Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Jul 2024

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I thank the Business Committee for putting this legislation on the schedule today. I am delighted to introduce the Agriculture Appeals (Amendment) Bill 2024, which seeks to amend the Agriculture Appeals Act 2001. Its primary purpose is to establish an independent agricultural appeals review panel in law. As Deputies will be aware, the current programme for Government includes a commitment "to establish an independent agricultural appeals review panel in legislation, as a priority, and ensure that the panel includes participants with practical knowledge and experience of farming." Today, I am very pleased to deliver on that commitment by presenting the Agriculture Appeals (Amendment) Bill 2024 to the House.

I wish to acknowledge the work on this Bill that has been done by many of the staff in my Department, namely, Lynda O'Regan as the head of the agriculture appeals division and chair of the independent appeals board and Ruth Kinehan also from the appeals office. I also acknowledge the work of David O'Loughlin from the Office of the Attorney General. I also pay a particular tribute to Pat Coman who recently retired. He was deputy chair of the independent appeals board and provided around 40 years of service to the Department in various forms, much of that in the appeals office itself. He gave great and distinguished service. I acknowledge and thank him for his service to the State and his exemplary record as a public servant.

By way of background, a review of the Agriculture Appeals Act 2001 was conducted in 2017, with a report being published in February 2018 confirming the independence of the Agriculture Appeals Office and containing a number of recommendations. Many of these recommendations have been implemented to date, such as the appointment of a deputy director; engagement with farm bodies involved in the farmers' charter of rights monitoring committee; formal induction training for newly appointed appeals officers; and the holding of case conferences and the holding of remote oral hearings for appellants.

Another recommendation contained in the 2018 report was the introduction of a fee for progression of an appeal to the independent agriculture appeals review panel, once established. I decided not to implement this recommendation because I believed it would impose an unnecessary and undue burden on farmers.

One of the key recommendations contained in the 2018 report was the establishment of an independent agriculture appeals review panel to provide greater assurance to stakeholders and underpin public confidence in the appeals process. In particular, the report recommended that this review panel comprise of a chairperson and, among its membership, include private individuals with technical and practical expertise in farming along with the director of agriculture appeals. The implementation of this recommendation will require a series of amendments to the Agriculture Appeals Act 2001, which have been provided for in the Bill, for the establishment of an agriculture appeals review panel. The main purpose of this review panel will be to conduct reviews of decisions of appeals officers based on errors of fact or law. This review function is currently carried out by the director of agriculture appeals and the Bill provides for the transfer of this essential function to the review panel.

The agriculture appeals office was established in 2002 to provide an independent appeals service for farmers who are dissatisfied with decisions of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine concerning their participation in agricultural schemes. The Agriculture Appeals Act 2001, and the agriculture appeals regulations emanating from that in 2002, as amended, provide for the legislative functions of the director of agriculture appeals and appeals officer and the basis for appeals and associated procedures. The agriculture appeals office is an administrative office for the management of appeals, overseen by the director of agriculture appeals and operating independently of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The current staffing allocation for the office comprises a director, a deputy director, 13 appeals officers and 11 administrative support staff. Since its inception in 2002, the office has handled approximately 15,700 appeals and more than 5,500 appellants have received improved outcomes in their cases. More than 500 director's reviews of decisions of appeals officers were conducted during that period.

Under the current operation of the 2001 Act, farmers who are dissatisfied with decisions of the Department regarding their participation in a scheme may submit an appeal to the director of agriculture appeals, through the agriculture appeals office, within three months from the date of the Department’s decision. The appeal is then assigned to an appeals officer, who gives a decision on the matter, usually after an oral hearing. Under section 10 of the Act, the decisions of appeals officers may be revised in certain circumstances: by an appeals officer based on new evidence or facts brought to his or her attention, or a relevant change in circumstance since the decision was made; or by the director, based on an error by an appeals officer in law or in facts. Currently, no limitation period is applicable for seeking a review under the 2001 Act.

As I said, the establishment of the agriculture appeals review panel will see it assuming the function, currently carried out by the director of agriculture appeals, of conducting reviews of decisions of appeals officers. In this regard, I draw attention to features proposed for its composition and operation. The 2018 report of the Act recommended that the review panel comprise five members, namely, an independent chairperson, the director of the appeals office and three additional members with technical and practical expertise. Following pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine recommended that the number of ordinary members on the review panel be increased from three to five, with the committee expressing the view that three ordinary members may not always be available to permit the proper functioning of the review panel. This recommendation is welcome and will serve to enhance the efficiency of the review panel. The Bill has been amended accordingly to reflect this increase in membership to seven, comprising the chair, the director or deputy director of the appeals office and five ordinary members. Furthermore, to enhance efficiency, the Bill provides that the review panel may sit in divisions, comprising the chair, the director or deputy director of the appeals office and one ordinary member. The same quorum applies to any other meeting of the review panel when it is not sitting in divisions.

As I mentioned earlier, currently, there are no timeframes in legislation for seeking a review of a decision of an appeals officer, meaning a review may be sought by either party to the appeal at any time after a decision has been made. The 2018 review recommended putting in place timeframes for seeking a review. In the first draft of the Bill, provision was made for a time limit of six months to seek a review of a decision of an appeals officer in the event of new evidence or facts or a change in circumstances. These are the reviews conducted by an appeals officer, not by the agriculture appeals review panel. The Bill also provided for a limit of three months for the seeking of a review of a decision of an appeals officer to the agriculture appeals review panel. However, following pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, the joint committee recommended that the time limits for seeking a review, either from an appeals officer or from the review panel, should be the same to avoid confusion regarding these differing timelines. This recommendation is also welcome and has been implemented in the current draft of the Bill. The timeline for seeking a review from either the review panel or an appeals officer is now six months from the date of the appeals officer’s decision. The Bill also makes provision for certain existing appeal decisions to be referred to the new review panel, which will be allowed for a period of one year after its establishment.

