Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Thursday, 22 Feb 2024

General Scheme of the Agriculture Appeals (Amendment) Bill 2024: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

Apologies have been received from Deputy Michael Collins. I remind members and witnesses and persons in the Public Gallery to turn off their mobile phones.

The purpose of today's meeting is to engage in pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the agriculture appeals (amendment) Bill 2024. The committee will hear from representatives of the agricultural sector.

Witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that they have a full defence in any defamation action in respect of anything they say at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue on the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who want to give evidence from locations outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts. They may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses, outside of the proceedings held by the committee, of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online at a committee meeting when that participation is within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurance on participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts and members should be mindful of this when contributing.

The committee will hear from representatives of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, and the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA. In attendance are: Mr. Francie Gorman, president, Mr. John Curran rural development chair, and Mr. Shane Whelan rural development policy executive, from the IFA; Mr. Dennis Drennan, president, Mr. John Enright, general secretary, and Mr. Paul Smyth, executive secretary of the dairy committee, from the ICMSA, all of whom are attending remotely; Mr. Sean McNamara, president, Mr. Eddie Punch, general secretary, and Mr. Hugh Farrell, animal health and welfare chair, from the ICSA; and Mr. Richard Roddy, president, Mr. John Joe Fitzgerald, vice president, and Mr. Connie Walsh, operations manager, from the INHFA. I welcome all the witnesses. I note that this is Mr. McNamara's first time to appear before the committee here as president of his organisation. I wish him the best of luck for his tenure.

Copies of the opening statements have been circulated to members. The general scheme has been in the oven for a good while. It is good to see it reaching to this point . We very much welcome the opportunity to listen to the farming organisations input on the Bill. As we have four organisations making contributions, I will allocate five minutes to each for their opening statements. The time limits will be enforced. I ask the Mr. Gorman to go first on behalf of the IFA. We will then hear from the ICMSA, the ICSA and the INHFA.

Mr. Francie Gorman

I thank the Chair and the members for the invitation to address the committee today. I am joined by John Curran and Shane Whelan.

In the context of the general scheme, an independent agricultural appeals panel is something for which we have been lobbying for many years. This day has been a long time coming. The establishment of an independent agricultural appeals panel was one of the key recommendations in the Review of the Agriculture Appeals Act, 2001 and operations of the Agriculture Appeals Office, completed and published in December 2017. That is well over six years ago.

The establishment of an independent agriculture appeals review panel was one of the key recommendations included in the review of the Agriculture Appeals Act 2001 and operations of the agriculture appeals office, completed and published in December 2017, well over six years ago now. This independent review group was established by the then Minister for agriculture, Deputy Michael Creed, in response to the concerns of farmers. These concerns are as relevant today as they were then.

The current structure whereby the director of appeals, who is appointed directly by the Minister for agriculture and who reports to the Minister, can hardly be considered fully independent. A similar structure is used in the forestry appeals committee. Similarly, most of the appeals officers came from the Department of agriculture. Under the current appeals structure, they are asked to make important decisions on cases where farmers are appealing decisions made against former colleagues. While we acknowledge that the appeals office does a good job in general, the perception is that officers are effectively Department staff.

The establishment of an independent agricultural appeals review panel would offer potential to ease some of these concerns. However, the proposed model outlined in the general scheme falls well short of what we would expect. The recommendation of the independent review group that an independent chair be appointed has been overlooked. Instead, as with the director of appeals, it is left to the Minister's discretion to appoint the chairperson of the panel. At a minimum, an independent board with independent members should be established. Those members would then select an independent chairperson. Similarly, our proposal for having at least one farmer representative on the independent review panel and any division thereof is specifically provided for in the general scheme. We believe this is a missed opportunity. Farmers must have confidence in the system. The provision of an independent chair and greater farmer representation would certainly give more confidence to stakeholders.

The independent agriculture appeals review panel needs to be established as soon as possible. Its scope needs to be extended to all appeal cases, not solely those relating to the law and-or new facts being presented. During the last Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, programme, over 5,000 appeals were lodged, with a ten-year average of 668 per annum being submitted. The new CAP, which spans the period 2023 to 2027, is fundamentally different from predecessor. There are numerous new schemes and concepts which bring considerably more complexity, administration and bureaucracy for all stakeholders. The transition from a compliance-based scheme to a results-based scheme in particular will increase the potential volume of associated inspections, penalties and appeals relative to previous levels. The same is true for many nationally funded schemes and the Department-administered schemes and programmes that farmers participate in.

The new reality, combined with an increased reliance on third-party farm planners and consultants and the emergence of a new monitoring infrastructure, namely, the area monitoring system, AMS, which, across Europe, has been shown to increase significantly the number of ground inspections required, will, in turn, likely increase the number of reviews and appeals needed. We need a fully functioning, independent and efficient appeals process. The reality is that some of the penalties being imposed by the Department are now higher than would normally apply in a court of law. The consequences for individual farmers are significant. The process must be robust and it has to be seen to be fair and transparent.

We have a list of how important the direct payments are to the various different sectors. I will not go into that.

In addition to the need for greater independence and farmer representation, as previously mentioned, there are a number of proposals within the general scheme that require clarification. The first relates to the operation of the proposed divisional units of the review panel. Will these simply be a condensed version of the review panel when a full quorum is not available or will they be dedicated or segmented units set up to engage specifically on appeals relating to individual schemes or for urgent cases? What weighting will be assigned to the decisions of the divisional groups? Does the provision in the proposed new section 15B(1), which deals with prohibited disclosures, extend to persons involved in divisional units of the independent review panel? If so, this needs to be specified.

What is considered best practice for the operation of the review panel regarding the prior notification of appeals, whether physical or oral? What is the expected turnaround of appeal decisions and so on? These are not clearly outlined. While the inclusion of limitation periods for seeking reviews may support greater transparency and efficiency of operations, farmers must have the facility to seek an appeal in circumstances where the timeline for lodging an appeal has elapsed, especially where there are mitigating circumstances or new evidence or facts emerge regarding the case. Clarification is also required in respect of the approach relating to the appeals process and what the requirements will be, particularly where cases are brought forward as a result of the emergence of new facts. Will appeal decisions be reviewed by other appeals officers, for which there is a six-month window for, or can this step be bypassed in favour of going straight to the independent review panel, for which there is a three-month window of opportunity from the date of an appeals officer's decision? Clarification is also needed in respect of the proposed new section 15A(1) because no text is currently provided.

