Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 13 January 2016
351. Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Parliamentary Question Number 16 of 25 November 2015, if he accepts the Agriculture Appeals Officer’s decision that inspection reports provided by his Department provide no quantification or description on which to rely for the deductions made within parcels (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46857/15]
View answerIn relation to what is referred to as the ‘Keelderry Commonage’, a number of commonages, including the Keelderry Commonage were selected for ground inspection in 2010 as part of a review of commonage parcels declared by applicants under the 2010 SPS and LFA Schemes. A number of inspections of this parcel of land were carried out in 2010 and 2011 resulting in a reduction of the determined area of this commonage. There was one inspection, which the claimants are seeking to rely on, which resulted in a large area of the commonage being deemed eligible for the above schemes, however, a number of subsequent inspections have resulted in a much reduced area being deemed the determined eligible area for the purposes of both Schemes. The circumstances in which the first inspection was carried out are currently the subject of litigation and, therefore, I am precluded from commenting any further on this particular inspection.
The findings with regard to Keelderry have been the subject of a number of legal actions and appeals. The appeal referred to concerns the 2012 SPS, DAS and other area based schemes of one of the claimants. The Decision of the independent official was to partially allow the appeal. However, the findings of the Appeals Officer in relation to that specific case are not a finding on the inspection criteria or that the inspectors’ interpretation or methodology cannot be relied upon.
The relevant extract from the Appeals Office decision from August 2015 states: “Both sides provided evidence at the oral hearing as to the nature of the growth that exists on parcel G30106047, and while there are obviously roadways, active turbary and quarry areas, I must rely on the inspection reports provided by the Department and those reports provide no quantification or description on which to rely for the deductions made within parcels G30106047, G30106046 and G30106057.” Most importantly the decision adds “In any event the question at appeal is whether or not these parcels met the 2012 eligibility requirement for you [sic - use] of agricultural activity as defined.” Therefore the areas of the parcels were not to be determined by the Appeals Office but rather whether the applicant carried out an agricultural activity.
Notwithstanding documentation submitted by the applicant as part of his 2015 Basic Payment Scheme application, the Department maintains its position, as the competent authority on this matter, on the eligible area of this commonage.