As an entirely separate measure, the Bill includes an amendment to the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997. This is a minor amendment to remove the existing requirement that the chair and members of the aquaculture licences appeals board vacate their membership on reaching 70 years of age. It is my intention to introduce one further amendment to the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997 on Committee Stage to alter the tenure of the chairperson of aquaculture licences appeals board from the current default period of five years to a period not exceeding five years, to align with the code of practice for the governance of State bodies.

Turning to the structure of the Bill and the related provisions, the new body will be known as the agriculture appeals review panel. In Part 1, sections 1 and 2 provide for the Short Title, collective citation, commencement and definitions of terms used within the Bill.

Part 2 deals with amendments to the Agriculture Appeals Act 2001. Section 3 amends section 1 of the Act to insert relevant definitions of "deputy director", "party" and "review panel".

Section 4 amends section 4 of the 2001 Act to allow for an appeals officer to be designated by the Minister to act as deputy director of agriculture appeals and to perform any other function of the director of agriculture appeals at the request of that director.

Section 5 amends the Act by the insertion of section 4A, after section 4, providing for the establishment of an agriculture appeals review panel and its functions to conduct reviews of the decisions of appeals officers.

Section 6 amends section 8 of the 2001 Act by providing that oral hearings may be held in person or, subject to agreement of the parties, remotely by electronic means. This provision was amended following pre-legislative scrutiny and a recommendation from the joint committee that hearings can be held remotely by electronic means only with the agreement of the parties. Based on that recommendation, the wording was amended by the addition of the phrase “subject to the agreement of the parties”. This section also provides that an appeals officer may determine an appeal notwithstanding the failure of a party to co-operate in arranging a hearing or the failure to attend a hearing.

Section 7 amends section 9 of the 2001 Act by providing that the decision of an appeals officer under section 7 is final, subject to a review by the agriculture appeals review panel and the existing right of appeal to the High Court. The purpose of this amendment is to replace the right of review to the director with a right of review to the agriculture appeals review panel.

Section 8 amends section 10 of the 2001 Act to provide a time limit of six months for seeking a review of a decision of an appeals officer, pursuant to section 10. It also provides that the decision of an appeals officer under section 10 is final, subject to a review by the agriculture appeals review panel and the existing right of appeal to the High Court. It also clarifies that any reference to a “revised decision” under the section includes a decision not to revise a decision. This provision introduces a time limit to seek a review that did not previously exist.

Section 9 amends the 2001 Act by the insertion of section 10A, after section 10, providing that the agriculture appeals review panel may conduct a review of a decision or a revised decision of an appeals officer where it appears to the agriculture appeals review panel that there is an error in fact or in law in the decision and where the request for the review is requested within six months of the decision of the appeals officer.

Section 10 amends the 2001 Act by expanding the existing right of appeal to the High Court on decisions of appeals officers to include decisions of the agriculture appeals review panel on a question of law. It also provides that the director of agriculture appeals shall be named as respondent to any appeal to the High Court in respect of the decision of an appeals officer, but not of the agriculture appeals review panel.

Section 11 amends section 14 of the original Act by providing additional reporting obligations on the director of agriculture appeals, to including the activities of the agriculture appeals review panel.

Section 12 amends the original Act by the insertion of section 14G, providing mandatory obligations on the chair, deputy chair and members of the appeals review panel and the forestry appeals committee, in respect of the disclosure of confidential information, and providing for criminal offences where these obligations are breached.

Section 13 amends the Act by providing the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine with a power to make regulations relating to oral hearings, the provision of information and the practice and procedures applicable to the functioning of the agriculture appeals review panel.

Section 14 amends the Act by the insertion of Schedule 3, providing for the composition and appointment of the chair and members of the agriculture appeals review panel, including the appointment of deputy chairpersons, the tenure of the members, provisions regarding resignation, dismissal, remuneration and allowances, and terms and conditions of office. It also provides requirements for the conduct of meetings, decision-making, sitting in divisions, and regarding correspondence between the agriculture appeals review panel and parties to a review, its independence and the procedures concerning any conflicts of interest.

Section 15 provides for the transitional arrangements after the commencement of section 9 of the Bill, permitting requests for reviews of decisions of appeals officers to the agriculture appeals review panel. It specifically provides for arrangements relating to decisions and appeals in existence before the commencement of section 9, and allows for the review of those pre-existing decisions by the agriculture appeals review panel in specified circumstances, where a request for review is made within 12 months of the commencement of section 9.

Part 3 provides for the amendment of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997. Section 16 amends section 24 of the 1997 Act by removing the requirement that the chair and members of the aquaculture licensing appeals board vacate their office on attaining the age of 70 years.

In summary, the main changes to be brought about by the Agriculture Appeals (Amendment) Bill 2024 will be as follows: the establishment of a new independent statutory body to be known as the agriculture appeals review panel; the introduction of time limits of six months for seeking a review of a decision of an appeals officer; and amendment to the Fisheries (Amendment) 1997 to remove the age limit of 70 years provided for the chair and members of the aquaculture licensing appeals board to vacate their office.

To touch on pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, in March I attended the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine for pre-legislative scrutiny. Afterwards, the committee issued a report containing six recommendations, some of which I have already touched on. In essence, three of these recommendations have been incorporated in the current draft of the Bill, namely, an increase in the number of ordinary members from three to five; that the agreement of all parties is needed before holding a remote hearing; and that the time limit for seeking a review from the review panel be increased from three months to six months. The other three recommendations were not incorporated or fully incorporated into the Bill. On recommendation 4, that at least two ordinary members of the review panel be nominated by farming organisations, I see it to be too restrictive, particularly when one considers that there are more than two farming organisations. An additional recommendation was to limit the number of representatives attending oral hearings with appellants to three. Appellants may wish to bring farm adviser, legal adviser or public representative to a hearing and there could be a breach of the right to fair procedures if this number were to be restricted to just three. The third recommendation that is not being fully incorporated is the one where the committee suggested removing the existing right of an appeals officer to examine an appellant at a hearing, when the appellant is represented at a hearing. The ability of an appeals officer to ask questions of an appellant is key to the proper determination of these appeals and needs to be maintained. It could be said that the recommendation was not fully rejected as the Bill now contains a provision that allows the appeals officer to examine any person giving evidence, along with the appellant.