The IFA suggests, in the context of the proposed provision in head 5 to the effect that"An appeals officer may hold any oral hearing remotely by electronic means" should only apply where this is agreed by the appellant. Face-to-face meetings enable more meaningful engagement. Given our ageing demographic, connectivity issues and the potential need to share supporting documentation during exchanges, the option of using electronic means may not be the most suitable for all appeal hearings. That said, it may work and be the preferred option for some farmers. It is best to give farmers a full range of options in order that they can decide the most favourable for their individual circumstances.

Every effort should be made to improve the efficiency of the appeals process. There needs to be greater transparency with regard to individual payments. For example, agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, participants are only told their score after being paid. Under the current appeals process, the appeals officer is confined to making decisions only in the context of the terms and conditions of the relevant scheme. The IFA considers this to be too restrictive. Elsewhere, farmers need to better utilise and be made aware of the review process. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine needs to better honour information requests from the agriculture appeals office. Currently, the return time is double the required standard, that is, 28 days versus two weeks. There should be a facility to award the appeal if the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine refuses to reply within a reasonable time limit.

Individual terms and conditions need to be more clearly defined. ACRES, for example, has been a mess this year because of the complexities involved. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine needs to send out physical copies or issue a bulletin outlining the individual requirements of the scheme year ahead in order to provide greater awareness and minimise non-compliance, penalties and-or subsequent appeals.

The Shannon Callows flood scheme is a good example of the lack of key detail and questionable screening technology. Many have suggested that the AMS technology failed to identify flooded parcels, particularly those with heavy covers. Many were excluded from the scheme and would have made appeals or reviews to the Department of agriculture as a result. The IFA has raised this matter with the Minister and the Department on multiple occasions in order to address and minimise the volume of appeals received, We will continue to lobby strongly in order that all impacted farmers are fully compensated for the financial loss incurred.

Sufficient funding and resources must be allocated to facilitate implementation of the National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Development 2030 and all recommendations of the aquaculture licensing review. This includes resources for the aquaculture licence appeals board. This body must have sufficient technical and administrative resources to deal with appeals in a speedy and timely manner.

The following are a few core principles from an IFA perspective with regard the agriculture appeals system which need to be considered. Farmers must be treated fairly. All application forms should be made simple and straightforward. The Department should engage more proactively with farmers. A system must be in place with dedicated staff in the Department of agriculture to deal with problem issues which farmers have. Farmers must not unduly disadvantaged, penalised or prone to increased on-farm inspections following direct or indirect advances in available technology. The level of ongoing monitoring of on-farm activity must be proportionate and similar to that afforded to other employment cohorts. The inspection regime should move to one that helps people to become more compliant. The dignity and rights of farmers must be fully respected at all times, with reasonable and fair procedures, as per the Department code of conduct, executed at all times and there must be proper procedures where complaints arise. No inspector should arrive on a farm without reasonable notice. The Department should provide a written summary of the findings and a final notice of the breaches made before the inspector leaves the farm. Every farmer should have a right to appeal all decisions made by the Department of agriculture without fear of intimidation or subsequent disadvantage.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Gorman.

Mr. Francie Gorman

I will make one final point finishing. It is important that a force majeure aspect is incorporated in the proposed Bill. For us, that would go a long way to ironing out some of the problems that we have with the appeals panel. I thank the Chair.

Mr. Denis Drennan

The ICMSA thanks the Chairperson and members of the committee for the invitation to put our views forward on the draft general scheme of the agriculture appeals (amendment) Bill 2024. I will keep my presentation short.

In 2018, the ICMSA initially welcomed the introduction of a review panel. I have four main points to cover. There must be farm representation on the board. It is essential for the confidence of farmers that they would be treated in a fair and reasonable manner and have confidence in the system. The panel should be in a position to elect its own vice chair and also to set its own rules and regulations as opposed to this being set by the Minister. If this is to be an independent panel, it needs to be in control of its own destiny, elect its chair and set its own rules and regulations.

We also believe that a farmer should have at least 12 months to appeal his or her case and that from the date on which the appeal is launched, there should be a six-month timeframe for a hearing and a decision so that no farmer is left in limbo. The ICMSA believes that the legislation needs to be comprehensive and fair, that it should be concluded as soon as possible and that the new process should be put in place as soon as possible so that farmer confidence in the appeals process is improved. Again, I thank the Chairman. I said I would keep it brief just to focus on those four main points.

Mr. Sean McNamara

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee today on the issue of the draft general scheme of the agricultural appeals (amendment) Bill 2024, on behalf of the ICSA. As a general comment, the ICSA welcomes the intent to set up an independent review panel to provide a further option for farmers affected by decisions of the Department of agriculture to impose penalties under the various CAP schemes. Penalties and inspections cause immense stress to farmers and it is our view that in many cases, the severity of sanctions is way out of line with the offence.

To be fair, the Department has introduced a new regime under the new CAP strategic plan, where cross-compliance is being replaced by conditionality. The changed approach involves a restriction of movement from a herd until the farmer exercises the option to remedy basic failings or errors. This is potentially a significant improvement and should reduce the number of cases for appeal. On the other hand, conditionality in some cases is imposing a higher standard on farmers. We have also seen that there has been pushback at European level against standards such as GAEC 8, which requires a minimum of 4% of land to be devoted to non-productive areas or features. Nonetheless, it demonstrates that standards are rising and changing all the time and it is hard for farmers to adapt to all these changes.

Therefore, we in the ICSA believe that there are many different circumstances, where farmers who are doing their best and working very hard to produce high-quality food can fall foul of the regulations and find themselves in trouble with the Department, and this is imposing serious levels of stress on farmers. It is also our view that the requirement on farmers to have everything 100% is not realistic. Most farmers do not have the luxury of farming model farms like Teagasc research centres which are located in one block on the highest quality land, where hedges or areas of scrub were removed long ago or never existed in the first place. These model farms cannot be compared to what many farmers are up against as they farm fragmented holdings, with all sorts of challenges, in mountainy areas, disadvantaged lands, boglands or areas covered in scrub. Today, that kind of land is seen as being of huge benefit to biodiversity, but it is not so easy to farm it to the same standard as a model dairy farm, which is one green open space divided by wire.

If a departmental official makes a mistake, it is just that, a mistake. When farmers make mistakes, they often feel like they are criminals. Against this backdrop, it is urgent and vital that farmers get fair play and the opportunity to explain their case. They must have the opportunity to be heard and to ensure they are given the same rights as anybody accused of any misdemeanour or offence by the Garda, for instance. That is why we in the ICSA want this legislation to be capable of delivering fair play for farmers through a review panel process that is fit for purpose.

