Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 11 February 2014
86. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the number of appeals that have been received by his Department against clawback of single farm payment due to land eligibility issues. [6318/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraAppeals on land eligibility are of major concern to the weaker farming communities in the south west and west. The appeals system is ongoing. How many appeals has the Minister received and does he have a percentage breakdown of successful and unsuccessful appeals?
At the outset, I would like to clarify that there were no so-called clawback payments under the 2013 single farm payment scheme. In processing the applications under the single farm payment scheme and other direct aid schemes, my Department is legally obliged to adhere to the requirements set out in the EU regulations governing each of the schemes. It is not possible to deviate from the provisions of these schemes. If an applicant over-declared his or her land by including ineligible features or ineligible areas in the application form, the provisions of the regulations must be respected in the processing of each application and in the calculation of deductions and penalties. An audit team from the European Commission is coming to Ireland in the second week of next month, and will spend one week looking at how we are dealing with the issues we have discussed.
The following is the position regarding the number of review and appeal cases received by my Department to date. The number of applications for appeal received is 4,800. That is the appeals process within our Department. As part of the appeal, we send out an inspector to physically look at the land to make sure there is nothing awry, and the number of such review applications sent for ground verification is 523. The number of applications accepted, or the number of successful appeals, is 160. The number rejected to date is 340. The number of appeals received for the LPIS appeals committee, an independent committee chaired by Mr. Padraig Gibbons to give another outlet to farmers who are concerned at the results they got from the Department, is 15 thus far. These appeals figures are ongoing and will alter as more cases are processed.
The majority of farmers do not have an issue here, but for those who do, we will try to work with them through two appeals systems. If penalties are imposed and retrospective payments are to be made, we will work with farmers case by case to ensure we are acting reasonably with them. This is not an easy issue to resolve, and the idea that we refuse to do what we need to do will have a much more severe consequence for agriculture than doing what we are doing at the moment. In other words, Commission auditors will determine the amount of money that was spent that should not have been spent and they will fine the country accordingly, which will be a very big figure indeed.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The manual inspections of which I am aware have often been successful, primarily due to the fact that while there appeared to be afforestation in parts of land, in fact the grazing potential around it was being utilised. Does the Department have enough staff to carry out those manual inspections? I advise most people who come to me to go down that route, because it gives them a better opportunity. When satellite photographs are taken, it would appear to be blanketed out when one walks through it.
Much of this land can be included again. Is the Minister satisfied that the number of inspectors available to perform this task is sufficient? Will this process be completed by the end of March?
The figures I cited are proof that the Department is trying to get through this process with farmers and, where possible, to have successful appeals. I do not want to take money off someone if it is not necessary to do so. However, I must be able to stand over the integrity of this process, which means ensuring that Ireland only draws down direct payments for farmers from European Union funds on land that is eligible for such payments. The Department will make as many ground verification visits as are necessary. Visits will be carried out when we receive a reasonable request and it is obvious that an issue requires verification.
A satellite image will clearly show if someone is claiming on a river. The Deputy is correct, however, that an area of large broadleaf trees which appears to be forest on a satellite image may well be grazing land for cattle. The members of the Department's inspection team are not fools. They make reasonable assumptions on the basis of the photographs and, when doubts arise, they will make a ground verification visit.
I assure Deputy Ferris and farmers that the Department is doing everything it can to try to minimise the impact of this process on farmers, both in respect of money they may have to pay or penalties that may arise. It is for this reason that such a large number of verification visits have taken place and one in three appeals has been successful.