I thank the stakeholders who have engaged with my Department over the past few years on the issues at the core of this Bill. I also thank the members of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine for their valuable work on the pre-legislative scrutiny stage of the Bill and on their report. I believe that the recommendations that have been incorporated into the Bill have helped to strengthen and enhance the Bill I put before you today. In conclusion, I look forward to Deputies' support for this legislation which, I believe, will bolster the confidence of the farming community in the agriculture appeals process. I look forward to the other Stages of the Bill as it progresses through both the Dáil and the Seanad.

I lastly thank my Department officials and the team led by Linda for their work in bringing this legislation together.

I welcome the legislation and commend the Minister for making it happen. I know this was a commitment that was made, not least in the programme for Government. It is good to see the legislation before the House this afternoon. The Minister mentioned the pre-legislative scrutiny undertaken by the committee on agriculture and the report that was published subsequently. I am very glad that the committee's six recommendations were considered and some have made their way into the Bill as outlined today. That is very welcome. This is not the first time the Minister has taken the recommendations of the committee when it comes to legislation, which is welcome. Where the committee works really well is when it brings in witnesses, typically farmers and farm organisations. What they tell us ends up feeding into the legislation and that is important. This has been sought for quite some time and it is welcome that we are at this point.

I want to raise a couple of the issues that were brought forward by the witnesses, particularly the farm organisations, when they came before the committee. It is importantly not only to look at the recommendations and the report itself but also to see what the farm organisations said once they had gone through what was proposed at that time. There was a question over the fact that the Minister would appoint the chair and ordinary members. A number of the farm organisations put forward the suggestion that an independent board be established with independent members who would then seek to appoint that independent chairperson, or perhaps put somebody forward to the Minister whom the Minister would officially appoint. Could consideration be given to ensuring that what is intended to be independent is actually independent? We do not want to have question marks once this is up and running. It is better to get it done now and get it done right in the legislation before the panel is established at all. That is a point that all the farm organisations made and it is important to raise it here today.

Another issue was how the review panel will work in its practical operation as regards expected turnaround for appeal decisions, how they will be notified and all of that, particularly the pre-notification of appeals, and whether it will be physical or oral. That is really important. We need to get down to further detail about how this will look in practical terms. Of course, the Minister can only put so much in the Bill. However, it is good to lay everything out and discuss it now as the Bill proceeds, so people know exactly what this is going to look like and how it is going to work, including resources and everything else. People want to know when this will be established and the timeline for it, and when the Minister expects it will be in place once the legislation is passed. I would not foresee any delay to that. Everyone in the House seems fairly positive and understands the importance of this legislation.

Another issue that was raised was the possibility for an appeal case to go to the Circuit Court rather than the High Court. It was said that there are significant costs towards going to the High Court. Most people will know that going to the High Court is not cheap. Could that be considered? It may already have been considered and there may be reasons but it is important to mention it here today.

Overall, this is positive legislation. Aside from the independence of the chair and members and how they will be appointed, the final question is the really important element of the Bill, in respect of including participants with practical knowledge and experience of farming. It was sought and really is the whole essence of what people want the review panel to look like. There is a question about how that will be determined by the Minister, if he will make the appointments without any other process in place, as has been suggested.

How will he decide what that process will look like? When he talks about a requirement to have practical experience of farming, what does that mean? Any further detail in this regard would be really helpful. I know he cannot say who will be appointed but it is important to have greater clarity in this regard. A question mark remains over this aspect of the Bill.

Overall, this is welcome legislation. The farm organisations welcome it. The provisions will be positive for farmers as we move forward. For many farmers, when a decision is made and they feel it is the wrong one, it takes a lot of time to address that, including dealing with correspondence and paperwork. It can be a difficult position for farmers to be in. Sometimes, they are called to oral hearings. Some people may not feel comfortable speaking in such a setting. There are lots of variances within the process. Every farmer is different. I hope the review panel will make a difference and will mean farmers are more comfortable with the process and have more confidence in it. That is important.

In case people think I am doing a runner, I advise colleagues that the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, is visiting Roscommon County Council this afternoon to provide a long-awaited update on the ongoing flooding at Lough Funshinagh. I am saying this on the record in order that colleagues are not left wondering where I am.

I welcome the Bill. In everything we do in this area, our concern is that there be fairness for farmers. It is also about bringing the enjoyment back into farming. The Minister knows all about the various schemes, the associated bureaucracy and everything that has happened over the years. I accept completely that there must be proper governance of everything that is done. However, the weight of bureaucracy attached to some of the schemes is sucking the joy out of farming. That is certainly the case for many farmers in Mayo, particularly small farmers who are getting a limited return for the really good and valuable work that is being done.

As the Minister said, this Bill is a step forward. I commend the work done by the agriculture committee under the chairmanship of Deputy Cahill. The pre-legislative scrutiny work done on the Bill was really valuable. It included bringing in the farm organisations, which have direct links with farmers on a daily basis. That type of engagement adds to the richness of what we do here. I acknowledge the contribution of the farm organisations. As I said, they are very active in their communities and among farmers.

My colleague Deputy Kerrane makes an important point regarding the independence of the board and that the appointment of the chair should be up to the members. The appeals panel must be of the highest integrity. I ask for consideration to be given to Deputy Kerrane's suggestion. She also spoke about the cost of taking cases to the High Court. Farmers in my constituency could not afford to go to the High Court.

