree of panic, particularly among farmers, in relation to the BSE crisis is a big problem. When making decisions in relation to cattle pur chases or sales, people do not know what direction to take. This is causing panic which the Minister needs to address. I acknowledge he has being doing his utmost to deal with this problem at a national level.

A few issues need to be addressed, particularly in relation to the consumer aspect. RTÉ carries an advertisement showing a stumbling cow which it has been asked on several occasions to change. The Minister should make a direct approach to RTÉ to have this advertisement changed because it is sending out the wrong message. Whenever anything about BSE crops up, this same cow falling all over the place is rolled out. This is not acceptable because everyone is doing their best and people's livelihoods are at risk in relation to the BSE crisis. Given that this is a food producing country of which we are very proud, our national television station should be called into question in this regard.

Another important issue is the widespread concern among small local butchers in relation to the levy they pay under the destruct scheme. I ask the Minister to address this matter because it increases the cost of meat to the consumer at a time when we are trying to promote the consumption of beef and prove the quality of our meat. In reality, if a housewife goes into a butcher's shop in any part of the country, whether Cork, Tipperary or Dublin, the vast majority of the meat for sale is young heifer beef. Given that housewives are not assured this meat is safe, it is imperative that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, on a once-off promotional effort, spend some money to try to drive home to our own consumers that the beef they buy across the counter cannot be affected by BSE because it is all under 30 months of age. This is an important point which needs to be emphasised before we start worrying about overseas markets, even though they are extremely important. We need to cement our market at home and I believe the Minister should consider this important aspect.

I welcome the Bill for which farming organisations have been calling. The general thrust of the Bill is welcome because it will alleviate many hardships. People will now have an independent forum in which to air their problems. As soon as payments are made every year, politicians get representations from farmers who have money docked from them for whatever reason. Given that premiums are now such a big part of farmers' incomes, it is important that the payment of this money is seen to be fair.

When one examines in detail the Bill, there are many questions which need to be asked. I have major concerns about the independence of this appeals mechanism in relation to the Department. While the Bill states that responsibility will lie with the Minister, I question the independence of an authority which is set up by the Department to examine the Department's own decisions. I ask the Minister to consider setting up a board of governors to administer the proposals in the Bill. If people are to have confidence in the authority, they must be in a position to say that it is totally independent of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. To be successful and to ensure people have confidence in the authority, it must be seen to be totally independent of the Department. The Minister should consider six people, whether representatives of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, the Oireachtas or the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, to sit on an independent board of governors to oversee this appeals body. This is a major body, employing a staff of 30, not a small number of people. In order for the authority to be independent, it needs to stand alone from the Department. I ask the Minister to give this proposal genuine consideration because I want the authority to be successful. I believe every Member of the House wants the authority to be independent and successful so that people can have confidence in it.

Another important issue is the number of people who have been penalised in the past. I ask the Minister to look at cases which were brought to attention over a number of years. Many of my constituents – the Minister may be aware of them because they probably went to him directly – who had a genuine case to relate came to me regarding this issue. Severe hardship was imposed on people. The Minister should give consideration to some of these hardship cases which left people minus thousands of pounds.

I question why the disease eradication scheme is not mentioned in the Bill. At a time when disease is so prevalant, whether bovine TB, brucellosis or BSE, it is important that people are allowed to appeal some decisions in relation to disease eradication. I have instances of hardship cases in my constituency in this regard. There is nothing more devastating for farmers than having their whole herd wiped out for a technical reason. Sometimes there are good reasons for this, but the omission from the Bill of the disease eradication scheme must be questioned. I ask the Minister to have the matter investigated.

I have received correspondence from the farming organisations in recent days in respect of a number of issues. For example, the ICMSA believes that a time limit within which cases should be dealt with should be set down. That is very important because there is nothing more frustrating than having an appeal drag on. A time limit should be established in order that decisions can be made promptly.

Will oral hearings be taken in private or will politicians or Teagasc advisers be able to make representations at such hearings? I am not sure whether this matter is dealt with in the Bill but I ask the Minister to ensure that it is addressed. Politicians or other representatives such as solicitors etc., should be allowed to attend oral hearings because many people will be daunted by the prospect of appearing before the appeals board. I request that people be allowed to be rep resented by the individuals to whom I refer at oral hearings.

People must always be provided with a detailed explanation of the decisions taken in their cases. I welcome the Minister's comments regarding the harshness of penalties. The penalties attaching to the REP scheme are particularly harsh. The REP scheme has proven to be extremely good for the environment, but the level of its success will only be recognised in the future. Major changes are taking place in our environment and a huge clean-up process is in operation in the areas to which the scheme applies. I hope the Minister will be successful in highlighting to Europe the fact that the penalties involved are too harsh. We must fight to ensure that the penalties attaching to the REP scheme are changed because they are overly harsh.