We have a number of key issues with the draft Bill. First, the review panel must be seen to be neutral and be seen to assess cases in a completely fresh and open-minded way. For that reason, it is not appropriate to have the director or deputy director of the Agriculture Appeals Office on the panel as a voting member. Second, we believe that the deadline for submitting appeals, at six months, and at three months in the case of the review panel, is too short to ensure justice for farmers. Third, we believe that while oral hearings by remote electronic means might be suitable in some circumstances, it must be on the explicit grounds that an appellant may demand an in-person hearing if they so wish. Fourth, we are concerned that the grounds for an appeal are far too tight and will inevitably deny access to fair play for many farmers. We believe the grounds for appeal should be based on a failure to take adequate account of the special circumstances pertaining to the case in addition to error in fact or law.

We have circulated to the committee a more detailed outline of the amendments we would like included and we urge members to give it their close consideration.

Mr. John Joe Fitzgerald

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to appear today. The Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA, welcomes the opportunity to discuss what is a critical element in the delivery of farm support schemes including those schemes delivered under the Common Agricultural Policy. For farmers, income support through various schemes has become a vital component of their overall farm income, especially for suckler, beef and sheep farmers. On this basis, it is essential that adequate protections are in place, in recognition of the vulnerable position of farmers, given the clear power imbalance between them and the competent authority that administers these schemes, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

One of the key elements required by the European Union to address this imbalance is the farmers' charter of rights. This has clear targets and protocols around the delivery of schemes including payments and how inspections are carried out in order to verify compliance.

The second element relates to the rights farmers have in the event that they are deemed to have not complied with the terms and conditions of a scheme. Currently, there is the option for an internal review which most farmers will normally consider and pursue. If they are unsuccessful here, they have the option to appeal to the Agriculture Appeals Office. However, the timeframe to get an appeal heard has been way too long and while there have been improvements over the last two years, the length of time is still far too long. Unfortunately, this has the effect of discouraging appeals, which undermines the entire process. This is seen by many as giving the Department a free pass. It is vital that this issue is addressed as a strong and speedy appeals system will ensure fairer and better results for those farmers who are inspected.

Head 4 deals with the establishment of agriculture appeals review panel. We welcome the decision to have a review panel as promised in the programme for Government. We believe that those appointed to this panel must be independent and not former employees of an organisation that is a party to the appeal. Panel members must have a clear understanding of farming and ideally should have practical experience of farming.

Head 5, section 8, deals with oral hearings. With regard to oral hearings, which is the farmer's right, we have concerns around the wording of point 8(3) which states "An appeals officer may hold any oral hearing remotely by electronic means." We recommend a change to the following wording: "An appeals officer can in agreement with the appellant hold an oral hearing remotely by electronic means or may decide if National Legislation restricts or forbids the opportunity for public gatherings, hold an oral hearing remotely by electronic means."

On section 8(7), we need better clarity on this point as it seems to be contradictory. If an oral hearing was arranged and one party did not turn up, why would the hearing not go ahead? Currently what happens is the hearing can be deferred, which is not ideal. We are suggesting the following wording: "At any oral hearing where there is no representation from the DAFM/Department Body or the appellant then the appeal shall still proceed and due consideration shall be given by the Appeals Officer of the non-attendance of either party."

As a general comment on oral hearings, there is an issue with regard to the timeframes as already detailed in our introduction. A major factor that is impacting this is the very slow response from the Department in providing requested information to the appeals officer. The guideline that the Department should reply within 21 days is regularly disregarded. This is an issue that must be addressed. We recommend that the Department be given a specific period of time - we suggest 30 days - to provide the requested details. If this is not provided, the appeal should be awarded to the appellant and no recourse should be given to the Department to have this case reviewed by another appeals officer or the review panel.

In making this proposal we should recognise how farmers are given clear timelines around application dates for schemes, reviews and appeals if it is suggested by the Department that they are not compliant with the terms and conditions of the relevant scheme. This proposal aims to deliver a level of fairness to the current relationship between State bodies and the farmer.

In conclusion, an effective appeals system is a critical factor in addressing the clear power imbalance between State bodies, in this instance the Department, and the citizen, in this case the farmer. If the appeals system works well, it will put pressure on the competent authority- the Department - to ensure its procedures are fair and take into account the very difficult circumstances that farmers are operating in. We have outlined clear recommendations that can improve the current appeals system. These recommendations centre on improving the timelines on getting an appeal heard. Of course, beyond this we must ensure that the State provides adequate resources because without the personnel to deal with the appeals we will continue to see long wait times, leaving farmers without payments and often having to accept an unfair decision because they cannot afford to wait for their case to be adjudicated on by an appeals officer.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Fitzgerald. The Minister will come before the committee next Thursday morning to discuss the Bill. It will proceed at a fair pace. We have been waiting for it for a long time, and it is to be hoped it will become legislation sooner rather than later.

I am not trying to be picky with any submission, but I have concerns about the proposal that if there was no representative at a hearing it would go ahead. Farmers often have very valid reasons as to why they cannot make a hearing. I would rather that common sense prevail. If the Department is dragging its heels and does not attend the hearing, that is well and good. At least one opportunity should be given for all members to be present because I feel that a hearing without either the Department or appellant being present would not be satisfactory. We want an appeals system that will work to everyone's satisfaction when the legislation is in place. I have attended a lot of appeals in my time and I would not like to do so without a farmer present. That is the point I am making on the INHFA submission.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

I hear what the Cathaoirleach has said. He wants to make sure that a farmer is present for a meeting. He will find that in most cases the problem will not lie with the farmer not turning up.

An Cathaoirleach

I am just saying to be careful what you wish for in legislation because there will be days where a farmer, for his or her own reason, will not be able to attend an appeal. I have concerns in that regard. I would like there to be two attempts made to have a meeting go ahead without the concerned parties being present. I have attended a lot of appeals and have received telephone calls from farmers who have told me that they cannot make a meeting in the morning for whatever reason.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

One would hope that a farmer would be advised and there would be someone to represent that farmer, even if the farmer could not make the meeting. I hear what the Cathaoirleach is saying and take it on board.

An Cathaoirleach

I would be nervous about putting that into legislation because it could come back to bite where we would not want it to bite.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

I hear what the Cathaoirleach is saying.

An Cathaoirleach

As was said at the outset, it is to be hoped that when the legislation is passed, there will be an appeals system in which farmers can have confidence regarding its transparency and neutrality. That is what we as a committee want to try to achieve. We want a transparent system in which everyone has full confidence in respect of its neutrality.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I welcome the farming representatives bodies. They are up bright and early and I know they have other things to do. It is good to see them here early. We have read all of the submissions. They are circulated to us in advance and we consider them in detail, individually and collectively. As the Cathaoirleach said, the Minister will come before the committee next week.