It is important that farmers have the option to have their hearings heard online or in person. In many areas, there is no proper broadband service or connectivity. In addition, some farmers are not comfortable using digital devices and other technology. The option for an in-person hearing must always be there. The increase in the number of ordinary panel members from three to five is really important. The provision to allow hearings to take place by electronic means should not see any pressure being put on people in that regard. I welcome the timeframe of six months from the date of the appeals officer's decision for revisions to be made. I also welcome the proposals for farmers to be allowed to have someone in the room to support them. Some people will not feel comfortable speaking or being examined. It is important that farmers be facilitated in giving evidence.

The Minister will not be surprised by the other issues I am raising. The first concerns the national fertiliser register, which I raised with him previously. I welcome the developments in this regard. However, the process will be based on soil sample returns and the advice as to the correct fertilisers to use to avoid breaching the legislation. That will take a lot of consultation between farmers, within the Department and between the advisers. Farmers have already bought fertiliser for this year. I ask the Minister for leniency on this matter. We need to get this right and ensure farmers are familiar with the changes. A one-day course, similar to that provided for participants in the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, should be available to help people get their head around the new regulations. It is important hat we avoid decisions going to appeal if we can. We need to eliminate as many mistakes as we can out of the system. That should always be our aim.

Farmers are still waiting for their ACRES payments. I welcome the Minister's announcement that the payments will commence. However, the details are missing from the announcement. ACRES has been beset by poor organisation, IT problems and numerous false dawns and promises. Farmers who joined ACRES tranche 1 in late 2022 were advised their lands would be scored in the summer of 2023 and payments would issue last November or December. All of that was done under the constant threat from the Department that if deadlines were not met, serious penalties would be imposed on the farmers concerned.

The one deadline the Department itself had to comply with was to get the payments out by the end of 2023. I welcome the interim payments made in February. That happened after the Minister took the unprecedented step of borrowing money from the State to make payments of €5,000 to farmers. Following the local and European elections, the Department has said it is about to start the payments process for ACRES. Many people will have to wait. For people who were due to get the maximum payment of €7,000, a remittance advice was posted online to their account and the supplementary payment was made to them. However, if a farmer is due to receive €3,000 per year and previously got the interim payment of €5,000, the €2,000 has to be clawed back. Will the Minister look at how this process works? It is totally wrong to do it in the way it is being done. It is not farmers' fault that deadlines were not met by the Department in order for the correct payments to be made.

A major issue farmers have is that when the remittance statement is issued, there is no indication of how the money was calculated. The farmer needs to be issued with a breakdown of the field scores as soon as possible. Most advisers would have indicated to farmers the scores for their fenced lands. However, the scores issued for commonage lands by departmental staff have not been released. Those scores should have been issued with the remittance advice. Commonage lands form a major part of farmers' payments, especially along the western seaboard, including in Mayo. The scores accumulated for those lands are of vital importance to the viability of a holding.

The Department advised at the start of the scheme that if the commonage lands scored badly, at less than four out of ten, no payment for those lands would issue. The Department further stated that commonage shareholders in that situation would be advised at meetings on how to improve their scores in future years. However, the co-operation teams have been advised that none of those meetings can take place until the commonage scores have been revealed to the farmers involved. We are more than a year and a half into the scheme. Realistically, this means two years of payments will have gone by without any chance for farmers to improve the scores of commonage lands. Farmers need full disclosure of the scores for their lands. That is vital if they are to be able to do what they need to do. The recoupment of payments without farmers having that information is not a fair way to treat them. Workers in no other sector would be treated in this way. Why must farmers continuously bear the burden of Government incompetence and a lack of transparency in regard to these payments?

This legislation is obviously a welcome advance. Farming has become a part-time occupation for many. Farmers need to have a job along with it in order to have an income. Central to that is the architecture we have around payments, assistance and having schemes in place to assist farmers. Very often, because of weather and the nature and topography of the land that people are trying to farm, issues will arise. Sometimes farmers fall foul of rules they never intended to fall foul of and find themselves in situations where they are frozen out of schemes or unable to meet the requirements. Then we have these appeals processes in place.

When inspections and appeals occur, farmers find it very difficult because they delays their payments, which are vital to them continuing in the occupation they have chosen. We must ensure that we have a process which, more than anything else, is efficient. A decision should be made quickly in order that farmers can get their payments in a timely manner. That is the big problem many people have. This legislation to monitor that and try to bring a sense of focus to appeals is very welcome. There are some little changes which will be put forward that may even enhance. I hope the Minister will consider some of those, especially in the context of how the independence of the board can be assured. It is not enough for something to have the appearance of being independent; it must be absolutely independent, and people must have assurances around that.

My colleague Deputy Conway-Walsh mentioned ACRES, which is a major problem for many farmers, certainly in my part of the world. There was a meeting about this issue at Drumshanbo Mart three or four weeks ago. The meeting was organised by the IFA. There was quite a large attendance. Many farmers had received the interim payment of €5,000 but they still did not know what their score was for their land. They were still in abeyance as to what the situation would be. Would they end up having to pay money back? Where was it? The scores were supposed to have been carried out last summer. There were difficulties with that as well because the technology involved required the uploading of the process to the Department’s website. Often out in the kind of landscape we have in Leitrim, Sligo and Donegal, which is quite mountainous, there is very little Internet access. That was a problem for the people who were organising it and delivering on the scheme.

Apart from that, the issue is farmers do not know what is happening. They have not got any sense of when they will receive the balancing payment. I am aware the Minister announced it is going to come shortly. Farmers still do not know what their score is. They do not know what fields they have work to do on that they could improve in order to raise their score. They do not know where they are because they have not got the details. For most farmers – this was reflected at the meeting I attended in Drumshanbo – the feeling was the Department had come out with this scheme in a rush, had not thought it through and had not got the rules and regulations in places. The officials were unsure of what they were doing. If the Department comes across like that to farmers, it is very difficult for them to comply. They do not know what they are being asked to comply with. That is a difficulty with ACRES. The delays are going to have an adverse effect because this is a five-year scheme. As it is running on with all this happening, we in a situation where some farmers have not got scores for their land and do not know where they stand. Coming into the winter months, they certainly will not be able to know what biodiversity measures they can take to enhance that. There needs to be an acceptance there should be a great deal more flexibility in how this scheme works.

