Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 26 April 2018
13. Deputy Eamon Scanlon asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if additional staff will be allocated to supplement existing staffing numbers in the context of the workload in the Agriculture Appeals Office and in view of the fact that in 2016 and 2017 there was an increase in the volume of requests for reviews; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16269/18]
View answerI wish to ask the Minister whether additional staff will be allocated to the Agricultural Appeals Office given the workload of that office and the fact that in 2016 and 2017 there was an increase in the volume of requests for reviews.
The Agriculture Appeals Office is an independent office established in 2002 to provide an appeals service to farmers who are dissatisfied with decisions concerning designated schemes operated by my Department. The Agriculture Appeals Act 2001, along with the agriculture appeals regulations 2002, as amended, set down the functions of the director and the appeals officers, the decisions that may be appealed and the procedures to be followed in respect of appeals.
A total of 638 appeals were received in 2017 compared with 598 in 2016, an increase of 6.7%. In 2018, the number of agriculture appeals received at the end of quarter one was 106. This is lower than the number received in quarter one of 2017 and quarter one of 2016. The current appeals legislation provides for reviews of the decisions of appeals officers. In 2015 a total of 21 requests for reviews of appeals officer decisions were received by the office. In 2016, 45 such requests were submitted and in 2017 a further 41 requests for reviews were submitted. Requests for reviews are generally dealt with in order of receipt. A total of 18 reviews of appeals officer decisions were completed in 2017.
The Agriculture Appeals Office was restructured in 2017 and two additional staff were assigned to the office. The administrative function of the office has been split in two and a new full-time support unit has been established to deal with the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board, ALAB, and a full-time higher executive officer was assigned to manage agriculture appeals. The legislation states that only the director may revise the decision of an appeals officer if it is determined that there is an error in fact or in law. The Act provides that a deputy director may be appointed to cover the director in his or her absence. My Department is exploring options to appoint a deputy director of appeals.
The report of the review of the Agriculture Appeals Act, 2001 and the operation of the Agriculture Appeals Office was received by my Department in December 2017 and was published in February 2018 for stakeholder consultation. The recommendations contained in the report of the review committee are currently under consideration by my Department, particularly with regard to legislative changes that may be required to give effect to them. My Department avails of the workforce planning process to continually assess its business needs and I am confident the workforce planning process will ensure that sufficient resources continue to be available to the Agriculture Appeals Office, even with changing demands.
I thank the Minister for his response. The programme for Government contains a commitment to review the agriculture appeals procedures and to make them more transparent, which would be very welcome.
The review which was published is a very good assessment of where we are at. Additional staff have been appointed to the office. I would encourage farmers who feel aggrieved by decisions to bring those decisions to the attention of the Agriculture Appeals Office. The office is there to serve farmers.
I think that is acknowledged in the report which was carried out independently of my Department. Indeed the Agricultural Appeals Office itself is independent of the Department. It works very similarly to the Social Welfare Appeals Office, to which a file is moved lock, stock and barrel. It happens similarly in my Department. We keep the number of staff required there under constant review to see if it is fit for purpose. I am satisfied that it works pretty well but no organisation is beyond review, and certainly that review, whereas it has acknowledged the good work that body does and has raised some questions which are under consideration currently.
