Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 Apr 1999

Vol. 503 No. 7

Priority Questions. - Grant Payments.

Willie Penrose

Ceist:

19 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has received the report of the all-party Oireachtas committee which has examined the quality of consumer service provided by his Department; the plans, if any, he has to make submissions to the EU Commission seeking to have some of the regulations dealing with support payments and subsidies amended to ameliorate some of the harshness deriving from the strict application thereof in view of the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11071/99]

Mr. Walsh

I have already issued a statement responding to the report referred to by the Deputy in which I said that in drawing up the detailed EU rules arising from the Agenda 2000 reforms I would insist that the Commission delivers on its commitment to administrative simplification. I would also like to see a greater degree of proportionality in the application of penalties.

I am conscious of the importance of these direct payments to farmers, representing, as they did, some 56 per cent of farm incomes in 1998. This proportion is set to increase in the coming years following from the successful outcome of the Agenda 2000 negotiations. I have always stressed the importance of keeping scheme documentation as simple as possible and it is my objective that the improvements in delivery of these payments which have been achieved in recent years is built on and that the service provided by my Department to farmers is efficient, fair, friendly and transparent.

Application forms have been simplified each year in consultation with the farming bodies and client friendly help sheets are provided for applicants under the various schemes. The all-party committee report confirms that the European Commission had indicated to the committee that the forms used in Ireland were easier to understand than those used by other member states. I fully acknowledge that the incorrect transcription or misreading of cattle identification numbers has been an ongoing problem in the completion of application forms. In this regard the introduction of printed cattle identification documents and the use of associated bar coding, which obviates the need for entering identification numbers, is now in use for most applications processed under the special beef premium schemes. This should substantially eliminate this particular cause of error.

My aim is to ensure that the possibility for mistakes and misunderstandings in completing scheme applications is minimised and I will be keeping in close contact with the farm bodies and Teagasc on this matter. Penalties for technical breaches of the regulations are set out in clear terms under the EU regulations. I should also point out that, in their oral presentation to the all-party committee, the European Commission representatives pointed out that the number of penalties imposed under the special beef premium scheme in Ireland "rather pointed to a reluctance to impose sanctions than the opposite."

In so far as delivery of these payments is concerned, a recent analysis of performance across member states confirmed that Ireland's performance in delivering the direct payment schemes is among the best in the EU and compares very favourably with that of other member states. For example, for most schemes Ireland rated between first and fifth among the 15 member states in terms of early payment in the 1997/8 scheme year. Ireland was first, for example, in the arable aid and ewe premium schemes, third in the suckler cow scheme and fifth in the special beef premium scheme. I am satisfied that we can build on that achievement over the coming years.

Mr. Penrose

Has the Minister seen a copy of this report because I do not think any of the rest of us has? We rely on leaks to find out what is happening, although I made a contribution to the committee's examination of it. I see it as a useful summary of events which have unfolded over the past few years.

Is it true that it is suggested in the report that a properly resourced independent appeals system should be established to deal with farmers' complaints, that such an appeals system, which would be independent, readily accessible, quick to respond, properly resourced and empowered to enforce its decisions, would be similar to the social welfare appeals system and that farmers would have an opportunity to present oral evidence at such appeals?

Why was the use of affidavits done away with, where somebody makes a simple error or wants to verify that he or she left the form at a particular office and swears on oath that he or she did so? Why is that no longer acceptable to the Department? Is it because the EU instructed the Department not to permit it? I find it extraordinary that the use of an affidavit, a solemn declaration on oath, of a farmer that he or she submitted the forms has been rejected by the Department.

The Minister stated that they indicated that a principle of law has developed in this country and in the European Court of Justice on proportionality. Is it the Minister's intention to ensure that that principle of law would guide the interpretation of regulations by his officials?

I heard a senior official of the Department state that one should not blame the Department's officials, and I agree. It was politicians of all parties who went to Brussels and agreed the schemes. Does the Minister intend to go to Brussels and seek the amendment of regulations which impose draconian penalties on farmers for human errors?

Mr. Ring

Hear, hear.

Mr. Penrose

It is no use paying lip service to this. I come across instances of this. The harshness of the penalties imposed on farmers, who make the simplest of human errors due to ignorance, should be challenged in court.

Mr. Ring

What about when the Department makes the mistakes?

Mr. Walsh

I have a copy of this report and I hope every Member of the House has a copy. This is a report of an all-party Oireachtas committee on the strategic management initiative. I assumed that everybody had a copy of it. If Deputy Penrose does not have a copy, I suggest that the Clerk to the Committee be contacted and asked to make it available to every Member.

It is an important report. I am studying the recommendations in it. As the Deputy correctly stated, one of the recommendations of the report is 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.

There is a large amount of money paid to producers in Ireland in direct payments and other wise. The EU Commission official who met the committee stated that the Department of Agriculture and Food must operate within the rules and regulations of the Commission to ensure that EU moneys are properly spent; if the Department fails to operate the rules and regulations properly, this would lead to a financial correction or prosecution in the European Court; and control systems are required to ensure that EU money is properly disbursed and accounted for. He emphasised that all controls systems must conform with EU regulations. As late as this morning, the Deputy will have heard on the radio one of the EU auditors talking about the importance of having controls and accountability in the payment of moneys.

Mr. Farrelly

That is not a problem.

Mr. Walsh

Each year there are disallowances and some people are quick to highlight those disallowances. In fact, they do not refer to them as disallowances but as corrupt payments, fraudulent payments, etc. The facts are that Ireland, as a member state, and the Department of Agriculture and Food, as a paying agency, have the responsibility to be accountable for the payments of large amounts of money.

That said, I subscribe to the view that if a person inadvertently makes an error in filling out a form, he or she should not be penalised adversely. There should be some degree of proportionality. There should be a requirement that the intention was inadvertent unless there was prima facie evidence of fraud involved. I am having a look at that.

If an independent appeals body took lenient decisions and it was not part of the Department, nonetheless the Department would be responsible for any disqualifications and disallowances. My understanding is that, for example, the staff in the appeals unit of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs are staff of the Department.

I appreciate the point Deputy Penrose made on behalf of the farmers concerned. I want to make two points in that regard. First, I would ask farmers to be a little more careful in filling out the forms and to read the cards instead of just taking them off the shelf.

Mr. Farrelly

Same old story.

Mr. Walsh

As far as the paying agency, which is the Department of Agriculture and Food, is concerned, it is looking at ways and means of having a more efficient and transparent appeals system which would be seen to be independent also.

Mr. Ring

An outside person.