We do not want to see a situation where farmers in ACRES are the first ones who must find their way through the legislation we are discussing. We want to get the schemes right in the beginning so we do not have situations where farmers are going into appeals or into problems in future. As the Minister knows, the big issue for most people in the farming industry is that their income has been dwindling and has been cut back for many years. This is especially true for those in the west and north west who depend on suckling and sheep farming. We have serious problems there. The number of people choosing to stay farming the land is decreasing all the time. That is a reflection of the difficulties they have in getting an income from farming and that must be recognised.

If this legislation can enhance the situation, it will be very welcome. However, there is still much work to be done on the other side of it to ensure that people will not need to avail of what is provided for in the legislation.

This legislation has received a broad welcome from Deputies and the farming organisations. However, there is a broader issue here in the context of how we approach rights and obligations and the enforcement of same. To be blunt, we have created a Byzantine mess of quasi-judicial bodies. There is ultimately a risk of constitutional weakness, vulnerability and challenge to many of these and we need to respond to that. We need efficiency of decisions, but we also need to ensure fair procedures, which are often about the right decision being made in a fair way as quickly as possible. An appeal, and a functioning appeal, is of course part of that, but the words of the previous Chief Justice come to mind when we are debating things like this. He said:

Every time there is a new form of right or obligation created, we create a new body. Sometimes there is a regulatory body, and a regulatory appeal body, and sometimes the legislation says you can appeal from that body to the courts on a point of law, sometimes to the Circuit Court and sometimes to the High Court. Sometimes you may even appeal on the merits to the Circuit Court. Of course, behind that there is always the right to seek judicial review and there is a great deal of case law about whether or not the internal ... systems in the regulatory bodies ... [were] exhausted before seeking judicial review. However, often a party argues that if they had done that, it would have been too late ... [as then that is a] collateral attack on the original decision. I think we have gotten ourselves into significant difficulties in this area.

When reviewing these appeals processes and bodies and as we set up yet another organ of the administrative State in a relentless march, those words need to be in our mind. I am concerned there is not a whole-of-government approach to how we deal with these, because each Department creates these bodies and does so in a different way and with different procedures to the next, as the previous Chief Justice alluded to.

Often it is the fair procedures piece that is completely missing. We know from the recent Zalewski case in the Supreme Court that this is a constitutional weakness that risks these structures being struck down. In that case, the previous Chief Justice said, "The standard of justice administered under Article 37 cannot be lower or less demanding than the justice administered in courts under Article 34". Article 34 states, "Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution ...", whereas Article 37 allows for "the exercise of limited functions and powers of a judicial nature, in matters other than criminal matters ... [where it is] duly authorised by law" . It is under Article 37 that we get this panoply of quasi-judicial bodies, but as I said, the constitutional interpretation requires that they operate to the same standard as a court with respect to fair procedures, ability to compel evidence, ability to cross-examine, ability to demand documents, ability to discover documents and evidence given under oath. These are the sorts of things that are fair procedures and protect people and their rights. We do not seem to be putting these into our various administrative bodies or administrative appeal bodies, or we do so in very different ways.

The State really needs to get a grip on how it handles the administration of justice under Article 37. While there are Deputies in here who complain about the outsourcing of executive power to various State agencies that are opaque and unaccountable to us in this House and, in many cases opaque, to the Minister whose power they are taking or they have been given, the same is happening in terms of the courts and rights and obligations of citizens to these quasi-judicial bodies.

I am gravely concerned that it is a fundamental undermining of our civil rights. We need to be very careful to ensure that we are administering justice in these bodies to the same standard as we would under Article 34. The Law Reform Commission is currently engaged in a broad project with regard to quasi-judicial bodies. The Government needs to engage with and support them to finish that work as soon as possible in order that we can have some clear standardisation across Departments and across these bodies so we can ensure fair rights and procedures are experienced by everybody who engages with the administrative State, whether it is farmers seeking to engage with the agricultural appeals review panel or in any other situation.

As I said, we seem to be mushrooming these quasi-judicial bodies. Then, if we look at many of these bodies, and there has been a call for resources here, what often happens is that they do not get the staff they need. They do not get the time to make decisions. People seek their rights, and all they get are delays and things get dragged out.

Deputies in this Chamber regularly talk about the frustration of their constituents with the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB. The Residential Tenancies Board was set up to provide quicker, more efficient access to our rights, the assumption being that courts are expensive and slow. The courts are expensive and slow because we do not properly resource the administration of justice and legal aid and civil legal aid in this country. That is why courts are slow. If we look at the RTB, however, it is incredibly slow. It is almost impossible to get enforcement through as well.

We are setting up these bodies to protect our rights and offer quick and cheap administration of justice when they do not deliver that. We need to ensure that where we set up these bodies, we are properly resourcing them because otherwise we do not actually receive the promised efficiencies we get by avoiding the courts. What we get is a standard of justice that is lower than that administered in the courts. Really, the citizens seeking to protect their rights are not actually getting what they are being promised. As I said, this creates a vulnerability to constitutional challenge, bearing in mind the words of the Chief Justice in the Zalewski case.

It is not the first time I have said it. As I said, I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Ceann Comhairle and all the staff on the entire campus. None of us would get a whole pile done if it were not for all of them.

We are obviously in support of this. It was a proposal from the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine and it is supported by the farm organisations. It makes absolute sense that we have an agricultural appeals review panel, that we make sure it is sufficiently independent and trusted and that it is resourced to be able to do the job that is necessary.

Many of my colleagues spoke about the issues and the importance of schemes and payments, but also about the technicalities and the fact that we need to have streamlining and efficiency. I have spoken to the Minister many times about this previously so that we can ensure we have sustainable family farms. We know there are many complaints at times regarding the difficulties that farmers sometimes have in dealing with the agencies and Departments.

