Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 2000

Vol. 521 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Farm Development Services Scheme.

I thank the Chair for selecting this matter for the Adjournment and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development for coming into the House to reply.

It was with a degree of regret and reluctance that I tabled this item for the Adjournment, but I did so out of a sense of frustration that I and many farmers in County Galway have experienced concerning matters I will relate to the Minister, to which I referred during a short conversation I had with him recently.

I draw his attention to the fact that a litany of serious activities carried out in what appears to be an organised manner by the senior officer of the Galway FDS office is causing serious hardship to many farmers in County Galway. These matters date back a number of years. I will indicate my experience of matters brought to my attention by constituents and colleagues during the past three years.

The first issue relates to a case in County Galway where the Department's regional inspector took it upon himself to investigate a REPS application which complied fully with the terms, conditions and criteria of the scheme, on the basis of an issue not related to the Department. The regional inspector decided that the applicant should be excluded from the scheme on tenuous grounds. The applicant took the Department to court and as a result the Department was ordered immediately to pay in full the grants due to the applicant. Does the Minister consider that an efficient use of staff resources and taxpayers' money?

There are also two cases, with which I am familiar, where the official intimidated and bullied REPS applicants out of the scheme by reducing payments in one case and by expulsion from the scheme in the other. These two applicants had complied fully with the terms and conditions of the scheme existing at that time.

There are several similar cases well know to that official that were approved by him. In one such approved case pertinent information that would have resulted in a different outcome was conveniently ignored and he used his rules to put through and issue a payment on foot of the claim of an applicant who was ineligible to participate in the scheme under the rules the apply to it. I am prepared to supply the Minister with the names and references of all cases I mentioned.

Among the tactics employed in the cases to which I referred are changing the goal posts, when one condition would not stick, another new problem was found to deny the applicants concerned their entitlements; inordinate delays in responding to queries; the removal of material from files requested under the Freedom of Information Act; gross distortion of information on files from third parties in defence of the Department's position on applicants' claims, which was also brought to light as a result of information secured under the FOI Act; and the interrogation of third parties under false pretences.

It has also come to my notice that a possible case involving discrimination on religious grounds has surfaced in the same office. Following representations by several elected representatives and by departmental officials, it was decided to pay the outstanding grant payments due immediately to the applicant concerned. The judgment of that official in that case does not befit the Civil Service of this State.

With regard to staff morale in the Galway office, several staff members, who are farmers or whose family members are involved in farming, are currently or have recently been subject to the most vindictive and personalised investigation of their farming activities. In some cases, these investigations have carried on for years without conclusion. The people concerned consider the investigations are purely an exercise in control and subordination. "Bullying" and "a power trip" are among the terms that were used to describe them to me. It does not require a great imagination to understand what working in the Galway offices of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development is like.

I wish to make a few points on my dealings with the Department generally. I will preface my remarks by saying it is not surprising that the Department regularly features near the top of the Ombudsman's league table.

I have been involved in a case appealed to the Department's appeal unit. I was invited by the principal officer to make an oral submission to the appeal unit on behalf of a constituent. It later transpired that a final decision of the appeal had been made some weeks previous to the oral hearing. In the same case an assistant principal who had made 12 separate comments on the file considered himself suitable to sit on that appeals board.

I stress my raising this matter is not motivated by a personal grudge or party politics. I raise it purely in the interest of fair play and the good name of the Department. I call on the Minister to set up immediately an independent investigation into these matters and particularly the official concerned.

I have the utmost confidence in my Department's ability to meet its obligation to deliver the various schemes in an efficient and fair manner consistent with the regulations set down by the European Commission and consistent with national rules.

I can assure the Deputy and the House that the everyday approach in my Department is to do everything possible to ensure that each and every farmer can obtain the maximum benefit from the schemes. I requested the Department to carry out a nationwide information campaign and meetings that were well attended were held some months ago to ensure farmers were apprised of the details of the various schemes so that they could obtain optimum payments under them.

Payment under the variety of schemes available is central to securing on-farm viability and to the protection of farm incomes. It is also critical to maintaining rural populations as envisaged in the White Paper on Rural Development.

In regard to the specific administrative procedures for the processing of payments, a number of mechanisms are built in to ensure uniform interpretation and application. The careful and considered approach taken is consistent and is common to all schemes and all counties. By way of illustration I will refer to some of the schemes. Applications for the rural environment protection scheme are examined by professional and technical staff in the FDS offices to ensure that they comply with the terms and conditions of the scheme. The examination includes relevant on-farm inspection in accordance with the regulations. In the case of the scheme for early retirement from farming, all new applications are examined by FDS professional staff and the requisite inspections are effected.

The scheme of installation aid for young farmers is administered in accordance with the procedures in place on a national basis. Under the scheme, an application and accompanying document is lodged in the local office of the farm development service. The file is then passed on to an inspector for detailed checking. At that stage if the application and accompanying documentation are found to be in order, a positive recommendation is made. If problems are identified or documents are omitted, the inspector contacts the applicant or the agricultural consultant involved to seek to address and resolve the matter. When and if a recommendation for payment is forwarded to the regional inspector, these are agreed and a sample is subjected to a supervisory check. The appropriate documents are then forwarded to the division where payment is authorised and issued to the applicant. This is the standard procedure countrywide.

Applications under the on-farm investment schemes are also processed in all counties in accordance with standard practice. The scheme documents, which include the terms and conditions of the scheme, are available to each applicant. Detailed guidelines for processing applications are issued to all staff. When an application and accompanying documents are lodged in the local farm development services office of the Department, detailed checks are carried out by administrative and technical staff. If an application is deemed valid, an initial inspection is carried out and a scheme of work is prepared. Standard costings are used in the calculation of grants. The on-farm scheme of work is checked by supervising officers prior to issuing approval to applicants to commence work.

When the Department has been notified that investments have been completed, a pre-payment inspection is carried out. If the investments are completed to the required specification, a calculation of the grant aid payment is prepared. Final checks by two supervising technical officers are then carried out before the project is recommended for payment. Further checks and on-site visits on a random sample of these processed applications are carried out by supervisory officers.

The operation of my Department's schemes is always transparent and open and there is a cohesive and clear checking protocol in place. My officials consult regularly to ensure the uniform application of procedures nationally.

While the various controls and inspections may sometimes be perceived as irksome, they are a fundamental component required by the European Commission and are vital in assuring the Commission and in meeting its stringent audit requirements. My Department's success record in this regard is evident in that the Commission by and large has approved the annual accounts of the schemes without correction.

The Deputy will be aware that my Department has always operated an open door walk in policy for all its clients, customers and farmers especially. Farmers can attend at their local FDS office to discuss any difficulty in regard to the schemes with a view to resolution in accordance with the procedures. In addition, there are a number of appeals arrangements in place and farmers who, following consultation with officials, still have difficulty, are advised of the appropriate appeals mechanisms available.

In the scenario of processing payment to farmers of £1 billion annually, it is inevitable that there will be a number of difficult cases requiring effort with a view to resolution. It is the aim of my Department that the level of such cases will be low. I can assure the Deputy that procedures are being appraised on a continuing basis. Considerable emphasis has been placed on an improved customer service in recent years and, while the situation is not perfect, very considerable progress has been made. A uniform application of the regulations is a critical part of that customer service. If Deputy Burke passes on the specific complaints he mentioned, and the references, I will undertake to have them comprehensively examined and checked and to get back to him.

Barr
Roinn