Skip to main content
Normal View

Agriculture Scheme Data

Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 22 June 2017

Thursday, 22 June 2017

Questions (3)

Charlie McConalogue

Question:

3. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to outline his plans to review the current information technology payments system in view of the significant problems faced by persons submitting applications and drawing down payments for GLAS, the KTG scheme, TAMS and other RDP schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28361/17]

View answer

Oral answers (6 contributions)

We have experienced many difficulties during the past year, in particular, with payments, as a result of the Department's information technology systems. Examples include problems with GLAS, TAMS and the knowledge transfer scheme. There have been numerous problems. The response we receive all the time is that the problem is with the IT system and that there is little officials can do about it. I hope the Minister of State can tell me what the Department is trying to do to try to solve the problem which has had a detrimental effect on farmers.

I will get into some of the specifics in the supplementary exchanges. This is something that is exercising the minds of many in the Department.

Under the rural development programme the Department has delivered over 20 new schemes that have been supported by IT capability in the past two years. In the first two years of the current rural development programme the Department implemented substantially more RDP schemes than had been delivered in the entire ten-year lifetime of the previous programme. To date, Ireland has drawn down funding at a rate that is 2.4 times higher than the EU average. This rate of delivery and draw-down would not have been possible without the availability of high-quality complex IT software systems to support the business units in the operation of these schemes.

Since 2014 the Department has adopted a policy of implementing fully digital end-to-end support for all but the smallest of schemes. It has an excellent record in the delivery of high-quality ICT systems. In that respect, it is ahead of our European partners and also highly regarded across the Civil Service and the public service.

We have been constantly among the first to make payments in the European Union. The Deputy will be aware from previous discussions on the GLAS programme that a number of issues have delayed payments. They have included a declaration by applicants of an incompatible parcel usage for the GLAS action chosen; changes in parcel boundaries on which a GLAS action is chosen, including splitting or the merging of parcels; an applicant no longer claiming the parcel on BPS 2016; incomplete documentation such as incorrect information on the low-emission slurry declaration; incomplete interim commonage management plans; and incompatible data and parcel history on Department databases. Separately, a number of issues arose relating to the GLAS IT system, with additional functionality being required to deal with non-standard cases. As advised previously, I regret the difficulties this may have caused for a number of farmers.

I am happy to advise that the IT aspect of the delivery of these schemes has been reviewed and that a revised team structure has been put in place. This matter will continue to be monitored.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

All but a small amount of outstanding work has been addressed and plans are in place to address this issue in the coming period. The delivery of payments in 2017 is ongoing, with GLAS I and II advance payments almost complete. GLAS + advance payments in respect of 2016 have issued to the majority of eligible applicants in recent days. In addition, the GLAS I and GLAS II balancing payments are scheduled to issue in the coming weeks, subject to the receipt of the applicant's nutrient management plan.

TAMS IT functionality is also available to pay the vast bulk of applicants. A relatively small number of TAMS II applications are subject to penalty and it is expected that payments for the majority of these cases will be issued in the coming weeks.

The Deputy will be aware that I have recently extended the deadline for the knowledge transfer schemes to 31 July. This will allow facilitators and vets further time to finalise actions for knowledge transfer group participants. It is anticipated that payments under the scheme will be made as scheduled in the autumn. A recent difficulty in the operation of the new systems provided by my Department for knowledge transfer farm improvement plans and animal health measures has been addressed. I anticipate that payments under the scheme will be made as scheduled in the autumn.

The Deputy can rest assured that I will do everything in my power to ensure the Department's ICT systems will have the necessary resources and capacity to deliver on our responsibilities to the farming community and other customers in the future.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I will call it as many in the farming community and I see it. Too often it seems like the Department is being run by a computer. Every time we come up with an issue, it is a question of the computer not letting officials do this or that. Even where there seems to be a reasonable problem that the application of a little common sense and reason would sort out, we are told that officials cannot do it and, unfortunately, payments are delayed. We have seen this happen across several schemes, for example, TAMS. I have learned of cases and know that Deputy Jackie Cahill has encountered similar cases. In such cases one small discrepancy means that the computer will not allow the payment to be made. There are delays for months and farmers are left in the lurch for money that they have already invested. We need to see the Department apply some common sense. It should be prepared in respect of its IT systems. It should be able to look at a file and deal with it to ensure farmers will be paid.

The Minister of State said he would address this issue in supplementary exchanges. I would like to know what specifically the Department has been doing to eradicate the problems we have seen with the IT systems. How will it operate a far more common-sense and farmer-friendly system that will not always seem to be directed by what the computer indicates?

The Deputy says it seems the Department is being run by an IT system, but people have to manage the IT systems too. I accept what the Deputy is saying to a point. However, the IT system has to score an application correctly. What if it throws up a discrepancy? I have listed some instances in which there may be a discrepancy. This is what happened in beefing up the IT unit and changing the team structure. The process is really important. When the IT system indicates that there is a problem or a discrepancy, the problem or discrepancy is identified and dealt with by way of direct contact, e-mail, with the adviser or farmer and a response is sought. I met the IT people before I came here. The Minister, Deputy Michael Creed, has committed to the balancing payments being made in June under GLAS I and II. Up to 35%, or 13,000 odd, of the nutrient management plans are coming in out of the 35,000 odd. I urge everyone to ensure the plans are complete. There has been no IT problem with nutrient management plans, but they need to come in before the payments can be processed. A total of 13,500 can be commenced. The other applicants need a nutrient management plan. It is not that difficult to get the plans in. The essence is that everything has to be traceable and the IT system needs to be satisfied. However, the process needs to be managed in such a way that when a problem shows, we can address the discrepancy and receive a response. That will allow it to be corrected.

I do not doubt the effort put in by departmental staff. We deal with them on an ongoing basis, especially at committee level. However, the Minister of State and the Department need to look again at the use of flexibility in the processing of the various applications.

It should be possible to put a note on a file that explains what the situation is and why the money should be paid, and which would allow it to be paid. Surely there must be a record showing that it complies with the regulations. It should not be as rigid as the computer blocking it and then it not being dealt with for months and being put to the back of the pile. That needs to be examined.

In respect of preparedness for these schemes, I am aware that the likes of GLAS are big schemes and that it was the first year of GLAS. I take that point. However, we were assured many times by the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, and the Minister, Deputy Creed, that they were on top of it and would be prepared and that all the systems would be up and running, yet it all fell flat and farmers were left to suffer without their payments. We cannot see that type of thing happening again. In particular, I ask for a review to ensure there is flexibility to apply common sense. The rules must absolutely be complied with but this must be done in a way that ensures that farmers are not made to suffer repeatedly.

To be clear, the regulations do not allow payment to be issued until the scheme has been complied with. There is no flexibility to say we believe it will be complied with. We cannot do that. What we can do is ensure that when a problem is identified, the discrepancy is dealt with as quickly as possible. At times, it is a matter of waiting for the other side to respond. I am dealing with a couple of cases of this nature. It is the same point as the one I am made about the nutrient management plan. It is a matter of trying to speed the process up. That is why the team structure has been changed and extra staff and resources assigned. In the year the basic payment scheme, BPS, first came out there were hold-ups but they have not occurred since.

Top
Share