SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND THE MARINE debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jun 2000

Vol. 3 No. 3

Milk Quota Rights Group.

Mr. Connaughton

I will be very brief as the Minister and his officials are familiar with this issue. The chairman of the group is Mr. Donal Shine, whom the Minister knows extremely well. It represents 1,300 individuals who were considered to be development farmers in 1983-84. I have met the group on several occasions, as have the Minister's officials, the committee and the Fianna Fáil and Labour Party groupings.

There are a number of matters which it is important to clarify. We are dealing with a cohort of farmers who in 1983 - I readily admit that Fianna Fáil was not in power at the time - were working to a farm development plan. Teagasc, or ACOT as it was then known, was of the view that they would have to increase milk output if they were to have any hope of viability. This is documented in the Department and Farm Development Service offices and gets over the problem of identification.

The Minister's officials said that as many as 1,300 might be involved - the number who participated in the scheme. With this in mind I put it to the group that it should be in a position to identify exactly whom it was talking about. It informed me that the number was 1,300. I now understand that two other categories will be omitted. It was intended originally that even those whose plan expired in 1982 would be included but I informed the group that I could not see how they could be covered. It also agrees with my view that to be included one should still be in milk production. This is the category of farmer we are talking about. This represents a change in its position.

The Department states that, because of the lapse of time, it is not possible to deal with the matter. There are many precedents, however, for legislating to overcome the problem of retrospection. I do not know the exact number but it appears that between six and ten of the former group of 105 - it is important not to mix up the two - have won their case against the Department in the courts and received compensation. The remaining cases are pending. While I am not appealing on their behalf, I cannot understand the reason the Department is making them go through the courts at huge cost to the State when the case has already been made successfully.

There are three questions I wish to ask - my colleagues may have 23. Does the Minister accept that it is possible to identify from the files in the Department those who were considered to be in the development farmer category in 1983? Does he accept that, through no fault of their own, they were prevented from attaining viability through obtaining extra milk quota, the only mechanism open to them at the time in the view of the farm advisory service, and have as a consequence spent many hard years trying to overcome this impediment? I am certain the Minister knows some of those involved. Does he accept that, where individuals are hard done by because of changes to the law, in natural justice it is up to the State, in this instance the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, to put the matter right? There are many precedents for this. Where does the Department stand on this category of farmer?

Mr. Penrose

We have met the milk rights group in question on numerous occasions. As Deputy Connaughton said, we tried to help the Department by pinpointing a certain category which we asked the group to define as it could be unlimited. I was involved in the agricultural consultancy business for a number of years and I remember clearly that a large number of farmers drew up farm development plans in the late 1970s and early 1980s which were fuelled by a European principle of law. They were devised in a planned way with Teagasc, ACOT as it was then, and based on the farm modernisation plan in the legitimate expectation that they would be allocated quota. The Supreme Court found in the Duff case in 1997 - the 104 plaintiffs to whom Deputy Connaughton referred - that there was a mistake in law in the method used by the Department to allocate milk quota in 1983. This proved damaging and the compensation element is now being determined in litigation.

Some are of the view that there are as many points to be made in relation to each plaintiff as the number of cases in court. I will not take issue with them or trespass in that domain as the Minister is being advised by the Attorney General. The only point I would make is that if they were to take a case now the Minister would be able to avail of a defence under the Statute of Limitations, of which he should not be able to avail, that is, the lapse of time. This is a technical legal defence which has been availed of in many other instances, including the Army deafness compensation cases, but given that the Supreme Court has made its decision it would be foolish to avail of it at this stage. It would not be the right way to proceed. I do not know how many are involved but the Minister will be able to determine the actual number through the local offices, apart from the 104 already referred to. Deputy Connaughton said the original 1,200 or 1,300 might be slimmed down by 1,000. It may be of major concern to the Minister that there is a defined number.

The Minister is faced with a dilemma. We must recognise that people have already acquired status through the leasing of extra quota and being granted quota by the Department. That cannot be trespassed upon because people are working on the basis of what they have and that it will not be reduced in any way. This group considers that what the Minister has negotiated under Agenda 2000 allows flexibility to examine the position and to allocate additional quota. Given that we all aspire to keep as many farms as possible in rural areas viable, we must accept that some farmers need additional quota to maintain a livelihood. The failure to provide it is a worry.

At the end of the day the Minister can be flexible in respect of 11.5 million gallons. This is a matter he might discuss with the representatives of the farming organisations, ICOS and all those involved to ascertain whether a scheme could be drawn up involving a combination of additional quota from this reserve and, possibly, some compensation for losses which may have occurred on a measurable basis. He will have a measurable basis arising from the controversial case which was before the courts in 1997 and which has been determined by each High Court case that has been decided. It is important that the Minister has a measure and is not going into unknown territory. It would be preferable if the matter were sorted out on an amicable basis rather than getting involved in the costly court process. I profess an interest here in that somebody like me has benefited from the process from time to time.