Programme for Government: Our Shared Future states on page 65 that the Government will seek to establish an independent agricultural appeals review panel in legislation as its priority and ensure that a panel will include participants with practical knowledge of and experience in farming. The Government is coming to the end of its term, and needs to be held to that. That is an important and recurring point in all of the submissions.

No farming representative body here today has opposed that proposal; rather, they have recognised it. That is important. I am always conscious that in this room we are on Oireachtas television and many of the highlights of the meeting will be dealt with in the Irish Farmers Journal and Agriland I always think of both sides when we are in these meetings. We have an opportunity to put on the public record our perspectives on this matter. We need to be loud and clear that farming organisations and their representative bodies are in favour of a significant appeals process. That is very positive.

I will share some takeaways and ask one question. Clearly, everyone wants an independent board and chair. That is all fair and reasonable. People possibly want an independent vice chair. People with practical farming experience should be involved. In the case of the Seanad agriculture panel, it is clearly stated that people must have practical farm experience. The witnesses might take a look at that. We will work collaboratively in this forum and in the Dáil and Seanad to ensure that is carried through to the Bill.

I want to touch on some of the issues. The IFA spoke about treating farmers fairly and with respect, dignity, professionalism and efficiency. All of that makes absolute sense. It could not be said more quickly, better or more concisely. That is a big thing for me.

The word that keeps echoing with me today at this meeting is "simplification". All of the witnesses know what that means. There are many schemes and the system is complex. We need to make everything simpler and have a common denominator. Farmers want to comply and need guidance. They do not need a guy coming in and whacking them over the head; rather, they need encouragement and support. There is a major issue in respect of the simplification of all agricultural schemes so that people fully understand them. If they fully understand them, they are more likely to be fully compliant. That is a fair observation. We need to be proactive in engaging with farmers in all schemes. That is important.

There is a complexity about schemes that is very hard to get your head around, and it is something we need to address.

The recurring theme, of course, is the level of ongoing monitoring of farm activities, which must be proportionate, simple, transparent and communicated. I find it very hard to understand. I equate this to sending a car into a garage for a service. You do not want to go away and, two days later, a fellow rings you up and says it is €6,000. You want to know what the problem is before the car is left in. The problem with the schemes is that the inspectorate comes in and they know nothing about it, and people are sometimes waiting weeks. There needs to be a very tight timeframe. The IFA suggested that before the inspectors leave, the farmer would have an idea of what the problems were. That might be too simplistic or too hard, and there is the question of what medium of communication to use. However, to have a very short, appropriate and reasonable timeframe is important.

We want to help farmers. This should be about helping farmers to be compliant, which is the key issue. Again, farmers must be treated fairly and respectfully and there must be fair procedures and a well-established and understood code of conduct with regard to what is expected. It is about mutual respect. It is not a one-sided trick; it is about everyone being respectful to everyone else. Everyone has a job to do, which is important to recognise.

The IFA suggested that the Department should provide a written summary of the findings and final notice of the breaches found before the inspectors leave the farm. I think that is too much to ask for, given the practicalities. In an ideal world, it would be fantastic, but I would rather say “in a timely manner”. It has to be done in a timely and fair manner.

We have the Farmers’ Charter of Rights 2015-2020 but it has not been updated. I will be making an ask of the witnesses today. Many of the issues that they have raised with regard to the panel and the appeal are important. We need a farmers’ charter of rights. It is outrageous that we have had no update of the farmer's charter of rights since 2020, given it is now 2024. If we talk about dignity, respect, engagement and consultation with farmers and their representative bodies, and fair procedures, protocols and a code of conduct, all of this was in the charter and it needs to be updated. They are talking about schemes that are non-existent, so it is not fit for purpose. My ask of the witnesses is that they should go back to their respective bodies and associations and then lobby the Government, as they are all very capable of doing. They should not get into fringe negotiations but proper negotiations with a timeframe. They should say, “We want to see an updated, current, new farmers’ charter of rights for our farmers, the people we represent.” These are not mutually exclusive and they go hand-in-hand. I think that would particularly address this issue and give the farm organisations another layer of comfort and support.

Well done to the witnesses on the submissions, which are important and crystallise the issues well, and there is a commonality in all of them. There is support for a system, which is positive. I am convinced that we can work collaboratively with the Minister next week in the Dáil and Seanad to get all of those asks over the line because they are all reasonable asks. The witnesses might respond on the farmers’ charter in the context of this Bill and where they understand it to be, how they see the charter going hand-in-hand with the Bill and how it is essential with regard to protecting their members. The issue of respect, dignity and professionalism is a two-sided coin, and we need to emphasise that too. Perhaps the president of the IFA could respond first.

Mr. Francie Gorman

In general, we welcome the sentiment of the Bill but we want to see its scope broadened out more. Negotiations on the charter are ongoing and we expect they will come to a conclusion sooner rather than later, and that needs to happen. Dr. Whelan might go into the issue of inspections and the notification farmers should get when the inspector leaves.

Dr. Shane Whelan

I thank the Senator for the question. I might go back a little before I answer directly on the inspections. The charter of rights is front and centre in this, as it has to be. On the Senator's point with regard to respect and dignity for the farmer, that needs to be maintained throughout but, as he said, that also applies to the Department officials.

With regard to individual appeals, from the feedback we got from the regional executives throughout the country, unfortunately, while the majority of appeals officers conduct their appeals in a good manner, it is sometimes not consistent. From the farmers’ perspective, this is alien to them in many respects and they do not want to be there. For someone to throw facts and figures at them can be demeaning and belittling, so we need to avoid that at all costs.

With regard to the farmers’ charter of rights, as the president said, negotiations have been ongoing for a number of months and that is nearing its conclusion.

In terms of inspections, the first point is that the farmer needs to be provided with adequate notification. We propose that a minimum of 48 hours would be provided to get things in order and minimise any issues in terms of not being available and so on. With regard to notification at the time of leaving after the initial inspection, the idea of the written statement is just to provide clarity to farmers as to where they potentially stand. It may not be a final provision but it is an indicative outcome of the inspection when an inspector leaves the yard. It would give farmers an opportunity to get their ducks in a row if they are potentially going down the line of an appeal. The proposal within the current charter is that verbal information would be provided but from our perspective, a written statement would be preferable.

As was said, this is alien to farmers and the Senator himself mentioned that it brings a lot of stress and emotion for farmers. Very often, if someone is in that scenario, they may not pick up the intricacies of the individual appeal. I appreciate the written notification is not the final one but at least it gives greater certainty and clarity.

