Robert Troy
Question:1008. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine why an amount was docked from the payment to a person (details supplied) under the single payment scheme. [9670/16]
View answerTuesday, 17 May 2016
Questions (1008, 1043)
Robert Troy
Question:1043. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine why he docked an amount from the payment to a person (details supplied) under the single payment scheme. [10186/16]
View answerWritten answers
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1008 and 1043 together.
The penalty applied under the 2012 Direct Payment Schemes relates to breaches of Cross Compliance requirements. Under the Terms and Conditions of the Direct Payment Schemes, an applicant is required to comply with EU regulatory requirements relating to Cross Compliance in addition to meeting the Scheme criteria.
A report detailing findings of an inspection carried out by Veterinary Inspectors from my Department’s ERAD Animal Health Division on 31 May 2012 was referred to my Department’s Cross Compliance Unit for attention. This report detailed breaches relating to Feed/Food Hygiene requirements as follows:
- Reactor animals were left in the herd for over a year.
- Consequential herd test was six months overdue.
Due to the seriousness of the breaches identified this resulted in a 60% penalty being applied against the 2012 Direct Schemes payments. As payments has already issued in respect of these schemes, my Department was required to put in place a process to recover the amounts concerned.
The person named was notified of this decision on 12 February 2013. The person named appealed this decision, and the original inspection decision was upheld. The person named was notified of this outcome on 8 September 2014.
The person named appealed this decision to the independent Agriculture Appeals Office and an oral hearing was held. The Appeals Officer disallowed the appeal and the person named was notified of this decision on 20 January 2015. The person named was also advised that if they considered that they had been treated unfairly by that office it was open to them to raise the matter with the Office of the Ombudsman, 18 Lower Leeson St., Dublin 2.