Deputy Martin Kenny spoke specifically about the issues we need to address with regard to ACRES. As I said before, I welcome the fact that we are moving towards some sort of support for those farmers who were impacted in the Cooley Peninsula last Halloween. Obviously, Teagasc went out and did its piece of research. We just need to make sure there is a connection and actual communication with the farmers to ensure they are given the necessary supports. I attended two meetings in the Cooley Peninsula, one of which was at St. Patrick's GAA in Lordship and another at Cooley Kickhams Gaelic Football Club. The meeting was very specific to the Dundalk-Carlingford greenway. It was organised by Councillor Antóin Watters and Councillor Fiona Mhic Conchoille and two other local councillors, one from Fine Gael and one from Fianna Fáil. There was a huge depth of feeling and a huge amount of unease, particularly from farmers. The Minister’s name may have been taken in vain once or twice.

However, the fact is that there has been a bit - beyond a bit - of failure with regard to the consultation process. There is some lack of trust. Sometimes, that is with regard to the difficulties that exist in relation to planning. Some of the soundings from the room, and I know others have been supportive, were that people are absolutely against this. There is a huge amount of unease, particularly among the local farmers. I ask that there would be some element of engagement with the Minister and other Ministers. I will be following this up with Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, and Louth County Council, which are the sponsors of all of these projects. I welcome the fact that there was an extension to the consultation period. It is absolutely vital that people put in the information they have and put in submissions on the difficulties they have. Even those who mentioned any element of support spoke about particular issues that happened previously for other greenways such as the lack of upkeep and lack of people to contact regarding issues. In these cases, however, it is particularly an issue for local farmers. We all know how much farmers, some of whom have very small holdings, are afraid of losing lands that could mean some of these farms would not be sustainable. I ask that the Minister use his offices and have engagement. I have no doubt he will be contacted by the local Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, and others.

I am delighted to see this Bill reach Second Stage as Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We carried out pre-legislative scrutiny on this Bill and presented a report to the Minister. I am glad to say that the Minister has taken on board a number of the recommendations that were made by the committee.

Usually at committee, there is divisiveness and there are different views as regards legislation. In this case, however, there was universal welcome. It is something that has been promised for a long time. I am delighted that the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, is now bringing this Bill to pass.

The Minister has taken on board a number of points that will make sure farmers have confidence in this agricultural appeals review panel. It is absolutely essential that farmers have confidence in the review panel we set up. First, there are going to be at least two farmers on the review panel. At the end of the day, everyone likes to be adjudicated by his or her peers. People will go into that review panel knowing their case is going to be understood by people on the panel and that they will get a fair hearing. I have attended many agricultural appeals hearings over the years. In fairness, they are always courteous, well-managed and well-run. However, a farmer will really appreciate that when he or she goes in, one of his or her own will be on the other side of the table to listen to his or her case and plea to get a fine rescinded. That is most welcome.

The Minister has also taken on board the suggestion to increase the number of members on the panel. Again, that will make sure this works well in practice. It is important that a reasonable number of members of the panel are present for all hearings. The Minister has set in the legislation what constitutes a quorum, etc. I would hope it works out that if for whatever reason the attendance of a member of the panel is not up to what we would deem acceptable, his or her membership could be reviewed. Some people take on jobs at times and then find out they do not have enough time to fully commit to it. It is something we might examine when we get to the later Stages of the Bill so that the attendance record of members of the panel will be up to a certain level.

It is important to make sure that this panel works efficiently and well. We have been looking for an independent appeals body for many years. It is grand and gratifying to see now that it is coming to pass.

As Chairman of the Oireachtas committee, I know it will be coming back to us. We knew it was coming in here today and we have made arrangements for it to be taken at our first meeting when we come back in September. Most definitely, the committee, which I am privileged to Chair, will not be blamed for delaying the passage of the bill and we get it back into the Chamber as quickly as possible and get this Bill into legislation and up and running. As is my wont, we will co-operate fully with the Minister and his staff to ensure that we get a speedy passing of this Bill. I look forward to coming back to the Chamber to pass it into legislation. As I said, the door of our committee is wide open for this to come back to us. I presume, after today, it will be referred back to our committee and we will deal with it at the first meeting the committee has in September.

I again commend the Minister on bringing forward this Bill. Farming organisations and everyone else is on side with this. It is a very progressive step. At times, farmers feel aggrieved about inspections they have had. What is proposed in the Bill will bring fairness and will allow farmer to be confident that they have a route they can go down without it costing them a great deal of money, that they can get a fair hearing and that if their cases stand up to scrutiny, then whatever fines were imposed will be refunded. This is a great step forward. I commend the Minister on advancing this Bill.

I acknowledge the foundational importance of agriculture in our society. Agriculture is not merely an industry; it is the backbone of the economy and provides sustenance and livelihoods to millions across our nation. Our farmers, often the unsung heroes, toil day and night to feed our burgeoning population and contribute significantly to our GDP.

The agrifood sector is our oldest and largest indigenous exporting sector and its products are traded from every county in Ireland to more than 180 countries around the globe. However, according to the CSO's Output, Input and Income in Agriculture - Preliminary Estimate 2023, the value of agricultural output at basic prices is estimated to have decreased by €1.7 billion or 13.5% to €11.2 billion in 2023. Intermediate consumption costs are estimated to have decreased by €383 million, or 4.8%. Operating surplus, the aggregate farm income, is estimated to have decreased by 36% to €3 billion in 2023. The agrifood sector has faced numerous challenges in recent years, including the challenges posed by Brexit, Covid-19 and war. Therefore, agriculture schemes and direct payments contribute significantly to the typical farm income in Ireland. For some sectors, these payments provide the majority share of the income for the agribusiness.

