Skip to main content
Normal View

Farm Inspections

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 25 March 2014

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Questions (859)

John McGuinness

Question:

859. Deputy John McGuinness asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the reason arrangements were not made by his Department inspector with a person (details supplied) in County Carlow to inspect their land in 2013; the reason the inspector inspected the land without notice; the reason the inspector's report was not made available to the person to facilitate their appeal; if their written appeal will be dealt with; if an official from his Department will assist them to understand what is required from them; if a time frame for their 2013 payment will be given; if the missing map for their lands for the 2014 claim will be provided to them by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13155/14]

View answer

Written answers

The 2013 Single Farm Payment Scheme application of the person named was selected for a Remote Sensing (i.e. Satellite Inspection). This inspection was carried out without the need to visit the farm. However, as it revealed overclaims it was necessary to carry out a rapid field visit (RFV). RFVs are not full farm inspections and involve an inspection of only the parcels where over-claims were detected by an examination of the satellite imagery and where confirmation is required, by an on the ground visit. Advance notice does not normally arise in inspections of this type.

Following the RFV the applicant was notified via a Formal Notification of the possibility of penalties. While this Formal Notification did issue to the applicant it is not standard operating procedure that applicants get copies of the complete inspection report. Following this inspection the person named was informed in writing dated 6 February 2014 that overclaims were found on specific parcels which he had declared and that it was the opinion of the inspecting officer that these overclaims were deemed to have been made intentionally

The person named appealed in writing dated 14 February 2014. The matter was referred to the District Superintendent for re-examination. That re-examination concluded that the original findings were correct. In addition, it was discovered that a further parcel was ineligible as it was not stock proof. Based on these findings the person named was informed that the original decision was upheld. As parcels declared by the person named were deemed to have been intentionally over claimed the Terms and Conditions governing the scheme indicate that no payments are due in respect of the year concerned. This decision was communicated to the person named on 18 March. Part of that communication informed the person named of his right to appeal to the Agriculture Appeals office within three months of the date of the decision.

The rules governing the schemes are set down in an extensive Help Sheet/Terms and conditions that issued with the application form. Officials from my Department have been in contact with the person named regarding the matter, however if the person named has a specific issue that requires clarification he can contact the relevant Section directly on this.

Finally, maps for all eligible parcels claimed by any applicant in any given year are provided to all applicants, as part of the following year’s application process.

Top
Share