Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. The Bill puts in place the required legislation to establish the agriculture appeals review panel, which is good. I have a few comments. From farmers who have been in touch with or come before the committee, we know they are very anxious to see farm representation on this 12-person appeals board. That is a message that has come loud and clear to us all, so the Minister might bear it in mind. Clearly, people will need to have the benefit of experience and practical knowledge of agriculture. That would be a great boost and would send out a very clear message that we are listening to the stakeholders. That is one point.

I welcome the review appeals timelines, which are also important. The Chair touched on another issue. A word we are hearing is “simplification”, which is now the buzzword in agriculture, from what I can pick up. Do we need to simplify this? Absolutely. When we are explaining, we are losing, so we need to keep it simple. If it means an appendix to the Bill, so be it, but we need to be very clear in how we are explaining it. Many problems can be avoided if we have clarity, whether that is clarity of purpose, function or thought process. That is very important. We need to simplify this and use the simplest language.

We need to set out the appeals process. To take the case of the independent planning appeals board, people cannot overturn the ultimate decision of the appeals board but they can judicially review it if the process has erred or strayed. We need to cover that off. Sometimes it is not necessarily the outcome and although many people are not happy with the outcome, they can do nothing about that, which is fair enough and that is what an appeals process is. Nonetheless, it is important that we clearly set down what redress or relief people can have if the process has erred. I am sure the Minister understands what I am saying. There is an issue.

The Minister made a point that is key to the success of this legislation. It has to be independent, accessible, fair, efficient and timely.

The Minister made those points in his opening statement. It is part of the messaging about clarity.

Turning to the issue of agriculture, are there any other opportunities for amendments? The Minister highlighted one relating to the 70-year-old age limit. Is that the only one he deemed necessary? Are there no other opportunities? I acknowledge he does not want to confuse the issues here. That is one aspect he wants to tag onto the Bill and he has explained the rationale of that.

I am generally supportive of the Bill. The key message is simplification, clarity, explaining the processes clearly and bringing on board representatives of the sector because that will be critical for the buy-in and the success of the appeals process. I wish the Minister and his officials well in regard to the Bill.