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.