Michael Healy-Rae
Ceist:589. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the status of the case of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30470/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraTuesday, 18 October 2016
Ceisteanna (589)
Freagraí scríofa
My Department has examined approximately 400 cases in which invoices were submitted from one particular supplier to verify and support claims under the non-productive capital investment action of AEOS. It is known that in many cases the invoices submitted were for amounts greater than those actually paid by the participants.
Funding provided under the scheme comes partly from the EU and partly from the National Exchequer. There is a requirement and obligation to ensure that the expenditure claimed by scheme participants reflects the reality of what took place. For that reason my Department wrote to participants requesting alternative proof that the amounts claimed were in fact the amounts paid.
The person named was written to on 11 June 2015 regarding the non-productive capital investment claim that they had submitted. This letter requested the submission of alternative, verifiable, proof to support one of the invoices that was included in the claim for expenditure incurred. A reply to this letter was received on 24 June 2015.
In this reply the person named above indicated that the amount paid was 80% less than what had been claimed in their non-productive capital investment claim. In such circumstances the provisions set out in Article 30.2 of EU Regulation 65/2011 apply: a penalty of the difference between the amount claimed and the actual amount of expenditure is applied and a clawback of undue payments is made. A letter notifying the person concerned of the penalty and undue payment amounts issued on 23 November 2015.
This letter also offered the applicant an opportunity to have the determination reviewed within the Department and to submit additional information if they so wished. A request for a review was received on 3 December 2015. The person named was informed by letter on 29 December 2015 that following the review the original decision was upheld. This decision letter indicated that as the over claim had been admitted, the lesser of the two penalties set out in the Regulation was applied. The person concerned was also informed of their right to appeal the decision of this review to the Agriculture Appeals Office. No such appeal was lodged.
Balancing payments due for the years 2014 and 2015 issued in December 2015 and January 2016 respectively. The money owed by the person named was netted against these and other Department payments which means there is currently no debt outstanding from this case.