I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney.

I, too, welcome the Minister and thank him for taking this Commencement matter which I have raised a number of times in recent years. As the Minister is probably very well aware, the inspection regime causes considerable distress to farmers whose properties are being inspected. It is imperative that I highlight the practices that have been followed by some officials during the most recent inspection period.

In the Galway East constituency and elsewhere throughout the country inspectors arrived on farms and conducted inspections without giving prior notice. In the ordinary course of events, this would render their arrival on farms illegal. However, they carried out their inspections under the terms of the animal feed and hygiene regulations and, under EU law, no notice is of such inspection is required. A difficulty arose in many cases in that the departmental officials then proceeded to carry out tagging inspections of sheep and cattle, in respect of which 48 hours notice is required, and further inspections of land eligibility, of which 14 days notice should be given.

Many farmers have come to my office to complain about the penalties imposed on them. From my legal experience, it is clear that the departmental officials exceeded their jurisdiction in cutting any single farm payment stemming from cases in which the minimum notice period was not respected and, therefore, the penalty could not be upheld if challenged through the courts. Some departmental officials gave notice to farmers of their payments being cut. This was done on an ad hoc basis, without particulars being provided of which cuts were being made or how they had arisen. It is clear that we need to strive for better standards to ensure best practice is adhered to and that the fundamental principles of fair procedures are upheld in farm inspections.

A number of farmers in the Galway East constituency where I live have informed me that they dread farm inspections. In many cases they believe they are being treated unfairly and are afraid to stand up for themselves for fear of detrimental action being taken against them in the future. This is wrong. It is an unacceptable imposition on the farming community and we need to put a stop to it.

I have raised this issue in the Seanad on several occasions. While I acknowledge that the Department and the Minister have worked hard on the charter of rights for farmers, it is very much a fluffy document. I do not believe it gives any legal status to farmers and does little to empower them throughout this process. Procedure is important. It should be incumbent on agencies to give farmers at least seven working days notice in writing that an inspection is to be carried out on their land, including of cattle and sheep tagging and so on. This is standard practice on the part of other agencies of the State. I refer, for example, to the Revenue Commissioners and the fact that they give notice of proposed audits, etc. I do not think farmers should be treated any differently. It is unacceptable that they would not receive, at the very minimum, a letter informing them that they are to be subject to an inspection in the weeks ahead. Farmers, particularly hill farmers, of which there are many in the constituency in which I live, would then at least have an opportunity to enlist the support of neighbours in rounding up cattle and sheep to ensure they were properly tagged and could thereby pass inspection. These are proactive measures to deal with the current situation relating to procedures for carrying out farm inspections. I look forward to the Minister's response.

I thank the Senator for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight on a number of matters. First, I would like to outline to the House the background to the inspection requirements relating to the direct payment scheme and other area-based schemes.

In the context of the delivery of the direct payment scheme and rural development measures, my Department is required to carry out an annual round of inspections on a number of farms. These cover such issues as eligibility under the schemes and compliance with cross-compliance requirements as set down in EU legislation. The basis for such inspections is governed by EU legislation and there are certain minimum numbers and types of inspections that must take place annually. Eligibility inspections must be carried out on a minimum of 5% of beneficiaries. These inspections verify the eligibility of the land declared for the drawing down of payments and ensure any ineligible land or features have not been not been included for aid purposes and that other scheme-specific eligibility criteria have been met.

My Department has made every effort to respond to concerns about the impact on farmers of on-farm inspections. Arising from this, 75% of land eligibility inspections are initially carried out without any farm visit as the information required is acquired using the technique of remote sensing via satellite imagery. In addition, the governing regulations allow for eligibility inspections under the various schemes to be combined. For example, cases selected for inspection under the basic payments scheme can also count towards the inspection requirement under greening, the young farmers scheme, etc., thereby limiting the overall number of such inspections required to be carried out.

The rate of inspection for cross-compliance is a minimum of 1% of beneficiaries regarding all statutory management requirements, SMRs, and good agricultural conditions, GAC, in terms of standards. However, 3% of farmers must be inspected under the bovine identification and registration, IDR, requirements and 3% of sheep or goat farmers must be inspected, covering 5% of the flock.

