Seanad debates

Wednesday, 20 June 2012

Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

5:00 pm

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister's clarification and I appreciate what he stated. Amendment No. 48 relates to going to court and all this brings with it. This would create an exposure to the taxpayer because the Department would have to represent the taxpayer in court which would cost money if the case is lost. I argue the State would be further exposed by having a system whereby the District Court decides. We all know what the legal profession is like; from the applicant's view in particular it will keep cases going. Amendment No. 48 proposes to have an appeals system only.

This is probably a poor example to give because it has such a serious backlog at present, but in the Department of Social Protection officials make a decision, representations are made to the Minister by elected representatives on behalf of their constituents, and the applicant has an opportunity to make an appeal to the independent appeals office which is within the Department and ultimately under the control of the Minister. This may be a template worth considering and may ensure the Minister will not end up fighting court cases every other week. Nothing would be worse for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which liaises with farmers and that is not always easy, than ending up in court cases against farmers with regard to compensation which are highlighted by the media. It would not be good for the industry, the farmers or the image of the Department. I appreciate it would be defending the State's interest but the cost would be very high. I am not a legal person but I know when one gets caught up in the District Court system it takes months or years to reach an outcome. I do not think this would benefit anyone, particularly the farmer. Will the Minister consider a system of representation to the Minister prior to or after an independent appeal hearing? This may be a way to avoid undermining the authority of the Minister. The independent appeal could be heard first after which the ultimate judge would be the Minister. This is just a suggestion.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.