Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 12 March 2015
130. Deputy Dan Neville asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the position regarding a review under the single payment scheme 2013 in respect of persons (details supplied) in County Limerick; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10756/15]
View answerAs detailed in my reply to the previous Parliamentary Question on this case, the persons named failed to cooperate with a Bovine IDR inspection under the 2013 Single Farm Payment Scheme/Disadvantaged Areas' schemes.
The inspection was arranged for 26 April 2013. On 25 April the person named contacted the inspecting officer to inform him that they would not allow the inspection to take place. In submitting an application under the Single Payment Scheme, applicants agree to permit officials of the Department to carry out farm inspection with or without prior notice. The person named was informed that failure to co-operate with the inspection would result in a nil payment. The person named continued to refuse to allow the inspection to be undertaken and as a result a 100% penalty was recorded against the relevant payments for 2013.
The persons named requested a review of this decision. The outcome of this review was to uphold the original decision and the persons named were informed of this decision on 29 May 2014.
The person named appealed this decision to the independent Agriculture Appeals Office. The outcome of this appeal, which was to uphold the Department’s original decision, was notified to the applicant on 28 November 2014. The person named was also advised that if they considered that they had been treated unfairly by that office they could raise the matter with the Office of the Ombudsman.
I note from the outcome of the appeal notification that the medical evidence provided by the person named was considered as part of the appeal process. However it was determined that there were no grounds on which this evidence could be accepted as a mitigating factor in the case, as it identified that the person named was admitted and discharged from hospital some 18 days prior to the date the inspection was scheduled to take place. In addition, no further medical evidence was provided to indicate that the person named was not in a fit state to facilitate the inspection on the day it had been scheduled to take place.