According to the Annual Review and Outlook for Agriculture, Food and the Marine 2023:

During the calendar year 2022, Irish farmers received around €2.02 billion in direct payments. The largest payment was the basic farm payment or BPS, which accounts for around €810 million.

The funding provided last year was exceptional and was based on the fact that prices, particularly of fertiliser and diesel, were exceptionally high as a result of what was happening in international markets. However, there has also been adverse weather, which has affected livestock which required the Government to support farmers in times of need by means of significant investment. The Agriculture Appeals (Amendment) Bill 2024, builds upon existing frameworks to streamline the appeals process for farmers, ensuring that their grievances are addressed swiftly and fairly.

A report entitled Review of the Agriculture Appeals Act, 2001 and operations of the agriculture appeals office highlighted inconsistencies and difficulties in assessments across all scheme types. The report also highlighted a perceived bias and a lack of significant independence of the agriculture appeals office from the Department, and the absence of definitive timeframes and deadlines for appeals and decisions, resulting in some cases extending over many months. Therefore, in order to strengthen the independence of the agriculture appeals process, this Bill allows for the establishment of a new independent statutory body to be known as the agriculture appeals review panel. If an appellant is not satisfied with the decision of an appeals officer, he or she will now be able to seek to have the panel review the decision.

By expediting the resolution of disputes and appeals, this Bill aims to reduce the burden on our farmers, who often face prolonged delays in seeking redress. This is evidenced by the significant number of cases that are revised, either in full or partially, by the Department during the appeals process. Furthermore, to ensure transparency, the panel will approve the appeals office’s code of practice and monitor its performance measures in processing cases where the Department would report annually, on a regional basis, to the review panel on the length of time taken to respond to requests from the appeals office for information and files and would also report summarised details of the decisions made on internal reviews by the Department.

Critically, this Bill underscores our commitment to inclusive growth and social justice. By ensuring that the voices of marginalised farmers are heard and their rights protected, we uphold the principles of equity and fairness. This Bill empowers farmers, particularly small farm holders and women farmers, by providing them with the tools and mechanisms to assert their rights and access the resources they need to thrive. Let us consider the economic implications of this legislation. By fostering a more transparent and equitable appeals process, we create an environment conducive to investment and innovation in agriculture. This, in turn, catalyses rural development, creates employment opportunities and contributes to overall economic growth. The ripple effects of a robust agricultural sector extend far beyond the farm gate, touching every facet of our economy. If we want to progress in implementing Food Vision 2030, our shared strategy for the agrifood sector, we need to invest in our farmers and support them as best we can. Overall, it is clear that this legislation is a step in the right direction. Much more can and must be done for farmers. This legislation represents not just a legal adjustment but a profound shift in how we support and empower our farmers, protect our environment and sustain our food security for future generations.

The main provisions of this Bill relate to the creation of the agriculture appeals review panel, independent from the agriculture appeals office. That is to be welcomed. As the Minister stated, it is part of the programme for Government. It is envisaged that this office would be responsible for undertaking independent review of the decisions of officers of the agriculture appeals office. It also further seeks to facilitate decision reviews in an accessible manner, leaving the option open for High Court appeals and scheme decisions. I wonder whether the Minister knows how many farmers have undertaken High Court appeals on that basis. I would not have thought it was too many.

In this Bill, there are clarifications introduced around timeframes for seeking review on appeal decisions by the agriculture appeals office. It says that inspections for eligibility and cross-compliance are carried out by the lead Department and where an appellant, that being a person lodging an appeal, is dissatisfied with the Department's decision on a scheme application, the situation is to submit a appeal to the agriculture appeals office for a decision to be reviewed within three months of having notified the Department of the decision and having exhausted the internal Department review processes.

The legislation proposes to set up a new review panel of farmers who are dissatisfied with the decision of the agriculture appeals office. I welcome that, and I think most people do. I am glad to see that the Minister had wide engagement with farm bodies when the legislation was being drafted. The review panel will consist of five members, an independent chairperson, the director of the agriculture appeals office and three additional members with technical and practical expertise. That is probably the most important aspect of the panel the Minister is proposing. I am interested to know what the Department thinks technical and practical experience will be needed. The panel will need people who are involved in farming, people who come from different farming backgrounds and people who understand the importance of engaging with agricultural schemes and trying to draw down money as part of their income.

The other recommendation is the creation of a deputy director of the appeals office. This person will have a role to play in the area of quality assurance when it comes to appeals processes and the consistency of outcomes. That will involve qualitatively reviewing what the office is doing, which, I presume, is something the Department is trying to do already. Hopefully, the Department engaging with the office, mandating it and giving it teeth will improve the situation on the ground.

I am happy that the Bill underwent significant pre-legislative scrutiny, which has made it robust. The Bill will improve the environment relating to reviews of appeal decisions and will do so with the input of people who have relevant farming experience. Hopefully, this will ensure maximum engagement on the challenges that often arise in terms of scoring and compliance with all of the requirements of farm schemes.

As the Minister will be aware, one of the big issues that arises for farmers availing of farm schemes is in terms of their scoring and compliance and being able to be awarded the full output that the schemes provide.

I will digress slightly and go beyond the legislation for a minute. In 2022, Irish farmers received approximately €2.02 billion in direct farm payments. The largest payment was the basic farm payment, BPS, which accounted for approximately €810 million. The Minister will be aware that in the most recent census 61,473 people considered themselves to be farmers, yet last year there were 123,000 people registered for BPS payments. The Minister will be aware this issue has arisen a number of times. The Irish proportion of the CAP budget is diminishing and we need to modern the whole area of CAP. It needs to be thought about in terms of awarding productive farmers who are actually producing food in an ever-more tightly regulated business environment. We talk a lot about exports and productive farming but this is where we now have an issue in this country. We can see it. If one goes around the country and looks at what is happening in terms of productive farming, one will know, with the weather the way it has been, the grass growing and the nitrogen derogation, the reductions in yield that are occurring across the country, particularly in the dairy sector, will have a knock-on effect right across beef and stores. I assume something similar may be happening in the sheep sector as well. The increasing environmental pressures on food production are bringing significant change to our agrifood sector and the CAP moneys must be prioritised for those 61,473 active food producers in order to support them in meeting their ongoing challenges. Without significant revisiting of farm supports distribution, significant numbers of viable farms may no longer make productive sense into the future. That is stark. It is staring us in the face. I know of a number of farmers who are in that position.

