Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Smyth and Ms O'Connell for attending. On the appeals system, part of the problem relates to how the schemes are structured and the lack of flexibility regarding a mistake a person may make and the resultant penalty. Where do common sense and reasonableness come into the process? At all stages that an application is with the Department or under appeal everything is ruled by absolutely strict and rigid terms and conditions which often do not take cognisance of the realities and difficulties for people participating in schemes. We all understand the need for terms, conditions and rules but there must be some level of flexibility and understanding. That is where many of the difficulties originate. What capacity is there for flexibility within the system and the various schemes? Surely we can address that issue in terms of how the system and the terms and conditions are set up.

In the past two weeks, I have become aware of three relevant examples. A mistake relating to a tier 1 condition was made by an adviser in the submission of a GLAS application for a small rented plot of land, with the result that the landowner was unable to avail of the scheme after the first year. The full amount of €5,000 was paid in that year but although all the tier 2 actions were carried out in respect of the land, the farmer has been excluded from the GLAS scheme, must repay €5,000 and will miss out on €25,000 potential income over the five-year period. No flexibility was shown in respect of that mistake. Considering the extent to which such people depend on EU schemes for income, that decision is extremely inflexible and unfair to that full-time small farmer.

An appeal was lodged regarding a carbon navigator not being submitted on time to the beef data and genomics programme. The person carried it out, wrongly believed it had been submitted and must now repay €2,000 and has been excluded from the scheme. Again, there was no capacity for flexibility in that regard.

An application to TAMS relating to a low-emissions slurry spreader initially purchased on hire purchase was refused. The applicant later bought the spreader, which cost €40,000, outright in order to claim on it and is within the allowed three-year time period for to submit a claim but may not do so. That young farmer is out of pocket for 60% of the value of the spreader and has been left in an exceptionally unenviable position.

People considering appeals in respect of land and eligibility matters are not issued payment until those appeals are heard. Due to the fact that they do not wish to be without the payment until the completion of the process, they may accept a small penalty imposed on them although they think it unjust. In what way can there be more flexibility and understanding to better reflect the reality of farming and understand the impact that decisions based on very strict terms and conditions can have on the farming community? That is key.

On the implementation of the recommendations and timelines, the committee has reported and the recommendations have been made but there is no clear timeline for implementation. Can we ensure that clear timelines will be put in place for what will be implemented and when?