I ask the Minister to take on board the points I have raised, particularly in respect of the independent board of governors. I welcome the establishment of the appeals board, particularly as farmers are so dependent on the various schemes for their incomes. Farming has changed dramatically in recent years and the days when people sold cattle or milk to earn an income are gone. The cheques farmers receive in the post are now their main source of income. It is good that the independent appeals unit is being put in place, but I again request that the Minister take on board the points I have raised.

Mr. R. Kiely

I welcome the Minister's opening comments and his expression of concern about the EU decision to ban the sale of T-bone steaks in Ireland while allowing them to continue to be sold in the UK. As one Member observed on the Order of Business, it is strange that one cannot eat T-bone steak in Lifford while one can do so in Strabane. That does not make sense.

Mr. Connor

They have very good steaks in Paris.

Mr. T. Hayes

Anyone at the Council of Europe could testify to that.

Mr. R. Kiely

Senator Connor is well versed in this matter. I know that the Minister will do everything possible to rectify this anomaly. People are also concerned about the destruction scheme and there are conflicting opinions about its worth. However, the scheme is in place and there is no doubt that consumer confidence in the beef industry must be restored.

As Senator Hayes stated, farm incomes are dependent on the payment of premiums. It is, therefore, important that farmers complete their application forms correctly. However, there is no doubt that mistakes, which can be costly for farmers. can be made.

I compliment the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Walsh, on his proposal to establish an agriculture appeals office to provide, on a statutory basis, an appeals mechanism to deal with appeals from farmers wishing to challenge decisions of officers of the Department regarding their entitlement to benefit under the specified schemes which are listed in detail in the Schedule to the Bill. I am inclined to agree with Senator Hayes about the disease eradication scheme because people are dissatisfied with the level of compensation they have received in respect of this scheme. Those people should also have the opportunity to make an appeal to the new office and I would like the Minister to consider this matter before Committee Stage.

The establishment of the new office will give effect to a commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to establish, on a statutory basis, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, an independent, accessible and properly resourced appeals unit whose remit will include all FEOGA schemes paying directly to individual farmers. The agriculture appeals office will build on the work of the Department's existing non-statutory headage and premia appeals unit. That unit was established in 1995 on foot of commitments given in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and an undertaking in the charter of rights for farmers. It currently deals with appeals under the livestock headage and premia and arable aid schemes and is staffed by officials of the Department.

In April 1999, the all-party Oireachtas committee on the strategic management initiative, in its report on quality customer service in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, recommended the establishment of a properly resourced, accessible and independent appeals system similar to those operated by the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. The Minister, while fully satisfied with the competence and fairness of the current appeals unit, is anxious that the service is accepted by the farming community independent of the decision-making process within the Department. The new office is designed to meet this objective and improve the appeals system.

The Minister considers that the range of schemes falling within the remit of the current appeals unit is unduly limited and proposes, consistent with the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, to extend it to include all FEOGA schemes paying directly to individual farmers. I am sure he will consider including the other scheme I mentioned within the remit of the new unit. The extension to which I refer will bring the rural environment protection scheme, the early retirement scheme, the on-farm investment schemes and other schemes within the scope of the new office.

The Bill provides that in addition to conducting reviews of decisions made in respect of payments under the FEOGA direct payment schemes, with full authority to modify or reverse the original decision taken in the Department, the appeals office will also have advisory functions in relation to the national beef assurance scheme. Section 13 of the Bill makes provision for such functions in respect of a proposed refusal or revocation of a certificate of approval under the National Beef Assurance Scheme Act, 2000. A certificate of approval, which is granted by the Minister, authorises the relevant keeper – a herdowner or trader – to trade in beef. The National Beef Assurance Scheme Act provides that if the Minister intends to refuse an application for this certificate or to revoke a certificate already delivered, he must give notice of that intention.

Section 15( 2) and section 16(2) of the National Beef Assurance Act provided that on receipt of notice an appeal could be made to the Minister within 14 days. He gave an undertaking to bring within the remit of the appeals office a refusal of a certificate under the national beef assurance scheme. He considers it best that any relevant representations should be referred to him by the appeals office. His decision must be made with regard to its advice which should be delivered within 28 days.

The Minister may by order bring further schemes or aspects of schemes within the remit of the appeals office. This enables inclusion of those which might replace the current headage and premium schemes.

The appeals office and its powers will be similar to the social welfare appeals office. It will adjudicate appeals from farmers dissatisfied with decisions regarding their entitlements. The adjudication will be conducted by officers appointed by the Minister. One will be designated chief appeals officer and will act as director. He will report to the Minister.

The main feature of the appeals office is that appeals must be lodged in the time specified by the Minister. Each appeal will be assigned to an officer who will adjudicate. An appeal officer's decision may be reviewed by the chief officer. There is a right to an oral hearing without a fee. Apellants have the right to appeal to the courts on a point of law. The ombudsman can investigate cases dealt with by the office.

