Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 14 June 2012
3Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine if he will provide a breakdown by county of penalties applied to farmers by category of penalty, whether land eligibility or cross compliance; if he will provide a further breakdown by number of farmers penalised and by total value of penalty under both the single farm payment and disadvantaged area schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28866/12]
View answerMy Department, in the context of delivering the single payment scheme, disadvantaged area scheme and other area-based schemes, is required to carry out annual inspections covering the eligibility of the land declared to draw down payments and cross compliance to ensure compliance with EU regulatory requirements in the areas of public, animal and plant health, environment and animal welfare. These inspections are mandatory, and there are minimum numbers and types of inspections that must take place annually - we do not have a choice in this.
Land eligibility checks must be carried out on 5% of applicants. These checks are carried out to verify that the area claimed in the application form corresponds with the area farmed by the farmer and to ensure that any ineligible land or features are deducted. Up to two thirds of these inspections are carried out without visiting the farm as the information is verified using the technique of remote sensing via satellite, in other words mapping areas via satellite.
The rate of inspections for cross-compliance is 1% of applicants to whom the statutory management requirements, SMRs, and good agricultural condition, GAEC, apply. However, 3% of farmers must be inspected under the bovine identification and registration requirements while 3% of sheep farmers must be inspected covering 5% of the flock.
In 2010, in an effort to minimise duplication of farm inspections between the two Departments, my Department agreed to carry out 1,600 nitrates inspections under the GAP regulations on behalf of the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government. This arrangement was retained in 2011 and 2102 and is working well.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The value of these schemes to Irish farmers is €1.8 billion annually. It is therefore incumbent on my Department to ensure the regulatory control environment is comprehensively implemented to protect these payments and to avoid significant EU disallowances.
The data sought by the Deputy are supplied separately in respect of the 2009 and 2010 schemes. The data in respect of the 2011 schemes will be made available when it they are finalised later in the year. I regret the delay in responding to the Deputy. The information requested by the Deputy was significant and involved compilation of data from across a range of areas within my Department.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to get the full information, which was originally requested through a written parliamentary question, Question No. 584 on 21 February. The Minister said in his reply that the full information would be provided but I had to wait nine weeks, until 1 May, to get an initial response. It was stated then that the rest of the material would be sent to me.
The Deputy has it now.
If it is available, I welcome that very much. That was an unduly long time to wait for the full information. If there was proper management of payments, all of this would automatically be available in the local offices and could be forwarded to the central office within a reasonable time. In addition, it would give the Minister a good overview of what is happening in different parts of the country. It would be possible to monitor if there were variations in the implementation of the schemes across the country.
If I had had a chance to finish my reply, the last sentence is that I regret the delay in responding to the Deputy's detailed query. However, the Deputy sought a great deal of information and it took time to put it together. It involved gathering information from every county. The written reply contains a very detailed and comprehensive set of data in response to all the questions the Deputy asked. I will not read it out but I have looked through it and I hope the Deputy will not see any inconsistencies between different counties and that the number of inspections are as they should be in terms of the minimum number we are required to undertake.
We are talking about payments of approximately €1.8 billion per year. With that level of payment, which is predominantly from EU funds, there is an obligation on us to play by the rules with regard to the number of inspections laid down in the regulations that states are required to implement to draw down funds. If we do not do this, disallowances will be applied to Ireland. That is where the EU Commission asks for its money back. Every state must give a certain amount of money back each year on disallowances because after the EU audits how the schemes are monitored and the funds are distributed, it asks for its money back in many cases. In most years there is some level of disallowance payments to be paid back and sometimes these involve huge sums of money. It is not by choice, therefore, that we have this level of inspections. We are required to do it to draw down the level of funding we distribute among farmers.
Most of the complaints and representations I have received are about land eligibility. If there is an incorrect declaration, a 100% penalty is applied. That is very harsh. There must be some flexibility, as it involves marginal cases as well. These people are huge contributors to the economy and they participate actively in farming. There must be a flexible system in place, as is the case with commonage ground where recalibration is allowed. Perhaps the Minister would make allowances for these farmers as well.
The Deputy is right. There are genuine cases where genuine mistakes are made. There is an appeals mechanism for people who feel they have been treated harshly. However, we must also ensure that people play by the rules. If there is no consequence for people who do not play by the rules, there will be breaches everywhere. It is important to make the distinction between people who make a genuine mistake and those who are trying to play the system. The vast majority of people here play by the rules. They fill out the forms, or work with advisers to do so, and draw down their payments as they should. If people believe they have been harshly treated, there is an appeals mechanism and they should use it.
