Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 24 March 2015
357. Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the reason a 100% penalty was imposed on an application under the single payment scheme in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary; if proper procedures were followed during and after the land eligibility inspection; if he is satisfied with the decision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11580/15]
View answerThe 2012 Single Payment Scheme application of the person named was selected for a ground eligibility and cross compliance inspection. The eligibility inspection involved the inspection of lands declared in counties Clare, Limerick, Roscommon and Tipperary. This inspection identified discrepancies between the area declared and area found, resulting in an intentional over-declaration in area of greater than 20% in respect of the Single Payment Scheme. Based on the Terms and Conditions of this Scheme this resulted in no payment in respect of the 2012 scheme and the application of an administrative fine to be offset against any future EU payments. The person named was notified of this decision on 19 November 2012.
The cross compliance inspection identified breaches relating to requirements applying to Special Areas of Conservation and sheep identification and registration requirements, resulting in a 5% penalty. The person named was also notified of this decision on 19 November 2012. The person named sought a review of both inspection decisions. As part of this review process the person named was afforded the opportunity to provide any new evidence and supporting documentation for consideration by the reviewing officer. The outcome of this review was to uphold the original inspection decisions and the person named was notified of this decision on 12 February 2013.
During the course of this review the application of the administrative fine was also examined. Following a review of the applicable EU legislation and the receipt of legal advice from my Department's Legal Services Division, it was determined that the application of the administrative fine was incorrect given that the area of the intentional non-compliance was less than 3%. Following this determination, arrangements were immediately put in place to refund the value of the administrative fine applied and the relevant amounts issued to the person named on 20 December 2013.
The person named appealed the inspection decisions to the independent Agriculture Appeals Office. As part of the appeal process an oral hearing took place on 18 September 2013 where the person named was afforded the opportunity to seek clarification on any issues relating to how the inspections were carried out and their findings and also to present any additional information in support of the appeal. While the decision of the Appeals Office was to partially allow the appeal in relation to the eligibility over-declaration, this had no monetary impact as the overall over-declaration was still greater than 20% and less than 50%. The Appeals Office upheld the decision in relation to the Cross Compliance penalty of 5%. The person named was notified of the Appeals Office decision on 7 February 2014. The person named was also advised of their right to pursue the matter further with the Office of the Ombudsman.
At the request of the person named, officials from my Department, independent to those officers involved in the inspection process, met with the applicant and agreed to undertake a review of the procedures applied during the inspection process. One of the areas of concern was that the eligibility inspection was carried out without notification. EU regulations governing inspections provide that an inspection may be carried out on an unannounced basis where it is considered that the inspection may be jeopardised by giving notice. The outcome of this review was that there were no grounds to overturn the inspection findings and the consequential financial penalty. The person named was notified of this decision by letter dated 14 December 2014.
The person named has availed of the option of internal reviews by officials within my Department, including a review by official's independent to the original inspection process. In addition, the person named has availed of the right to appeal the inspection decisions to the independent Agriculture Appeals Office. The person named was advised of their right to raise the matter further with the Office of the Ombudsman and my Department understands that this option has not been availed of to date. In addition, I understand that the person named has been in contact with the Director of the Independent Appeals Office with what he states is new information concerning this case and this is currently being considered.