The office's decisions will be binding on the Department. The Minister and the Department cannot intervene in decision making. This is important for the office's success. The chief appeals officer shall report annually to the Minister or as often as the Minister requires on management and staffing. All the staff remain officers of the Department.

As mentioned by Senator Hayes, it is estimated that it will require 32 staff. This figure has been reached by reference to the social welfare appeals office. This compares favourably with six in the existing appeals structure.

Farmers must be advised regarding the proper filling out of the necessary forms. I read in the Irish Independent's farming supplement on 6 February – which, like many other publications was not available in the Library, to the disadvantage of rural Deputies and Senators – that around 30% of reconciliation forms were not returned on time. It is important to return these forms which are essential to traceability under the beef assurance scheme, especially for the purpose of reassuring the consumer about quality. From experience I know that these forms are complex and time consuming. Many mistakes are made. Farmers should be assisted in this as it is important to their incomes.

The penalties in this regard, re REPS for example, are severe. Farmers are often penalised up to 90%, according to the report in the Irish Independent. This is too severe for being late with an application. The Department was not satisfied with some forms with which farmers had assistance. I have found Teagasc helpful and their services should be used more widely.

I welcome the Bill and hope it will have the desired effect. Farmers should get what they are entitled too and I hope the appeals system operates effectively.

Mr. Quinn

I welcome the Minister. I am incensed at how our consumers have been let down by this morning's announcement and I know the Minister is concerned. He is a representative of the farming industry but I am concerned about consumers. Regarding T-bone steaks, the announcement says that "the derogation in respect of Portugal is, like in the UK, based on the evaluation of the national measures in force to eradicate BSE and an additional testing programme of all fallen stock." How are our standards less acceptable? I know the Minister will make a good case to get Ireland included in the derogation but the damage is done.

How did this come about? That we have standards which are less than Britain's has let down the consumers of Ireland. Something must be done immediately. Why did the scientific steering committee make this decision? This must never happen again. Whoever advised us has failed. Someone must have known that things were better done in the UK.

I regard this as a totally inadequate Bill. Despite the fact that I fully agree with the principle behind it, I intend to vote against the Second Reading unless the Minister can satisfy my concerns. I vote against in order to highlight the fact that the Bill, as conceived, is incapable of delivering on its promises. It purports to set up an independent appeals process but the detailed provisions are such as to finally and fatally undermine that very independence.

Section 6 enshrines the promise of an independent appeals process. It provides that appeals officers shall, subject to this Act, be independent in the performance of their functions. The Minister will rely on this privision to demonstrate that it will be an independent appeals process, but this section is not enough to guarantee independence. In comparable legislation, with one exception, the requirement for independent performance is backed up by a framework designed to deliver that independence.

The Minister referred today to the social welfare appeals office. I do not know enough about that but in this legislation compared to almost all other appeals legislation the requirement for independence is backed by a framework that will undermine rather than help it. Independence is the whole point of creating the function. The director of agriculture appeals needs to be distinct, separate and independent from the system that is being appealed against. While it makes sense for the office to be under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture it makes nonsense of the enterprise to put the office and staff under its total control as proposed by the Bill in its present form.

We have precedents for setting up an office that, despite operating under the aegis of a particular Department, is required to be independent in its performance. The obvious case is the Ombudsman. Others are the Data Commissioner and the Director of Consumer Affairs. The same basic strategy was followed in the legislation setting up these offices yet this Bill ignores that strategy. The strategy is to declare an office created. Having created the office the legislation then determines how the holder of the office is to be appointed and specifies the process by which the holder can be removed from office.

The Director of Consumer Affairs, who is appointed through the Civil Service Commission, can be removed by the Minister. However, the Minister has to state reasons for the removal to the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Ombudsman can be removed only on foot of a motion passed by both Houses. The mechanisms for removing a post holder may vary but the principle is the same. The person cannot be removed at the whim of a Minister. It is a variation of the arrangement under which judges cannot be sacked and exists to underpin the independence that is expected in the performance of the post.

A further arm to the legislative strategy used in setting up these posts is that in having created the office one attaches to it particular powers and functions which are executed by the office holder. The effect of this is that the only link between the sponsoring Department and the office is the office holder. Everything should flow through that link. There should be no interaction between the Department and the office except through the office holder. The office holder has control over the appointment of staff and they are responsible to the office holder in the performance of their duties. They are employed by the office, not the Department. These features of the legislative strategy are there for a definite purpose. They provide a framework for independence and performance while maintaining and retaining the minimum level of democratic control.

The success through the years of the offices of the State created in this way provides a compelling argument that this is the road we should fol low. We have a cluster of precedents backed up by a success record, yet in drafting this Bill the Minister has chosen to ignore these precedents. He is badly advised in doing so. The result, if he proceeds, will be the creation of an appeals process without credibility. It does not deserve credibility.