Irrespective of the Minister's argument, it is perceived that there was an injustice and that it should be rectified. That is the underlying position. I do not wish to go any further because the Minister knows there is a problem and he should try to meet it in some way. This matter has come before us, we have tried to listen, to take account of all sides of the debate and to make a reasonable recommendation to the Minister. This is what we have arrived at. I hope the Minister and his officials will come to an amicable conclusion on this matter.

Mr. Finucane

I have no intention of being repetitive. My colleagues have explained the background to this matter. I am pleased Mr. O'Donnell from the Department is present because he is familiar with the situation, having met the committee on a previous occasion when we discussed it at length. This would appear to be the main area of contention in the Department. There is quite a number of farmers in Mick White's group. While they say there are up to 1,000 involved the Department considers the number may be much greater. We put it to the Department previously that one way of finding out is to do research as the files are available.

At Deputy Connaughton's meeting with the group last week reference was made to the farmers involved in the plan in 1983 and who stayed in milk production. That is a telling statement from their point of view. The group said also in a fax received today that it was fairly flexible about either monetary compensation or quota compensation or a combination. I think the group recognises that, perhaps, the Minister's hands are tied when it comes to milk quota.

A number of people in this category in County Limerick have approached me. Some 104 people took a case to court and won. These people consider that if they have won their case and the merits of the case were identified, it is wrong to debar these people from consideration and that they should be justified in getting some form of compensation from the Department. As a starting point the Department will have to try determine the numbers involved.

It is interesting to note that the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill, is going through the House. If time is a debarring criterion - my learned colleague Deputy Penrose would know about this - I am sure it would be possible to include a provision in that legislation. I understand this is the legal shield behind which the Minister and his officials are hiding. This group will not go away. It has been ringing us consistently and meeting us. While I hope the matter can be brought to an amicable conclusion and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr. Walsh

I welcome the opportunity to listen to the case on behalf of this aggrieved group. The Department's position is based on legal advice. The legal advice is that no provision has been made for any other cases, persons or groups other than the plaintiffs in the Duff case and that any action by such person is statute barred. That is the clear advice to me. Nonetheless, and without prejudice, the Department met this group on 27 April and listened to its case. Its case was, and it has been alluded to here, that there is some flexibility now with 11.5 million gallons of milk under Agenda 2000 and that it is coming up for distribution among various categories. Its attitude was that it was trying to keep the group as tight as possible and that those currently in milk production felt they should be considered for an allocation of milk from that category. The Department officials who met them gave them a good hearing and got some additional statistics from them with a view to seeing how they could be catered for.

There has been in the Department for some considerable time a milk quota review group made up of the farming organisations, ICOS, creameries and so on. It makes recommendations to the Minister of the day from time to time in relation to the distribution of quota and all aspects of quota management. I take its recommendations seriously. In respect of the 11.5 million gallons I said, without prejudice, that the Department met with these people. They make the case that they are entitled to this milk because of a legitimate expectation when they drew up their farm development plans.

Young people call into the Department and say they embarked on a Teagasc course and acquired a green certificate and have hardly any quota and ask what the Department is educating them for if they cannot get the wherewithal to earn a decent living. The single biggest problem I have had in relation to agriculture and demands from individual farmers in the past 15 years or so has been for additional quota. It has been like gold dust and it is not easy to deal with it. Following the recent changes in respect of the management of the quota some people were of the view that we did not do the right thing and that we should have done it another way. It was done in an effort to try to make additional milk quota available to those farmers seriously engaged in milk production.

With regard to this case, the Department met this group and noted the case it made. It will be included among those for consideration by the milk quota review group. I am precluded from saying anything further than that. We have far greater detail on this matter than we had initially.

In reply to Deputy Connaughton's question, I am sure it is possible to trace the development of this matter. Files must be available within the Department. Therefore, I am sure it is possible to do that. That is the up to date position.

Mr. Connaughton

I thank the Minister for his reply. If the milk quota rights group was present, it would not be happy with his reply, but there is nothing we can do about that today. A major problem in the Department has been that nobody knew how major a problem this would be and that is still not known. If it transpired that such trawl was carried out, at least people would know the extent of the problem. Many farmers got out of milk production. This group is not fighting on behalf of those farmers, which means that substantially fewer farmers are involved than there were initially. If nothing else, such a trawl should be carried out. There has been no shortage of trawls in Departments down the years. Therefore, such a trawl is nothing new. If such a trawl were carried out to establish the number of farmers involved, the Department would be able to establish the extent of the problem. It will come down to whether milk quota will be available through the normal conduit or whether compensation will be provided. Such a trawl would be a step in the right direction.

Mr. Walsh

I understand from the officials that at the last meeting that group was making a major play for the additional milk quota that is available. The compensation culture is fairly new to many Departments. The various compensation claims under different heads involves a sizeable amount of money.

Chairman

As a vote has been called, we will finish this section. Does the Minister wish to conclude?

Mr. Walsh

We have met the group and matters are being quantified in greater detail. The milk quota review group will deal with its case and make recommendations to me on it.

Sitting suspended at 4.35 p.m. and resumed at 4.50 p.m.