As the president noted, it is important to reiterate that sentiment is important but the scope of the grounds of the independent appeal is also important. By way of context, there were 930 appeals dealt with in 2022 and only 40 went to the appeals officer or the director, and that is within the grounds that are currently proposed in this legislation. We need to be real. A consistent message across all the farm organisations was the need for independence, fairness and transparency. This is a welcome development but in terms of bolstering the need for greater independence of the whole appeals panel, it needs to be extended beyond the current provision.

Mr. Eddie Punch

I thank the Senator for his comments. With regard to the farmers’ charter, we have been negotiating a new one for the last 12 months. One of the key issues has been the delay in payments, which became quite a protracted row and is still not resolved to our satisfaction, albeit there are some new developments in terms of the ACRES payments. On that, we would comment that it is unfortunate that it could not have been sorted prior to Christmas rather than now.

The issue of time limits is central to all of these issues. That is why we note the difference. On the one hand, we have proposals for legislation with very tight timeframes imposed on the farmer, but the reverse is not the case for Government officials in areas like the Department of agriculture, whether that be in terms of delivering payments on time or the way in which they treat people via inspections and penalties imposed. I have in my possession a letter to a farmer, dated 19 February 2024, setting out a 3% penalty as a result of SMR 1, which concerns nitrates. This applies to an inspection conducted - wait for this - on 5 November 2019. In my view, justice delayed is justice denied. It is scandalous that a penalty is being applied to a farmer in 2024 based on an inspection in 2019.

That is not acceptable in any circumstances and I will tell the committee why it is not acceptable. Under the old cross-compliance regime, there is a thing called recurrence. This means that if a penalty is imposed and the farmer has a subsequent issue on a similar SMR or GAEC, there is a trebling of the penalty on the second offence and a trebling on the third offence, and that applies up to 15%.

The Department also has leeway to say that if farmers continue to commit the same offence, misdemeanour or breach of a technicality, it can take the view this is being done intentionally and take all their payments away. If farmers have a penalty imposed in 2019 they could unwittingly make the same error in 2020, 2021 and 2022. Then they could potentially have a letter from the Department in 2024 accusing them of intentional behaviour. This could do absolute havoc in the form of penalties, which when accumulated in that way could cause serious damage to a farmer's financial viability. That is unacceptable. This leads to the grounds on which farmers may appeal to a review panel. Our concern is they are very restricted. Someone may make an appeal for review on the basis of error in fact or law, but that is designed to support a minimisation of appeals. It is designed to make a very narrow grounds on which a farmer might appeal. It is simply too tight and too narrow. It is possible someone could be penalised in 2024 for offences committed in 2019. In some cases these are not really offences and in the case of the nitrates it is a complex issue where someone inadvertently fed too much concentrate and as a result fell foul of the very complex regulations around nitrates, therefore, the idea that in 2024 that person could be subjected to this kind of unfair process I would say means we could be talking here about maladministration. It is simply not acceptable. I am not sure that under this legislation that person can apply to the review panel, because it is not clear there is an error in fact and law, depending on how the fine detail is written. On the nitrates case in point, I am thinking of a nitrates derogation farmer who is in the finishing business, which is a complex business where a person is buying and selling cattle in and out all the time and then there are the additional complications of chemical fertiliser applied, slurry, concentrates fed and all that. Even today there is no up-to-date information about where people stood in 2023 and that is not acceptable. People are getting nitrates figures far too late to be able to make accurate decisions about what cattle they buy, when they sell cattle, when they buy them and so on. All these things must be facilitated in this review panel discussion.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Whelan, Mr. Gorman and Mr. Punch have covered the points about the charter. To add to that, I understand it is a requirement under the CAP protocols as well that there would be a farmers' charter of rights. It needs to by updated and clearly we need to get that addressed. We pointed that out in our statement. The appeals are one element, but the first thing is to ensure the farmers' charter works and works effectively. What Mr. Punch has outlined clearly illustrates there are problems. It may not be around the farmers' charter, but it is a clear indication of the imbalance we are seeing between the farmer and the Department of Agriculture. The charter is a means to do that and the appeals are another means to do that. We need to recognise that.

The Senator mentioned the monitoring of farming activity. I do not know who mentioned it earlier, but we talked about the area monitoring system and the new satellite monitoring. I think it was Mr. Gorman who mentioned that. We are moving, effectively, towards 100% monitoring of farms on certain aspects. Maybe I will stand corrected on this, but with LEADER funding, where there is 100% monitoring the penalties are much lower. The reason we have high penalties is to discourage farmers, from the Department's point of view, from doing wrong, for want of a better term. If we are moving to full monitoring of farmers we may need to look again - that is not necessarily for here - at the penalty regime as well, because the real problem for a lot of farmers is not just the penalties-----

An Cathaoirleach

The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the Bill we have before us.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

I hear you, Chair. That is the issue. I do not know that there is anything else to add to that.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. Mr. Smyth is next.

Mr. Paul Smyth

I thank the Chair. To reply to a question posed by the Senator, the charter was rolled over in 2021 and 2022, so there has been a charter and obviously that was in agreement with the farm organisations. It is only 2023 where we have not had a charter, but there have been ten or 12 months of negotiations on it and it will come to a close pretty soon.

The thing we are attending today for is the review panel. It is important it comes across that there is good support for the appeals in general, but the appeals review panel will be independent and will make decisions based on farming practicalities. We have seen this in other panels even on the TB side, so we have farmer representatives there and we have a farmer representative body there. It is very important that element of farmer representation is brought forward in this. It is something that is obviously in the proposal, but we feel the need for more representation from farming and more should be applied. We are also looking at something which was not captured in the current draft, which is this idea of the amount of time people spend on the review panel. It is three years, I think, up to a maximum of six. We have noticed that if everybody is at a fixed term length and they all go at the one time we lose that knowledge. We are proposing a staggered term for that, because it takes time to get the feel for being on a review panel and that is just the way it is. It is important that when a term comes to a close it is not a full new review body and we keep some of the knowledge within the review board. There are lots of other suggestions there as well and I am hopeful members will taken them all into consideration.

Deputy Johnny Mythen

I thank the witnesses for coming in. We are taking on board their views and we will definitely have some amendments to the Bill itself. The witnesses' consideration is the makeup of the board will be very important. They want a farmer representative on the board and that board members are not former employees of organisations of involved. I understand the chairmen's position about the idea of one party not turning up and where they are coming from but that can be built in. We can have a proof of a genuine excuse. It can be put in that proof is needed so if either side does not come up with whatever proof is needed within a certain period that has a consequence. That can be built into it, which would make it fairer. Obviously, everyone wants this to be fair, transparent and without prejudice. As I said, the makeup of the committee is very important.