Section 2 states that the Minister may appoint such and so many of his or her officers as he or she thinks appropriate to be appeals officers for the purposes of this Act and every person so appointed shall hold office during the pleasure of the Minister. Section 3 provides that one of the appeals officers shall be designated by the Minister as the chief appeals officer who shall be known as the director of agriculture appeals.

In these two sections the Bill seeks to create a structure that makes nonsense of the requirement under section 5 for the appeals officers to be independent in the performance of their functions. Section 2 gives the Minister unfettered power to appoint and remove appeals officers at a whim. There is no safeguard against being removed because the Department does not like the way an appeals officer performs. That is frightening. To be credible a safeguard must be provided just as it is in the legislation providing the precedents we should follow.

A farmer appealing against a decision of the Department of Agriculture will find it difficult to believe in the independence of the appeals officer hearing his case if he knows the officer holds his job "at the pleasure of the Minister". Will he not be inclined to believe that the appeals officer is unlikely to rock the boat? Any farmer who watched the series "Yes, Minister" will remember how the permanent secretary used to get his way with the Minister's private secretary. He would gently remind the private secretary that his promotional prospects and his future career depended on his playing ball with the Department. To impose an independence requirement on people who are locked into the Department's promotional and hierarchical structure is to expect a level of saintliness that no legislation can guarantee. Rather than expect the impossible we should follow the precedents that already exist.

There is worse to come. Section 3 gives the first mention of the director of agriculture appeals. Rather than setting up an independent office, the holder of which would be the boss, this Bill makes it clear that the director is nothing more than a title. There is no attempt to vest the appeals process in the director. There is no specification of his or her functions. It does not even specify that the other appeals officers are responsible to the director and it gives him or her no function in appointing them.

In regard to every one of the safeguards we find in the legislation providing precedents this Bill falls short. I described it at the outset as inadequate. I now go further and say that the appeals process set out in this Bill is nothing short of a sham. This sham will not convince the farming community it is intended to serve. I appeal to the Minister to take this Bill back to the drawing board. He should persuade his people to look at the precedents and follow them. Then he should return to the House with either a new Bill or amendments for Committee Stage that will create the basis for a credible independent appeals structure. If the Minister is anxious to give credibility to this Bill, he should rethink the aspects I have highlighted.

Mr. Gibbons

I propose to share my time with Senator Chambers.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Agreed ? Agreed.

Mr. Gibbons

I agree with Senator Quinn regarding yesterday's announcement from Europe on BSE. As an exporter of agricultural products, we need to be cognisant of what European consumers think. Irish consumers have never been well served by consumer organisations. They are in a state of total confusion, which is added to on a daily basis. Yesterday's actions of the scientific steering committee created further erroneous confusion. This country's procedures cannot be questioned, especially when compared to those of Portugal and the United Kingdom. We test all meat from animals over the age of 30 months that we put on the market. All available scientific methods are being used.

As far as can be ascertained scientifically, the beef we sell is safe, although safety can never be fully guaranteed. In my business I am often asked to judge whether a tree is in danger of falling. It would be quite easy for me to say that a tree should be felled because I could not guarantee that it would not fall. A similar attitude prevails in the beef industry. No matter what measures are introduced to provide safety, niggling doubts remain. Consumers are being badly failed by Europe and by the industry, because their confusion is being disregarded.

I urge the Minister to argue for the reversal of yesterday's outrageous decision. The fact that we are the major beef exporting nation in Europe makes me wonder as to the motives behind the decision. Consumers face a greater risk from microbes such as salmonella and f2>e coli than from beef.

Mrs. A. Doyle

Campylobacter

Mr. Gibbons

There has been scaremongering regarding the use of pesticides and insecticides, which I have a problem with. Testing of food products, for example the LD 50 test, is of a high standard. The danger to humans comes from salmonella and f2>e coli, and not BSE. We need to think of food safety in a positive way. There are problems that need to be addressed.

I welcome this Bill, which is worthwhile and badly needed. I congratulate the Minister and his Department. Unlike Senator Quinn, I see one weakness in this Bill. Section 8(1) states, ".the decision shall, on notice of appeal being given to the Director, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed form, be referred to an appeals officer". My problem relates to the time it may take to decide on an appeal. Section 10(1) states:

The decision of an appeals officer and the reasons for making that decision shall be notified in writing to the appellant. The Minister may issue guidelines to appeals officers with respect to the time within which a decision of an appeals officer should be notified to an appellant.

I suggest that a timeframe of four weeks be specified.

Mr. Chambers

The Minister assured this House during debate on the national beef assurance scheme that an appeals system would be established. This House discussed the structure of the appeals system. I am glad that the Minister, with the Commission, his Department and the Government, decided upon the statutory establishment of an appeals system.

