Written Answers. - Grant Applications.
Pádraic McCormack
Ceist:
143
Mr. McCormack
asked the
Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
if there was an agreement with the farming organisations in Agenda 2000 that his Department would be farmer friendly; the way in which he reconciles this with the situation where farmers are severely penalised for genuine errors in filling their area aid and other grant application forms; his views on whether it is fair that farmers can suffer the penalty of 100% loss of all livestock grants due to a genuine error; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[6000/00]
Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
(Mr. Walsh): My Department has always sought to be farmer friendly and considerable efforts have been made in recent years to enhance that position by the introduction of the charter of farmers' rights and the customer service action plan. Under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, my Department is committed to the introduction of a new protocol by 30 June 2000 for direct payments dealing specifically with applications, inspections, administration, penalties and their categorisation, payment deadlines, appeals, and monitoring; the automating and streamlining to the extent possible, of the documentation and procedures relating to FEOGA schemes; the establishment on a statutory basis of an independent, accessible and properly resourced appeals unit to review decisions made in relation to the payment of grants and the imposition of penalties; and pressing the European Commission to re-examine the penalty regime with particular reference to exclusion penalties applicable to direct payment schemes, and to apply the maximum proportionality in the imposition of all penalties.
With regard to penalties, it should be stressed that this issue should be kept in proportion and in context. I would like to point out that the total number of livestock applications which attracted penalties under the 1998 headage and premium schemes represented only 2.6% of the 522,000 applications received in that year.
Some two-thirds of penalties imposed under the headage and premium schemes were attributable to late submission of aid applications by farmers. A further number arose because of a shortfall in the number of eligible animals found by my Department in the course of on-farm inspections.
The number of applications which attracted a one or two year penalty, that is, false declaration, intentionally or through serious negligence, represented no more than 0.1% of applications in the 1998 scheme year. The vast bulk of these applied in the sheep sector. A one year penalty would apply in cases where, for example, a proportion of ewes applied on are found not to be ewes at inspection. A two year penalty would apply where, for example, a farmer made application for premium/headage on sheep which he did not have at the time of application or indeed at time of inspection.
In general, where an applicant makes an error in the completion of an application form my Department allows an opportunity to correct such errors. The most common error over the past few years has been the incorrect transcription of tag numbers on application forms. The level of such errors has however greatly decreased in the past year following the more widespread use of new information technology in the processing of the special beef premium scheme whereby farmers are no longer required to list the individual eartag number of all animals being applied on.
Given the overall value of these direct payments to farmers and the fact that that value is set to increase following from the successful outcome of the Agenda 2000 negotiations, it is inevitable that the EU Commission will wish to ensure that reasonable levels of controls are in place in the various member states.
Since January 1999, greater emphasis has been placed on the need for farmers to fully respect the regulatory requirements for the identification and registration of bovine animals. These requirements are particularly important in the context of traceability and the national beef assurance scheme.
I am fully conscious, however, of the need to simplify the application and processing arrangements for the various direct payment schemes and to ensure that penalties are kept to a minimum. In the course of the negotiations on the detailed rules for implementing the Agenda 2000 changes and in the discussions on changes to the integrated administration and control regulations, my Department raised the question of simplification and proportionality of penalties. Some success was achieved in that regard.
