John Shirley
I reply to the Department of Agriculture’s comment on the SIU in last week’s Irish Farmers Journal, and on my previous week’s article, more in sadness than in anger.
My concerns about the SIU are assuaged neither by the content of last week’s comment nor the establishment of the Department’s new investigation division. While the broader oversight of the new investigation division within the Department must be welcomed, in the overall context this is only a marginal help. The core issues with the SIU and the Department’s appeal arrangements remain. In the announcement of the new investigation division:
There is no provision for nondepartmental monitoring or external supervision of appeal systems. There is no mention of any diminution of their extraordinary powers.The Department comment takes issue with my claim that the SIU officers have powers which are stronger than those of the gardaí. The basis for this claim comes from S.I. No 786/2007 of the EC Animal Remedies No 2 Regulations 2007, which confers the authority on the Department of Agriculture to call in the gardaí to work with the Department officers rather than vice versa: “The authorised officer, or member of the An Garda Síochána, or officer of Customs and Excise [in this section referred to as “the relevant person”] may, subject to paragraph (2), stop any such vehicle or enter (if necessary by force) any such land or premises, or land or premises used in connection with such land or premises, or any such vehicle, and there, or at any other place, and with such authorised officers, members of the An Garda Síochána and officers of Customs and Excise (if any) as the relevant person considers appropriate.”
This statutory power is vested in the Department. The Department is right in stating that the powers of search, etc, are not exclusive to the SIU. They can be invoked by any officer of the Department. The same statutory instrument confers powers on the Department officers (read SIU or investigation division) to enter a premises or home without a search warrant. Again, I transpose the relevant section: “(2) The functions of a relevant person under this regulation may only be exercised in respect of a dwelling or so much of a vehicle or premises as constitutes a dwelling where the relevant person has reasonable cause to suspect that, before a search warrant could be sought in relation to the dwelling under Regulation 53, anything to which the said paragraph (1) relates – (a) is being destroyed or disposed of, or (b) is likely to be destroyed or disposed of.”
Even allowing for the legal jargon, that to me confers powers to enter a person’s home without a search warrant. I believe that these powers against farmers are unparalleled across the EU.
Again, I reiterate my point that the Department/SIU/investigations division powers are totally disproportionate to many of the technical cases being investigated. Great power demands great responsibility. This trait is not always evident.
After my article in the 4 October 2014 issue of the Irish Farmers Journal, I received a number of phone calls which made disturbing allegations against officers of the Department of Agriculture and the SIU.
I cannot confirm the veracity of these allegations, and to be fair have only heard one side of the story. I did sit on an appeal (farmer vs Department) once where the farmer had suffered a 100% penalty on his payment. During the exchanges, the farmer accused the Department officer of verbal abuse, which the officer denied. The farmer had recorded the conversation, but this was not admissible as evidence as the officer was not aware he was being recorded. It is because of the possibility of cases like this that I would argue that in the next Charter of Farmers’ Rights that the appeals units within the Department of Agriculture have some external dimension. Across society, we have seen that self-policing does not work.
The Department comment about farmers having access to the Ombudsman and the courts just adds to my fears on the vulnerability of Irish farmers who have been abused by the system.
We all support, even applaud, efforts by the Department of Agriculture’s other agencies to promote and protect the good name of Irish food. However, at a macro supervisory level, the Department of Agriculture record has major gaps in its performance record. In the 2001 FMD outbreak, which was carried into Ireland on sheep from Britain, the Department of Agriculture had turned a blind eye to the very active trade in importing British sheep in the lead up to the outbreak.
It emerged in the Public Accounts Committee that the Department had prior warning from the EU about the dangers of direct flame drying, which triggered the Irish pork dioxin crisis in 2009. If the Department had acted on this EU directive the crisis would not have happened. The State’s role in demonising the bona fide families directly involved in this crisis was appalling.
Finally, I would ask the new investigations unit to adhere to their own code of practice and I quote: “Officers of the SIU represent the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Department, and shall behave in a courteous manner at all times. All officers in the SIU shall respect the presumption of innocence in respect of those under investigation, as guaranteed by Bunreacht na hEireann.”