At a time when the processes and functions of agriculture are at a delicate stage, there is a need for assurance. Many factors are putting pressure on the agricultural industry and are surmounting the appropriateness of this Bill. The Department of Agriculture has a huge influence on the finances of a large proportion of the people. This Bill should uphold the principles of natural justice, openness and transparency. It will include payments from FEOGA and various other rural development schemes. This Bill's incorporation of all payments to farmers by the Department of Agriculture is is a welcome move.

Farming organisations have often criticised the inflexibility of the Department. Departmental officials have always attempted to be fair within the scheme and the regulations. However, the flexibility allowed in some appeals was very limited. The scheme's structure was very strong in that it did not take account of innocent mistakes made when people were making applications for claims. Like all other sectors, agriculture is so regulated that people who made mistakes were deducted money for two years. I know of people who had to rear six, seven and eight children, pay a mortgage and run a small farm but no flexibility was shown. My colleagues and I have strongly requested the Minister to set up the appeals system.

Senator Quinn made important points regarding the independence of the scheme. The appeals system is set up on the basis of openness, transparency, fairness and natural justice and it is important that these principles apply throughout the process. It is important that few cases go to the Ombudsman. If the appeals system in successful and if natural justice is at its core the Bill will allow us to function properly and satisfy the concerns and needs of the farming community. I welcome the section of the Bill under which the Ombudsman retains the right to examine cases. To some extent this ensures the principle behind the Bill.

I welcome the Bill which is an important development and I look forward to monitoring its success.

Mrs. A. Doyle

I welcome the Minister. I also welcome the principle of the Bill, but I share the concerns expressed by other Senators regarding the independence of the system. Will the Minister examine the system for appointing appeals officers which is well established in other areas, such as in the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs? If there is any question as to the independence or integrity of the appeals system it will negate the purpose for which it will be established.

It has taken a long time for the Department to produce the Bill. Three years ago I was vice-chairman of the strategic management committee chaired by Deputy Roche. The committee reviewed the quality customer services programmes of all Departments. The first programme we tackled in 1998 was the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development's customer services plan. The Secretary General was very good and gave his time to the committee. In addition, farming organisations, farmers and the Commission all made their case. What was clear from these submissions was that, after delays in payments, the one bugbear regarding the Department was the absence of an independent appeals system.

The Secretary General gave the impression that the EU would not allow an independent appeals system. This is all documented and I refer Senators to Deputy Roche's document. The impression was given that the Commission was reluctant and that it would be very difficult to establish an independent appeals systems under current EU structures. However, the view expressed by the Commission's representative was completely at variance with that of the Secretary General.

There was always a reluctance within the Department to go down this road. The Department even blamed the EU and its systems, such as the cheque in the post scheme. However, the Commission's representative stated that it had no difficulty with an appeals system so long as the results of the appeals respect the terms and conditions of the different schemes. However, that goes without saying as it is taxpayers' money and we have to be seen to be accountable for how money is spent.

There is an ongoing problem with the manner in which the Department handles appeals from farmers. I will not go into the different schemes as they are there for all to see. Farmers felt they were being criminalised for human errors by the attitude of certain departmental officials at different levels. Human error was automatically equated with fraud. What was done was appalling.

Apart from mistakes, the length of time it took to respond to queries before a cheque was issued was totally unacceptable to a large number of farmers who were totally dependent on the cheque in the post for their net income. This was particularly the case for dry stock farmers, but it also applied across the board.

I do not mean to be pejorative when using the word "bureaucrats", but when viewed by a farmer in a muddy field in the middle of January looking at the barren landscape, the bureaucrats in Dublin could not understand that farmers were totally dependent for their income on the whim of someone taking out the file and resolving the matter. Officials did not even indicate to farmers that there was a problem or the nature of the problem which gave rise to the review of the case. Farmers knew nothing other than they did not have their cheques.

From time to time public representatives' clinics have been full with cases of delayed payments. The Minister must be more aware of that than any of us as he must have been plagued by this issue. I will give a personal example of what I am talking about. I have an independent income, my family is reared and we have not had to depend on the cheque in the post, even though we always welcomed it. We joined REPS six years ago. The first payment came through and we filled in the forms. However, in each of the following four years I had to battle from March until almost Christmas Eve to get my cheque. We had done nothing wrong and I had letters from the Department to prove my case. However, the matter went round the house several times. If my family had been depending on the payment as our sole income with, perhaps, five children in school and no other income, we would have faced a crisis. However, we were poorly treated and there were delays in rectifying matters whereby four different people had to have a say. This continued even when the section moved to Johnstown Castle. This went on until last autumn when I received my last cheque and I laughed.