I highlight to the Minister the ongoing challenges that reducing nitrogen levels is bringing. Farmers are as committed as anybody else to biodiversity. In my own area in the south east, we get singled out a lot for the high nitrogen levels in the three rivers we have down there and it is all attributed to farming. That is most unfair. We still have some dysfunctional water effluent and treatment systems down there. We still have some factories that are discharging effluent into the water courses. It is not all down to agriculture but agriculture gets the blame. As the Minister will be well aware, for this past year, particularly for farmers who are trying to put out fertiliser, the amount of phosphorous and potassium they can put out has now been significantly reduced and that is having a direct effect on the amount of grass they are growing, which affecting their yield. Farmers are now being told to either take on more land to try to keep their stocking rates, or to reduce their stocking, yet we are one of the most efficient grass and milk producing nations in the world. It does make sense. I know these are EU directives to which we have signed up, so there is not a lot we can do, but certainly we must have some latitude in the implementation of plans to understand the difficulties farmers are experiencing.

I know of a dairy farmer in the south east who had a farm inspection in January. Three agricultural inspectors came to his farm and spent three days looking at his infrastructure, taking soil samples and reviewing his paperwork. Lo and behold, in June another two arrived to do the same inspection, less than six months later, and review what the first people were doing. All of this takes up a person's productive time. More important, it is starting to make people feel that they are somehow villains in terms of the role they are playing. If we have inspections, surely they should be done adequately once a year or they should be done to take account of the significant seasonality that the schemes require. It does not make much sense to have five people traipsing around the south of Ireland for five days each. I am not quite sure what they were doing.

I refer to other payments that might be picked. Someone just said to me that the drive for improved biodiversity should be encouraged by a coupled payment that farmers could see as a valuable entity within itself. Many farmers have devoted their lives to being good land managers and producing milk, grain and meat of the best quality that the market demands. Having some kind of a biodiversity payment would encourage them further in that area.

I will share with the Minister a communication I have just received on agriculture and how farmers who are suffering TB testing at present can get in touch with the Department. The text message I received states:

The Department mostly don't answer phone. If they do - no help. [They say they] will get someone to phone you. If you're lucky, you'll get a call back two weeks later [or else] usually an answering machine. Rarely will you get a call back.

People who are on short time, term leave, annual leave, parental leave or sick, and no one else seems to be avail to help or to take over the query that they were handling.

The person asks that a phone line dedicated to issues relating to TB testing be introduced for every county in the country in order that farmers can contact the Department to find out how things are working out at what is a distressing time for many farmers who get a positive test on their farm. Maybe the Minister will take that on board.

In the main, the Bill has undergone significant pre-legislative scrutiny and it is to be welcomed by the House. I certainly welcome it.

I thank the Deputies for their contributions and, indeed, for the broad-based support for this legislation. I also thank the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. In particular, I thank the Chairman, Deputy Cahill, who has put a lot of work, time and effort into this, as have all of the committee members. I appreciate the fact that the committee members took the time to meet with stakeholders, give this their serious thought and consideration, and come back to with a considered report. That approach always helps legislation. It is a really important part of the legislative process and it is very constructive. I always consider carefully the points that come back from the committee. As the points that come back from the agriculture committee are always constructive and considered, I always give them strong consideration and incorporate their thoughts as much as I possibly can into the legislation. Indeed, I have done so in respect of this Bill.

Likewise, I thank Members for their contributions today and, indeed, the broad support for the legislation. I welcome the confirmation from the Cathaoirleach of the joint committee that it has set aside time at the first meeting of the committee after the Dáil recess to enter Committee Stage. I certainly look forward to further engagement. Deputies may wish to discuss the Bill with me in the meantime. I look forward to that part of the legislative process proceeding efficiently, after which we will come back here for Report and Final Stages and then take the Bill to the Seanad.

The issue in respect of the High Court was raised by a number of Members. This relates to the desire to make sure the appeals process does not give rise to undue cost or an unfair burden on farmers. That has certainly been the full objective in preparing this legislation. The objective has been to make sure there is a strong and robust appeals system in place that deals with farmers fairly and ensures they get an efficient service and fair adjudication in any appeal they might make. However, under our legal system, there is always the opportunity to appeal to the High Court. It is the default court in this State for appeals on a point of law. The Circuit Court has limited jurisdiction in that regard. All laws and appeal systems in place in this country will always be subject to the citizen having the right to appeal on a point of law to the High Court.

None of us propose to take that away because it is a very important part of our legal structure. Our objective as regards the systems we put in place is to make sure they are thorough, robust and fair. That has certainly been the full objective regarding how we proceeded with this legislation. It has been a key part of the rationale of the legislation's structure as witnessed by, for example, the absence of any charge involved in appealing to the new independent appeals review panel. That is something we see farmers as having a right to do. There should not be any impediment to farmers doing that.

Overall, it is the intention that the Bill strengthens public confidence in the appeals process, given that there will now be an independent review panel conducting reviews of decisions of appeals officers, where there is deemed to be an error in fact or law in the decision. That function is currently undertaken by the director of the appeals office, although I again wish to stress this is no reflection on the current process. The review carried out in 2017 confirmed the independence of agricultural appeals officers in the conduct of their functions. However, the Bill is a very important step forward in making sure that the system is seen to be and is as independent, robust and thorough as it possibly can be.

I thank all the Members for their contributions today. I look forward to seeing the Bill come before the committee very promptly, proceed through the Dáil and become law.