The staggering of the three years is an important issue. I do not particularly agree with the situation where the chairman or deputy chairman does not have a casting vote because in all organisations that is a good practice and is the way it works. Very often if there are four on a panel it is two versus two and a decision has to be made, so the chairman makes that decision. That is fair and works in all organisations.

The timescale is very important too. The 30 days is very important. That can be built into it. We can use the language "shall" rather than "maybe". We should look at that very carefully. Sometimes the word "maybe" is used, which is not good enough in legislation. There are too many of those squirrel words in it. We will make sure that it will be mostly "shall", which compels legally that a certain action be done.

Other than that, it is welcome, as our guests said, but we have to make sure the rules and regulations are applied in a proper manner and there is transparency and independence. The make-up of the board will be very important and that will be up to us on this committee to decide. We will be tabling amendments in that regard.

I thank our guests for their contributions. We are listening. The force majeure aspect is very important, as they said, but it is not mentioned in the draft legislation. Other than that, it is very welcome and is needed for farmers. The biggest issue is the timescale and the fairness aspect. As Mr. Punch said about offences from 2019 being penalised in 2024, that should never happen in a modern-day organisation. We have technology now and everything else. There is no need for that and it is very unfair that the individual should face those penalties. If they are doubling up and trebling up each time, we might as well ruin the man.

Senator Paul Daly

I apologise for not having been here from the outset, although I do not think I will get many critics on the other side of the table regarding where I was. I was raising a Commencement matter in the Seanad looking for a temporary extension to the hedge-cutting season due to the current saturation of land, so I do not think they will scold me for attending to that as opposed to being here.

I tuned in to the meeting online before I had to go into the Chamber and heard the start of the meeting. I am a stickler for other people not coming into meetings late, asking questions that have been asked and going over old ground, so I am not going to do that. I will read the Official Report and have an input into the formulation of our report and any amendments we put in.

As the old saying goes, you have to be careful what you wish for. To use a sporting analogy, they brought in a new review system in rugby and now the referees are not making decisions because they have that safety net of deferring to the bunker. Could our guests foresee a similar situation emerging here, whereby departmental officials or inspectors could cause more grief for farmers by being less decisive because they will have the safety net of an independent review? Could they say they are not going to put their neck on the block because, even though they might well be able to award such a certification, there are a few issues and the farmer will have an independent way of appealing it in any event, so they might let it go down that road? Could there be a scenario under the legislation, as drafted, where that could happen? The rugby analogy is probably as good an example as we will get, given every commentator is saying referees will not make decisions anymore. Even if they know which way it should go, they are just passing the buck because there is the safety net of someone else coming after them who will make the decision for them.

Mr. Francie Gorman

To respond to the Senator, the ambition with a fully independent review panel is that it will improve the situation and give farmers greater confidence in the process that there is independence. There will be an independent chair and they will have to be more proactive about communication. It will broaden the scope such that if farmers felt they were unfairly treated in the appeals process previously, they will get a fair hearing. The issue of force majeure, which is not there, is very important and needs to come in. If we get to the point where those main building blocks have been put in place, we will end up with an appeals mechanism that is better than what we have. It is something that has to happen. There has been a huge deficit in the appeals process up to now and we hope those main points will be taken on board.

I do not know whether Mr. Curran wishes to come in.

Mr. John Curran

My thinking on it is that if a charter is got up and running with the proper measures, which we hope it will, an appeals board will be the last resort. It is imperative to get a good charter such that it will not have to come to the appeals board. The new appeals board is going to be down to the chairman. The chairman has to be, first, knowledgeable about farming and he has to be independent. He has to understand the terms and conditions do not always cover what happens on a farm inspection, such as force majeure and other things that happen on farms. Farmers are under pressure. There could be health issues inside or outside the house. Farmers are getting older. They nearly do not have time to think and a lot of them are under financial pressure. It is essential to get force majeure tied into it but, as in the case of a committee, it will be down to the strength of its members. The chairman has to be strong, there needs to be farmer representation, and maybe the panel should be small in order that people can make decisions quickly.

Mr. Francie Gorman

We welcome Deputy Mythen’s comments about the make-up of the board, which is very important. We will work with members to make sure this process gets up and running in the most effective and efficient manner. Timelines are also very important in order that appeals will not be left hanging over farmers' heads. At some stage, there has to be a timeline for when the issue will come to a conclusion. A six-month period is not too much to ask for in the context of the entire process.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Senator Daly made a great point and it is something we will have to watch. Clearly, we would hope that would not be the case but I think we will need to monitor the appeal to ensure that is not happening. I hope it will not and, as Mr. Gorman and Mr. Curran said, having a good charter will help to alleviate that.

On the points about the timescales, we have always believed the main issue with appeals is timescales. When we get in there, we are going to make an assumption, whether right or wrong, that it is fair but certainly, the issue has been to get them in. A farmer said to me once - I do not know whether this is true - that the appeals system is designed in order that people will not appeal. He said that is the problem, and that is why we are putting out some of those proposals. They may seem a bit radical but I think we have to at least explore them, and I hear what the Senator is saying about that. If we have a fast appeals system, that will put pressure on the other side. That is always the key element and it is what we have to keep in mind. A faster, more effective appeals system will ensure better compliance on a Department of agriculture inspectors' level. Obviously, we will also have the charter to fall back on.

Mr. Hugh Farrell

The Senator was talking about the safety net, which is being used at present even without the appeals board, given that if the farmer does not give us a print-out or a letter, which we know they are not always capable of doing on an inspection, that allows for another interpretation or whatever else. We might not know what we are getting until weeks, months or years later. The appeals board is great and will bring this to a place of resolution, but getting that far is a long journey and involves a lot of different people.

Moreover, when an appeal is put in place, whatever penalty it is carrying should be stopped there and then until such time as there is an outcome. There is no point in a farmer being penalised, whether it be a fine or anything else, and all of a sudden we end up fighting them for two or three years thereafter. Automatically, once the appeal is in place, the penalty should stop with it, and that is something I would like to see brought into it.

Deputy Mythen raised issues relating to equality, respect and so on. This has to go both ways, and going both ways is a big thing here. We have difficulty with this at different stages. Farmers are dealing with a lot of different issues and that is something that has to be corrected or brought to a more appropriate level.