Each year the query was the same. I pointed out that it had been resolved in the second year and showed the letter from the official who is now in the Ombudsman's office. He wrote to me outlining that the file was in order and that I was entitled to my payment. However, every year the matter went through the hoop and I received the cheque eight months after I should have done. In the end I laughed and told the official I would get my cheque. Each year he or she would say I would not get a cheque but each year I received it as I knew I was right.

However, not everyone is as contrary or persistent as me. Thankfully we were not dependent on these payments. I am speaking from personal experience as someone who was helping thousands of others to get their payments yet I could not even get mine until the eleventh hour. How did or does the ordinary farmer who does not have time to pursue to system as I did survive?

The system must be independent. The Bill amends the Ombudsman's Act but does not state that the right to appeal to the Ombudsman is still vested with the farmer if he or she is unhappy with the appeals system. The right to go to court is mentioned but not the right to an Ombudsman's review. Will the Minister clarify that this right still exists if there is still a disagreement after a farmer has gone through the appeals system? I presume the reason the Ombudsman's Act is referred to is that this right is there. The change made in the Ombudsman Act is not clear. Perhaps the Minister will put on the record that the right to review by the Ombudsman remains.

I welcome the principle of the Bill. I ask the Minister to consider much of what Senator Quinn said. If this is not independent and seen to be so by the farming public and those who have a cause to use the offices, if the appointments of the appeals officers are not seen to be strictly independent and if the system for replacing appeals officers is not seen to be strictly transparent and understandable, we will bring into disrepute a system which has been years in coming. I commend Deputy Roche's committee for the work it did in highlighting the need for this system. There has been a clamour across the House for an appeals system and at last we have got it. I would have loved an independent agency to handle all the money coming in by way of European schemes and cheques. The farmers will take comfort from the appeals system. There is a list of questions the ICMSA and the IFA want answered and I ask the Minister to refer to them when replying.

Perhaps the Minister will indicate what he is doing in Europe to help farmers who sold healthy young prime cattle in November and December before the destruction scheme with the top up money was introduced. They took a severe hit in the autumn sales of beef. It is an ongoing sore and I would love to know the Minister's views. He has indicated to the ICMSA that he will ask Europe about it. Who will he ask in Europe? Who will I table a parliamentary question to in support of his request for Europe's concession?

Mr. Joe Walsh

Commissioner Fischler.

Mrs. A. Doyle

I would be delighted to support any case the Minister may make. Perhaps he will indicate what case he has made so we can put on the green T-shirt and tog out in support of the Minister.

Mr. Callanan

I add my voice to the concern expressed by the Minister and everyone else about T-bone steaks. I intend to continue to have my T-bone steak, regardless of what any bureaucrat in Europe says because it is the best food. I am surprised concern has not been voiced about cheap imported German beef which was identified in a processing plant in the Twenty-six Counties – I think it was in Monaghan – in the past few days. Now that we are issuing licences for the production, processing and importing of goods people who import material of doubtful quality should have their licence revoked immediately. Penalties must be introduced to stop this practice because it brings into disrepute the good name of Irish beef. I call on the farming organisations to lend their weight to this and I invite the Minister to pay particular attention to it because it is doing damage.

I welcome the independence of the appeals system. However, I disagree with Senator Quinn because I do not want this Bill to be similar to that related to An Bord Pleanála or the National Roads Authority which is not answerable to any Minister or Government the people elect. I would rather the democratic process prevails over all else. I do not mind who the Minister is or to what party he or she belongs once the democratic process is protected. I hope Senator Quinn does not mind me saying that. This Bill, like the Social Welfare Bill, is part of the democratic process.

I support what Senator Gibbons said about the timescale. I understand the difficulties with mapping etc. Perhaps the four weeks Senator Gibbons mentioned is too short but the 12 weeks provided for in the Bill is rather lengthy. The point has been made that these 28 schemes are solely income related. They are there to assist farmers and to provide them with a source of income. Farmers depend on these payments. I depend on the small cheque in the brown envelope, which has been improved. I hope the Minister ensures we continue to get it on time. The Minister has ensured in the past two or three years that the payments under these schemes will be made quickly.

Concern has been expressed about plans which are not signed under these schemes. This means the farmer is left without recourse to anything and without knowing who is responsible for the plan. My planner in the south is a Teagasc adviser and he signs all the plans which are required to be drawn up under these schemes. Doubt has been expressed about whether some independent people sign them. I urge the Minister to ensure that the people involved in drawing up plans do their job properly because farmers' livelihoods are at stake. If a plan is found to be faulty, the planner, who accepted £300, £400 or £500 to draw it up, must accept responsibility. I ask the Minister to include a provision in the Bill that the people involved in drawing up plans must sign them and accept responsibility if there is a fault.

The independent board must be objective and sympathetic and understand farmers' requirements. Farmers do not set out to defraud people when filling out forms. They may put a tick in the wrong place or write the wrong number but that should be seen as a genuine mistake. I am delighted the Minister and his officials are bringing the penalties into line with the extent of the crime. The crime is a mistake.