John Shirley
I reply to the Department of Agriculture’s comment on the SIU in last week’s Irish Farmers Journal, and on my previous week’s article, more in sadness than in anger.
My concerns about the SIU are assuaged neither by the content of last week’s comment nor the establishment of the Department’s new investigation division. While the broader oversight of the new investigation division within the Department must be welcomed, in the overall context this is only a marginal help. The core issues with the SIU and the Department’s appeal arrangements remain. In the announcement of the new investigation division:
There is no provision for nondepartmental monitoring or external supervision of appeal systems. There is no mention of any diminution of their extraordinary powers.The Department comment takes issue with my claim that the SIU officers have powers which are stronger than those of the gardaí. The basis for this claim comes from S.I. No 786/2007 of the EC Animal Remedies No 2 Regulations 2007, which confers the authority on the Department of Agriculture to call in the gardaí to work with the Department officers rather than vice versa: “The authorised officer, or member of the An Garda Síochána, or officer of Customs and Excise [in this section referred to as “the relevant person”] may, subject to paragraph (2), stop any such vehicle or enter (if necessary by force) any such land or premises, or land or premises used in connection with such land or premises, or any such vehicle, and there, or at any other place, and with such authorised officers, members of the An Garda Síochána and officers of Customs and Excise (if any) as the relevant person considers appropriate.”
This statutory power is vested in the Department. The Department is right in stating that the powers of search, etc, are not exclusive to the SIU. They can be invoked by any officer of the Department. The same statutory instrument confers powers on the Department officers (read SIU or investigation division) to enter a premises or home without a search warrant. Again, I transpose the relevant section: “(2) The functions of a relevant person under this regulation may only be exercised in respect of a dwelling or so much of a vehicle or premises as constitutes a dwelling where the relevant person has reasonable cause to suspect that, before a search warrant could be sought in relation to the dwelling under Regulation 53, anything to which the said paragraph (1) relates – (a) is being destroyed or disposed of, or (b) is likely to be destroyed or disposed of.”
Even allowing for the legal jargon, that to me confers powers to enter a person’s home without a search warrant. I believe that these powers against farmers are unparalleled across the EU.
Again, I reiterate my point that the Department/SIU/investigations division powers are totally disproportionate to many of the technical cases being investigated. Great power demands great responsibility. This trait is not always evident.
After my article in the 4 October 2014 issue of the Irish Farmers Journal, I received a number of phone calls which made disturbing allegations against officers of the Department of Agriculture and the SIU.
I cannot confirm the veracity of these allegations, and to be fair have only heard one side of the story. I did sit on an appeal (farmer vs Department) once where the farmer had suffered a 100% penalty on his payment. During the exchanges, the farmer accused the Department officer of verbal abuse, which the officer denied. The farmer had recorded the conversation, but this was not admissible as evidence as the officer was not aware he was being recorded. It is because of the possibility of cases like this that I would argue that in the next Charter of Farmers’ Rights that the appeals units within the Department of Agriculture have some external dimension. Across society, we have seen that self-policing does not work.
The Department comment about farmers having access to the Ombudsman and the courts just adds to my fears on the vulnerability of Irish farmers who have been abused by the system.
We all support, even applaud, efforts by the Department of Agriculture’s other agencies to promote and protect the good name of Irish food. However, at a macro supervisory level, the Department of Agriculture record has major gaps in its performance record. In the 2001 FMD outbreak, which was carried into Ireland on sheep from Britain, the Department of Agriculture had turned a blind eye to the very active trade in importing British sheep in the lead up to the outbreak.
It emerged in the Public Accounts Committee that the Department had prior warning from the EU about the dangers of direct flame drying, which triggered the Irish pork dioxin crisis in 2009. If the Department had acted on this EU directive the crisis would not have happened. The State’s role in demonising the bona fide families directly involved in this crisis was appalling.
Finally, I would ask the new investigations unit to adhere to their own code of practice and I quote: “Officers of the SIU represent the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Department, and shall behave in a courteous manner at all times. All officers in the SIU shall respect the presumption of innocence in respect of those under investigation, as guaranteed by Bunreacht na hEireann.”
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: