I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter, which is a serious issue for farmers in my area of Sligo — Leitrim.
Business of Joint Committee
I wish to raise a matter also.
Yes. That is no problem.
Thank you, Chairman, for affording me the opportunity to raise this because it affects several farmers in my area. I refer to one case but there are many in my constituency. I am unsure whether it is a problem throughout the country because I have spoken to Deputies in different areas and it does not appear to be as bad in their areas.
At the commencement of area aid for farmers, folio maps are examined and an appropriate amount is deducted to reflect farmyard roads, houses and so on. In this case, the farmer engaged Teagasc to help him with this work. The digitised area of his farm was 9.42 hectares. The farmer claimed 9.3 forage hectares. Given the folio map, the overall reductions would appear to be inadequate in that case. The farm was split into four separate parcels and the combined gross area was 9.42 hectares. Now, the Department is seeking a claw-back of money paid over the past five years and for the difference to be repaid. The amount involved in this case is €10,500. Part of the problem is that the over-claim is deemed to be in excess of 20%, which means the fine is trebled in this case. This affects area aid and it also affects the single farm payment. It is grossly wrong. Certain old age pensioners have come to me about this matter. I refer to one couple aged 82 years and 75 years respectively. They have received five letters for each year in respect of an over-claim. In their case it is small, a matter of several hundred euros. However, they received five letters in respect of the single farm payment and area aid. This is frightening people.
Farmers made their initial area claim based on a legal folio title map, which is the law with regard to land area and when it comes to court or anything else. They engaged the help of Teagasc. They have been inspected by Department officials from the sky and on the ground. They have made the necessary deductions and adjustments as required. Now, these farmers are not privy to the remote ortho-technology. They were not privy to that technology any sooner than the SPS, single payment scheme, section of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They made their initial application in good faith using Land Registry maps and they were subjected to various checks and balances down through the years. It is not reasonable to conclude now that because of new technology it can be revealed that the area was incorrectly digitised from the commencement of their single payment. I call on this committee to bring in the person in the Department who deals with all of this, Mr. Paud Evans, to discuss this problem. It affects many people of my area. Some people are getting bills of between €4,000 and €5,000 and this is unfair. These farmers employed Teagasc in good faith to deal with their returns. The Department employed agents to digitise the maps. That was taken as the fact. Now, because of the new system of measuring land farmers are being penalised. This is wrong and it needs to be dealt with.
I second the proposal because it is not unique to Deputy Scanlan's constituency. Similar cases are being sorted out at the moment in my area. Those involved are satisfied that they will get what is due to them. However, I have not come across a case involving the trebling of a fine. That is a serious matter.
It arises where there is a discrepancy of more than 20% of the overall land area. I refer to a farm of 25 or 26 acres of land. Since the discrepancy is more than 20% of the overall area, the fine is trebled.
I too am familiar with such cases. They are making payments over several years. They will repay over a period of time. I have been on to the Minister's office about this matter. I wish to take up the offer of Deputy Scanlan to bring in Mr. Paud Evans, the immediate person concerned in the Department.
We should bring him in as soon as possible.
Is it agreed to invite Mr. Evans? Agreed.
The joint committee adjourned at 2.30 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 September 2010.