Mrs. A. Doyle

It is proportional.

Mr. Callanan

If a person makes a genuine mistake and it is accepted as such, there should not be a penalty. Part and full payments come into question when an adjudication is made. If a payment is due, it should be paid within a specified time. I ask the Minister to ensure that is included in the Bill.

Everyone who makes an appeal should have the right to an oral hearing. These oral hearings should be regionalised, rather than all being heard in Dublin, so that farmers' needs are met. Therefore, I suggest the line "an appeals' officer shall hold an oral hearing" be included.

This is a good and worthwhile Bill. It has been sought by the farming organisations and by many people. I am chairman of a committee which assisted in convincing the relevant powers that it should be done. It is not an adverse reflection on departmental officials, but there is a perception that such an independent body should exist and I am glad it is now coming about.

Dr. Henry

I welcome the Minister to the House. Like Senator Quinn I am not very enthusiastic about the Bill. Far too frequently the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development appears to be policing itself, and this is another example of that, particularly given that the appointment of the chief appeals officer, who will be the director, and his or her deputy will be made by the Minister. These are grace and favour appointments and there will be great difficulty in anyone having the view that this is an independent appeals authority while the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has such total control over the appeals procedure.

Like other Senators, I wish to address the BSE problem, which I have always described as a disaster as we have been going from bad to worse over the past few years. The banning of Irish T-bone steaks, something I do not eat much, is patently ridiculous. The precautionary principle is foremost within the thinking of those in the Commission and on the various scientific bodies, but for a very long time I have been urging that we address this as a public health problem and examine the risk analysis factor. I said this to the Minister at a meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs where Deputy Walsh said that, when asked, the Spanish Minister for Agriculture said he was dealing with the BSE crisis in his country on his own. I regret the Minister, Deputy Walsh, has also been dealing with it on his own. We should have been hearing much more from the Minister for Health and Children. New variant CJD is not contracted from eating beef, but from eating infected beef. However, people now have the notion that one can get if from eating any beef. We badly need a proper public health debate on this, led by the Minister for Health and Children.

Another very serious issue is the disposal of the remains of cattle being slaughtered, which is a matter for the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development will have to get tough and tell his two Cabinet colleagues that there are people in the Seanad who expect to hear from both of them. I expect to hear from the Minister for Health and Children regarding the public health issue and from the Minister for the Environment and Local Government regarding disposal of these animals. The issue concerns these Departments and it is not helpful that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development is thrashing around in the middle.

It is also very worrying that there is no clear line of division of responsibility between the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food Safety Authority and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, which causes great concern among consumers. This is why the Minister's two colleagues must talk about the areas for which they are responsible. One is responsible for the Food Safety Authority and the other is responsible for the Environmental Protection Agency. I am quite sure the Minister, Deputy Walsh, has good knowledge in the area, but it would be good if his two colleagues gave us more information.

I understand the concern of Senator Hayes about the stumbling cow. My real concern is that a stumbling cow will be pictured beside a newspaper with today's date, like they do with hostages, to show that they still exist. That would be really serious and it is why I regret that the plea by Mr. Pat O'Rourke of the ICMSA to have older cows killed sooner is not examined. The incubation period is between two and ten years, so we could have many five to seven year old cows which are fit and well to look at but which are incubating the disease. I wish this matter was a priority, but apparently that cannot happen at present.

It is very good that the Commission has banned mechanically removed meat as it was a disgusting problem. The good fortune we have had in not having so many cases of new variant CJD may be due to the fact that that process was not used so much here in comparison to England, where it was very popular in the making of all sorts of pies, sausages etc. The traceability schemes must be enforced as they are most important.

This disaster is costing us a fortune, not just in the area of agriculture. The destruction of cattle scheme will probably have a final cost of about £1 billion. What is the cost of the disaster to the blood bank? Not only are there huge increases in the cost of producing a unit of blood – it was increased by 25% the other day – but there is a serious situation as a result of having to refuse so many people as donors, resulting in the cancellation of elective operations throughout the country, which is disastrous. I am extremely concerned about the possible threat to the dairy industry and the foolish considerations being given to the fact that the disease could be transmitted through milk. I have found no scientific evidence for that, nor have I yet found scientific evidence – I have asked about it several times in the House – of transmission through ground water, something raised by Commissioner Fischler. Perhaps Senator Doyle will ask the Commissioner about that when she meets him as it was an incredible statement with no scientific basis.

This is an important Bill. Senators have said the appeals system will exist to deal with penalties which are considered too harsh. However, what if the appeals director considers the penalties are too lenient, which could happen? There are still some appalling cases of farmers thinking they can do what they like in terms of food. Premiums are paid for by taxpayers who are entitled to feel that those people who receive them are fulfilling their obligations under the various schemes. Therefore, we must take on board the fact that an appeals officer may decide the penalty was not half enough. For example, I recall a man in west Cork who was injecting slurry etc., pretending his herd had tuberculosis.