My Department endeavours to minimise the number of farm visits as much as possible by combining animal IDR inspections with land eligibility inspections, where feasible. Rules regarding advanced notification of inspections are clearly laid down in the governing EU regulations and must be adhered to by officials of my Department. The regulations allow the Department to give notice of land eligibility and cross-compliance inspections involving SMRS, other than those relating to food, feed and animal welfare. However, this notice must be strictly limited to the minimum period necessary and shall not exceed 14 days. For checks involving cattle and sheep identification and registration, the minimum advance notice is 48 hours.

For SMRs dealing with feed, food and animal welfare, no advance notice may be given and these inspections must take place on an unannounced basis.

Following discussions with the farming organisations, as part of a review of the farmers' charter of rights, it has been agreed that where the purpose of the visit by the inspecting officer is a combined notice and non-notice inspection, this will be clearly explained by the inspecting officer to the farmer.

All no-notice inspections will be conducted separately from all notice inspections, unless the farmer requests otherwise, which I think is the issue the Senator is raising. A written notice will be given to the farmer on arrival at the holding and the inspector will inform and agree with the farmer when he or she will return to complete the notice elements of the inspection. In other words, we are separating the two. We have had a long and detailed discussion with farming organisations on this issue. I was involved in much of those negotiations and to simply brush it off as fluffy language is-----

It was the charter of rights-----

Yes, the charter of rights.

-----that I referred to as fluffy. There is no legal basis for it.

I am sorry, but the Senator has had her say and I am now responding, if that is okay.

There is an agreement between farming organisations that represent the interests of farmers and the Department on how a new approach towards inspections would be followed that is consistent with the regulations under which we need to operate, as otherwise we will be subject to disallowances. Farming organisations have signed up to it, but the Senator does not seem to be happy with it. I am not quite sure on whose side she is. Farming representative bodies are happy with the new farmers' charter. We are now going to implement the new much more farmer-friendly approach towards inspections. It is the result of long and blunt discussions to ensure we will abide by the rules and regulations, as we are legally obliged to do. At the same time, we are introducing as farmer-friendly a regime as possible.

I do not want any scenario whereby farmers are in fear of departmental officials coming onto their land. I know that the Senator has raised these issues before and think we have responded to them in the discussions with farming organisations in putting together a new approach in the charter for farmers' rights. The approach will now be to ensure the new system works and is implemented in a way that is farmer friendly, on the one hand, and also, on the other, abides by the tight regulations under which we have to operate.

I thank the Minister for his response. I fully understand why farm inspections happen and I am also well aware that some occur without a physical visit to the land involved. I am not interested in them, but I am interested in situations where there is a physical inspection. I acknowledge that the Minister has made efforts with the charter of rights for farmers, but there is nothing wrong with potentially putting it on a legal footing down the road. Perhaps that is something at which the Minister might look. In the interim, however, perhaps he might consider this regime of a seven-day written notice to farmers in advance of an inspection taking place.

I do not think that is necessary. The Senator seems to be operating a parallel negotiation to what the farming organisations were seeking. We have spent hours discussing a charter of farmers' rights. As we have made decisions and signed off on it, I am not going to start undoing it now when it has been finalised and agreed to by all of the farmers' representative bodies. The focus we need to have is to ensure we have a consistent and fair inspection regime and that we will not go on farms unless we absolutely have to do so. Some 85% of area-based inspections are now made via satellite and we only have visitations if it is necessary to follow up on them and if there is a reason to do so.

Some of the other unannounced inspections are in areas where one has to have such inspections. If one is concerned about welfare, one must be able to make an unannounced inspection to see what is happening on a farm. One cannot give notice of it; therefore, we are required to have a certain amount of unannounced inspections. To be fair, the Senator is right to raise this issue. The real problem arose in the past when unannounced inspections turned into announced inspections because when inspectors were on a farm to carry out unannounced inspections, they were also looking at other issues on the farmyard.

That really upset farmers who felt they were entitled to receive notice before people came to look at a whole series of things. We have addressed that issue by saying no farmer will now be required to accept an announced inspection, for which the period of notice should be reasonable, on the back of an unannounced inspection. That will no longer happen, unless a farmer chooses to say, "I have nothing to hide. You can look at what you want. Let us get it out of the way today." An impression was given by farming organisations that there was pressure on farmers to accept a series of inspections on the back of an unannounced inspection. That is not acceptable and we have changed it. It will not happen in the future.

May I come back in?

No, there is no provision for that to happen.