Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, to delete lines 24 to 29.

This is a vital amendment. The Department is granting itself extensive powers to confiscate money from farmers without going through the courts. Having debated this issue at length on Committee Stage, it is imperative that the Department reconsiders its decision to retain the provision allowing it to withhold single farm payments in lieu of arrears without recourse to the courts. This power is excessive. On Committee Stage the Minister gave numerous guarantees that the Department would avail of its powers under this section only in extreme circumstances but these have not been written into the legislation.

I do not have a major difficulty with the Department's proposal provided the legislation contains proper protections. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Every Deputy has been asked by farmers in his or her constituency why the House allowed certain legislation to pass in light of a later decision by a Department or Minister to interpret it in a manner completely at odds with the original objective. I cannot allow this section to remain without protections being added.

From a Government point of view, it makes sense to remove this provision in light of the role of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in dealing with issues which arise when charges are imposed on people. In court cases, for example, the Minister will not entertain a proposal to issue an attachment of earnings in connection with a court order, yet the Bill provides for attachment of earnings without a case being brought before a court.

The heavy hand of the Department will put the squeeze on the 98 people who remain in arrears. It is not prepared to incentivise this group of farmers to avail of the scheme or give them a decent window of opportunity in which to do so. Instead, it is using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. Not only will it have the power to offset arrears against payments due from the Department, including the single farm payment, but section 6 gives it the power to confiscate a farmer's dairy cheque. These provisions are excessive and do not contain proper checks and balances. For example, no provision has been made to require the Department to explain a decision before a court.

The moneys the Department may confiscate do not always originate in the Department but have been committed by the European Union and paid into the Department's bank account, from which it is supposed to be transferred to farmers on condition that they meet compliance rules. The Bill provides for an additional rule that farmers must not only meet the regulations laid down under cross-compliance but must also address any arrears they may have with the Department.

My concern is that this power will not be used in the manner outlined by the Minister of State on Committee Stage but will be treated as a form of leverage with which to put farmers under considerable pressure. Many of the farmers in question are in severe financial difficulty in that they owe the Department arrears and have large debts with lending institutions. For this reason, they rely on the single farm payment due in December to make repayments. If the Minister retains the provision permitting the Department to withhold single farm payments, many farm families will go hungry this Christmas. I vehemently oppose this provision and asked the Minister on Committee Stage to reconsider it. Sadly, the Minister of State did not table an amendment to ensure that checks and balances are put in place. That is my major objection. I gave the Minister of State the opportunity to reconsider his decision on it and bring forward a balanced amendment, but sadly that did not happen.

See this speech in context