How long has the tuberculosis scheme been in operation? Recently I received figures from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development which show there are still herds presenting with bovine TB, which is spread to humans. There are people, particularly in the west, who now and then get TB from infected animals. Those who are paying for premiums are entitled to know they are getting somewhere. I was a small child when the TB eradication scheme was introduced, not to mind the brucellosis scheme. There are still herds infected with brucellosis. I am always being told about the role of badgers in this regard, but there are also badgers in Northern Ireland which does not seem to have the same problem with tuberculosis and brucellosis.

An Cathaoirleach

May I interrupt Senator Henry for a moment, please? The order of the House this morning was that this item would conclude at 1 o'clock. It is now 1 o'clock but I understand that the Taoiseach will not be available for approximately a further ten minutes. If the House agrees, we can continue with this item until the Taoiseach is available. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Henry

The Dry Stock Farmer and Teagasc's Farm and Food magazines are both excellent and I keep them in my waiting room. My patients find them very interesting too. However, every solitary article on beef is about quantity, not quality, and this is very serious. We have to be able to say that we are producing quality beef. The research done at Moorepark showed that grass-fed animals have a better form of fatty acid. My own profession has been critical of the quantity of red meat we eat in this country and the possibility of it being an important factor in heart disease. It must be stressed that the issue concerns the weight of cattle. Animals do not seem to be finished until they are an incredible size. I do not know why we cannot sell younger animals on the basis of quality. I recommend this month's Farm and Food magazine which contains two excellent articles about different qualities of beef.

Every time we discuss BSE schemes in the House most Senators talk about the compensation farmers will receive rather than the future of farming which looks very gloomy the way things are going.

Ms O'Meara

I welcome the Bill and the principle behind it is an excellent one which we should all support. However, I do have some reservations about it to which I will refer in a moment. Like other Senators, I want to comment on the BSE issue, the crisis of confidence in elements of the food sector and the effect that is having not only on the industry but also on consumers. Today's news from the European Commission only adds to our sense of incredulity about how the Commission is dealing with this matter. The destruction scheme announced before Christmas has been met with astonishment by consumers and producers alike. It was presented as a measure designed to restore public confidence in the quality and safety of our beef but, in fact, it has had the opposite effect. I wonder what level of thinking is going on in the European Commission.

Another speaker referred to a panic reaction by the European Commission and I would agree that there is a certain amount of panic in the Commission's reaction. Presenting the destruction scheme as a public health measure on the one hand while describing it as a market intervention measure on the other can only have the effect of undermining public confidence. It also raises a crucial issue in the debate which is the potential conflict between trying to maintain the industry while ensuring that consumers' concerns about food safety are placed at centre stage. Increasingly I am doubtful whether that can be done by the same Department. I am not saying the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development is not doing a good job. In many ways, my heart goes out to him because of the disastrous things that are occurring at the moment and the sense of crisis that has enveloped the whole sector. However, we must consider the need to divide the issues of agriculture and food in order to protect the agricultural industry while at the same time ensuring that the public has confidence in the food sector. I hope that things get better and will not get any worse. I am not sure they can get any worse.

Senator Gibbons listed all the food safety issues that have come our way in recent years. Food safety has to be one of the most critical issues facing Irish agriculture and it shows no signs of going away.

An Cathaoirleach

Could I ask Senator O'Meara to move the adjournment of the debate, as I understand the Taoiseach is now available?

It does not matter. I was in transit from Brussels at that time. I have my mandate from the people of Leinster who know what they have got. Thank you, Senator Kiely. I appeal, through you, a Chathaoirligh, to the Leader of the House to consider this matter. The Labour Party spokesperson is in possession and she has a difficulty. I could have been here, and the Labour spokesperson and Senator Connor could have finished, but because there was no indication that we were going to resume at 4 p.m. they allowed me to go ahead.

Ms O'Meara

I had no indication that we were to resume this debate at 4 p.m.If I had know that I could have made other arrangements to share time but I have not even referred to the substantial part of the Bill yet. Unfortunately, I have commitments which mean that I will have left the House by 4 p.m. I would appeal to the Leader on this matter.

Mr. Cassidy
Share

In light of the requests made by various Opposition speakers I can defer this debate until next week, with the Minister's kind consent.

Mrs. A. Doyle
Share

I thank the Leader for his understanding.

Ms O'Meara
Share

Thank you.

An Cathaoirleach
Share

That resolves the matter.

Debate adjourned.

Tenth Report of the Committee of Selection: Motion.

Back to table of contents

Nice Summit: Statements.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 8 Feb 2001

Agriculture Appeals Bill, 2001: Second Stage (Resumed).

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Feb 2001