ICMSA accuse Dept. of Ag. of “doing its own thing” on timelines

The Deputy President of ICMSA has said that it is becoming increasingly obvious that the DAFM has decided to “do its own thing” on the question of timelines and payment dates.

Denis Drennan said that despite the fact that there was no agreement on payment dates for

CAP Schemes at the last meeting of the Farmers Charter, the Department has written to all farmers setting out often revised payment dates without any consultation – much less agreement.

“The Farmers Charter has played a hugely significant role over the last 25 years in terms of setting out farmers rights in relation to schemes including payment dates, inspection rates and notice of inspections amongst other issues and the Charter was always negotiated in good faith between the Department and farm organisations. Difficult issues were always debated and agreed in the final document.

“Against that record of consultation and respect, why has the Department now decided to unilaterally set payment dates for 2023 that are actually worse than previous years? The new payment dates as advised by the letters just being received now by farmers are almost a month later in the case of ANC and up to a fortnight later for the Pillar 1 payments. The Department must know that these payments are nearly always used to pay down the bills that are timed to coincide with their lodgement.

“They must know that many farmers are now going to have to reschedule their direct debits or payments by these new timelines to ensure that the funds are there. It’s very disrespectful and very revealing about the attitude now adopted at disappointingly high levels,” said Mr Drennan.

The ICMSA Deputy President said that an odd ‘push-pull’ dynamic was now obvious in the Department’s administration.

“We’re seeing this all the time now: where it suits the Department, we see timelines and payment dates ‘pushed out’ without so much as a word of explanation – much less apology. These payments dates and the ridiculous sequencing of the TAMS Slurry Storage are perfect examples. On the other hand, and at exactly the same time, we see crazily short timeframes being reluctantly given to farmers to make decisions and submissions that are massively important: the original Banding submissions and N Derogations are all you need to look at there.

“The only constant in this official ‘push-pull’ timeline policy is that is always seems designed to disadvantage farmers. Where farmers are due something, it’s pushed out and out till it’s nearly useless – as in the TAMS Slurry Storage. But where the Department wants something from the farmers - like the Banding information - it’s all ‘right now, this instant, hurry up’. It’s time for the Minister and his officials to decide whether there is a real consultation or is it just another pretence,” said Mr Drennan.