We are all doing our own jobs but we have to respect each other as we do so. On force majeure, in a meeting on the farmers' charter some months ago, we were looking at including force majeure provisions on all schemes and in all cases. Force majeure is only included where it is suits the Department but it should stand in everything. We need to ensure that is carried through because, in many cases, there is a genuine reason to argue force majeure. Mr. Punch may want to continue on or finish up.

Mr. Eddie Punch

Deputy Mythen mentioned force majeure. People think this allows people an opportunity put their case but, in fact, force majeure is interpreted very rigidly by the Department. I can give examples of cancer, which is a terrible thing in any household, not being allowed under force majeure provisions because of technicalities in respect of application times. I saw one case being brought to appeal in which, because the farmer had put a second name on the herd number, his cancer treatment was not considered sufficient grounds for force majeure to apply. The proposed legislation says that people may be entitled to go to the review panel "by reason of some mistake having been made in relation to the law or the facts". From the ICSA's point of view, it should also be allowed by reason of a failure to take adequate account of the special circumstances pertaining to the case. It has to be broadened to allow for a proper assessment of things like the rigid interpretation of force majeure or the case I mentioned previously of justice delayed being justice denied. It is really critical that people not be prevented from bringing appeals because of technicalities or a strict interpretation of law designed to support the Department rather than the appellant.

Mr. Denis Drennan

To address Senator Paul Daly's worry, that is why we feel the board needs to comprise both sides of the argument and that farmers need to have representation on it. It is essential for the confidence of farmers that they know they will be treated in a fair and reasonable manner if they take a decision through the appeals process and to this board. In most cases where there is an inspection on a farm, there are clear guidelines. Cross-compliance and conditionality can apply. If the board is constructed in the proper manner with representation from the farm bodies and given jurisdiction to set out its own rules and regulations rather than these being set out by the Minister, it can be ensured that people will not just kick to touch and let the board make a decision because the board will be seen as constructive and as following its own rules and regulations to deal with any breaches of rules.

Mr. John Joe Fitzgerald

The reason we are asking for speedy appeals is that, if a farm family are waiting for payments and possibly depending on them, it puts fierce financial and mental strain on them. They may be waiting to repay loans or buy Christmas presents. All we are saying is that appeals should be handled quickly by a competent person. They should be got over the line in any way that works because, if they run on from year to year, there is no conclusion. The stress that builds on the farm family while this goes on is unreal.

Dr. Shane Whelan

I will not dwell on the point regarding force majeure and the restrictions in that regard because it has been very well made. It is imperative that the new appeals system is set up to deal not only with the existing operational model, but also with what we are moving towards. AMS has been referenced previously. The appeals system there is based on a formal decision being made. It also needs to take account of the eligibility and identification of individual farmers where a formal decision is not made. I will use the Shannon Callows by way of example. There is a cohort of farmers in that area who never received a formal letter. Their viewpoint is that the AMS set up to identify eligible farmers did not pick up all eligible farmers. There are close to 50 farmers there whose land was flooded and whose fodder was impacted but who did not receive a formal notification. What I am pointing to is that the system needs to look at cases where formal decisions were not made.

The new world we are living in is parallel to the world farm planners and advisers operate in. A farmer cannot be penalised because of the increased workload of a third party. ACRES is again a case in point. There are multiple examples of farmers missing out on tranche 2 applications because of workloads, moving timelines in respect of TAMS II and planners devoting attention to that scheme rather than focusing on ACRES. The TAMS deadline was pushed out but farmers were penalised because submissions were not in on time. With regard to the submission of scorecards in respect of ACRES, the farmer cannot be penalised where that submission is not made in time. I will reiterate the point that the appeals system needs to be set up for what is coming down the tracks and farmers cannot be penalised.

I will quickly return to a point the Deputy made earlier with regard to simplification. That is central. All farm organisations are consistently of the view that because we are in a very complex and bureaucratic world, there is most certainly a need to simplify. Again pointing to ACRES, the proactive communications proposed by the IFA would alleviate a lot of anxiety, ensure greater compliance and minimise pressure on the appeals system down the road. I consider that important.

An Cathaoirleach

Dr. Whelan has raised an issue that is coming across my desk a lot more frequently. I assume it is the same for every other elected Member here. I refer to advisers, consultants and so on not getting paperwork in on time or paperwork submitted to such people by farmers not getting where it should for some reason. I fully accept what he is saying. There are legal cases going on between farmers and their advisers. Whether it is a private or public matter, at the end of the day, it is the farmer who is not getting paid. I do not know how the appeals body is going to cater for that. It is an error before the application ever gets on the table. It is happening more and more. I fully accept that it is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. We are going to have 50,000 farmers in ACRES but the number of people out there to do the work is limited. It is going to put more and more pressure on the system. I fully accept that is a very serious issue. In the pig farmers' scheme, there was an awful lot of money involved for individual pig farmers. I had three cases of farmers whose applications, through no fault of their own, were not accurate or correct. There was a lot of money involved.

It is an issue. I do not know how we can get this legislation to cover it because it is about appeals and appeals are based on inspections that happen. In the cases Dr. Whelan is talking about, the applications to the individual schemes never actually arrive on the table. I do not know how we can marry the two. I am not at all saying that it is not a problem and an issue because it most definitely is but we are producing legislation to set up the appeals body. I do not know how we can cover the point Dr. Whelan is making in that legislation.

Dr. Shane Whelan

I do not have a defined answer but force majeure is potentially an avenue that could be pursued. I appreciate that there will be individual errors but there is also a collective experience as regards third parties. We might have individual examples of a given adviser in a given part of the country but-----

An Cathaoirleach

I am not trying to be awkward. I would love to get this right. However, force majeure refers to things that are outside people's control. I do not know how it would cover a consultant or adviser being overworked and unable to get through his or her volume of work.

Dr. Shane Whelan

Again, who is impacted by it?

An Cathaoirleach

I am not arguing that point at all. It is the farmer who pays the bill.

We will have the Minister before the committee next week. We want to get the legislation right so that we have a fair, transparent and independent appeals body. This is what we all want so that when farmers takes an appeal, they will have confidence they are getting a fair, independent and transparent hearing. This is what we want to achieve with the legislation. I do not know how, in what we are trying to do with regard to setting up an independent appeals body, we can cover where an application has not been made by a third party. I fully accept there is a big issue but I do not know how we can get it into this legislation. I accept fully that farmers are being left short changed and it is happening more often. I would have had one or two of these cases a year five years ago whereas there is now a colossal number of them. I am not arguing with Dr. Whelan that it is an issue but I do not know how we can deal with it in this legislation. This legislation is to make sure the mechanism of appeal is fair, transparent and independent. I do not know how we can cover the point being made by Dr. Whelan.

