Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

Following the debate on Committee Stage I have educated myself on the system. On the last occasion I talked about the theory behind it but I had not realised that existing compliance notices are given to farmers by authorised officers in order to keep cases out of the courts. The whole point of a welfare notice, or a compliance notice as they are currently called, is to keep people out of the courts and solve problems without imposing fines in a heavy handed manner. At present farmers in receipt of a compliance notice can lodge an appeal with the District Court if they feel they have been unfairly treated. There are only three or four appeals per year so the number involved is small.

I propose to extend the provision beyond farms. From a farmer's point of view the system will stay the same and compliance notices will become welfare notices when it is a welfare issue. There are other issues around compliance that are not welfare related. The idea of setting up a separate appeals body in my Department, even in my office, would mean that a second person would have to carry out an inspection and talk to farmers.Every time a welfare notice is issued an appeal will be lodged in the majority of cases. It will be almost on a routine basis. If there is no cost incurred then people will automatically lodge an appeal when they feel slightly hard done by and the work involved will be doubled just for the same outcome. The social welfare appeals system makes it so easy for people to lodge an appeal that they automatically avail of the option and is one of the reasons that the system is clogged. Therefore, a large number of appeals are lodged leading to the system being clogged. This creates a large amount of work and reassessment often for the same outcome. I am anxious for that not to happen in this instance.

The best way to deal with appeals is through a code of conduct adhered to by my Department's authorised officers. It would outline their behaviour and how they should interact with farmers or anyone else that they must issue welfare notices to. If people object strongly then it would start a conversation that would involve, potentially, a more senior district vet. For example, if there was a real uncertainty about a welfare notice being fair, or resulted in questioning and protest, our authorised officers could try to reflect that in their behaviour or seek a second opinion. To put in place a free formal appeals process that does not involve the District Court will mean that somebody somewhere, whether that is in my office, a local authority office or anywhere else, will have to reassess the entire case and start all over again. A welfare notice is a short and sharp intervention. I liken it to giving someone a yellow card and a warning. It tells people that they should not do something, the corrections that must be made, that if they are carried out the notice will be forgotten but, if not, court proceedings will follow. The idea of having a free appeals system would mean that people would shut their door in the face of an authorised officer and say that they will appeal the notice whatever it states.

In most cases I would support a quick appeals process but creating one here would generate a lot of extra work for ourselves and undermine a welfare notice where its aim is to talk to somebody and correct animal welfare issues through discussion. I have changed my mind on the issue having examined the compliance notice system and I am comfortable in my belief that we do not need a separate appeals system. It would generate more delays and a lot more work. If people feel hard done by then the authorised officers will reflect that in their own behaviour and perhaps seek a second opinion. If there is a real disagreement then a person can resort to the District Court.