Dr. Shane Whelan

There needs to be some form of wording in force majeure to cover Mr. Punch's point earlier so that it is not as rigid and consideration can be given to broader issues when making an appeals decision. At present, an appeals decision is based on the terms and conditions or very limited force majeure. We are all singing from the same hymn sheet that there is an issue here.

An Cathaoirleach

There is most definitely.

Dr. Shane Whelan

Some form of wording could be included in the force majeure element that could potentially cater for it. I do not have the answer but something should potentially be looked at.

Mr. Francie Gorman

This is two pronged. The schemes have become so complicated to administer and apply for that we do not have enough consultants or advisers for the workload that has been created. This puts pressure on the consultants and advisers and mistakes are being made. If schemes were less complicated, it would probably help. I know it is not part of the remit of the appeals Bill, but whether we like it or not, we are where we are. It is not good enough that when people have problems with applications, the Department's answer is to go back to the consultant who has insurance to cover a mistake and sue the consultant who is doing work for them. This is the answer being given to farmers.

An Cathaoirleach

I fully accept all of this. I am here as Cathaoirleach of the committee.

Mr. Francie Gorman

We can try to tease it out between us.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, but we are trying to put in place legislation that will make the appeals process transparent and independent. I fully accept the issue but I do not know how it can be incorporated into what we are trying to do here.

Mr. Hugh Farrell

I will follow on from what previous speakers have said. Simplicity and complications have been referred to. Generally, issues arise when there are new schemes. It happened with suckler carbon efficiency programme and various schemes. Farmers almost did not want to apply because the liability would fall back on them. The terms and conditions have brought on many of these issues and people do not realise it until they are into it. In some cases they must trust the planner to do it. We found in 2023 in particular that the IT system was overloaded and the planners could not follow up on whether an application had been accepted. There was limbo until farmers went to look for a payment or something else and realised they were not in. This is still causing an issue because people are not able to follow up on payments or actions. In other years the planners were on top of this and were able to do it not only with regard to the applications but also on follow up. We see this as a big issue. It has been an issue for the entire year. We need to look at the IT system. Planners looking after a farmer's business should have access to it the whole way through. There are other issues whereby the planners cannot access information and it is blocking them from doing their job. There needs to be more openness. Planners are nominated and paid by the farmers as their representatives.

An Cathaoirleach

I am repeating myself again. I do not disagree with one thing the witnesses are saying but the purpose of today's meeting is to make sure the legislation on the appeals body is as we want it.

Mr. Paul Smyth

There are probably two issues that could help. The first is that in the case of a record or form that has not been submitted by an agent, for instance, if a record 3 movement had been submitted in a previous year, reminders should be given within a certain timeframe of it coming up, before it even gets to the appeals section. More work could be done on reminders. The form must usually be in by the end of October. If it has not been submitted by the last week in October, a reminder should be sent out. I know it would not be perfect every time but it might help to reduce the number of appeals.

The other issue is that the review panel will ultimately deal with many of the agent issues with regard to work that perhaps was not submitted or was submitted and got lost. This is where the farmer representative on the appeals panel will be able to look at the merits of a case. Every case will be different. It will be very hard to legislate for it. If we have more practical experience on the appeal board and review panel, it will make it much easier for a correct decision to be made.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister will come before the committee next Thursday morning. I welcome the suggestions from today's meeting and very pointed amendments on exactly what we want. I have been listening closely today. The independence of the membership of the board is critical. The timeframe of the appeal is an issue that has been constantly raised. A very good point was also made about the definition of force majeure and broadening it out.

Thinking back on past experience, a TB appeals board has been operating for a number of years. There are farmer representatives on it. It obviously has to do with live valuations and the process to be able to appeal them. The board has worked over a long number of years and we should look to it. We have received submissions from the four organisations before the committee. This legislation is something we have been waiting for. A commitment was given on it almost a decade ago and definitely seven or eight years ago. When it gets through pre-legislative scrutiny next week, I am fairly certain the legislation will be pushed forward very rapidly.

We have heard what the four organisations have been saying today. We will table amendments as individuals for the Minister next Thursday morning. I suggest that if any of the witnesses want to make contact with any member of the committee over the next week to frame amendments for the meeting, we would welcome it. Farmers have been waiting for this for a long time. It is essential we get it right at this opportunity.

I am dealing with a case at present where a farmer's fertiliser and feed dockets were not submitted with regard to nitrates and the single farm payment. It involves a fairly big single farm payment. He has lost two years' payments because he lost his derogation rights. He started on 1 January 2024 and his agent had to pay the two years' payments that were lost, which is putting significant pressure on that agent. The Department will not remove the multiplier effect on penalties even though the agent has paid the single farm payment for the two years in question. If this farmer has an inspection in 2024 and something is found wrong, the multiplier effect of the mistake made by his agent will come back on the farmer. I have banged my head very hard trying to get the Department to state he has started with a clean slate on 1 January 2024. I have failed to get anywhere with it. If the farmer has an inspection and whether it is a bit of farmyard manure in the wrong place or a water tank too near a watercourse and he gets another 1% or 3% penalty, it will be multiplied by the two years when his agent forgot to submit his documentation.

I have been dealing with him every day, as have the lads.

We should try to get something about force majeure into the legislation if we can. I would welcome the thoughts of all the organisations on that. I was not trying to be awkward with Mr. Drennan but if legislation is not drafted very tightly, the Attorney General's office will tell us it is just not a runner. If we are going to put something together on force majeure, it needs to be tight and legalistic. This could be an opportunity to broaden out the terms of the force majeure provision so that people will at least have the comfort of knowing that, if something is done they feel to be unjust, the force majeure provision will cover their complaints on appeal. We have a week to broaden that out and get it correct. There may possibly be scope to get that into this legislation. We would welcome discussion on that over the next week. As I have said, the Minister will be here next Thursday morning. We will try to get such a framework, which is what we all want, into the legislation.

If no one else has a point to raise, I will thank everyone for coming in. As I have said, the legislation is tight but extremely important. We will be in public session next Thursday at 9.30 a.m. I am sure some of the organisations will be keeping an eye on us to make sure we are doing what we said we would do.

Senator Paul Daly

On a point of information, it is just a discussion with the Minister next week. We do not need to submit amendments by next Thursday.

An Cathaoirleach

No, but we can propose what we want included.

Senator Paul Daly

The amendments will come afterwards.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes. The meeting is to put flesh on the bones of the legislation. The next public meeting of the committee will take place at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 February, when the committee will continue its examination of compliance with the nitrates directive and the implications for Ireland.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.02 a.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 February 2024.