Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will try to answer as many questions as I can in the time available. Even though it is not directly related to the issue we are discussing, I will begin by addressing the points raised on the mapping and eligibility issue. It is important to be clear that this has nothing to do with digitisation. Last July we introduced new technology to provide for a much more accurate way of photographing from satellite. Previously, the maps farmers would have used as the basis for their single farm payment applications were taken from high-flying aircraft. Now we have very precise and accurate maps which allow us to see exactly what is in particular fields and which land is and is not eligible for the drawing down of payments. Every member state is required to introduce this system. It is not a question of choice and we do not have four years to do it. We are putting a new, much more accurate system in place to ensure that land which is not eligible to draw down funding will not be eligible for such drawdowns. After all, we are talking about the provision of public moneys.

We are also required to examine instances where, over the past four years, money was drawn down on lands which were not eligible for same. The Commission is insisting that this money be given back. In most cases no penalty is being attached, but the money that was paid in such cases must be returned. We are in the process of managing that process. In the case of 72% of farmers, there is no issue in this regard. For up to 93% of farmers, there is an over-claim of less than 3%, which amounts to a relatively small sum of money to be repaid. As I said, no penalties are applicable, but farmers in that situation may have to return retrospective payments they would have drawn down in the past four years. The calculation for farmers with less than 3% of an over-claim is that the retrospective payment will be €400 on average in the context of an average payment per year of €11,000. It is not a huge deal for those farmers.

Where farmers have an over-claim of between 3% and 20% of their land, we will work with them to address the situation. There is an appeals process within the Department and externally, so that farmers can be sure they will receive fair treatment in terms of the assessments. Where there is an over-claim of more than 20%, farmers will not have received any payment last year and must now rectify their situation. They will receive a payment in respect of the eligible portion of their land this year, but there is also a retrospective issue. Only 400 farmers in the country are in this category. We will work with them on a case-by-case basis to devise a repayment schedule that is realistic and fair. We do not want to put anybody out of business and will help farmers with any cash-flow difficulties.

The notion that we can simply ignore this problem because it is awkward and difficult is not an option. Representatives of the Commission are coming to Ireland in the second week of February to assess how we are dealing with it. The Commission has already fined other member states, including large countries such as Britain, France and Italy. In France, as I understand it, the disallowance was some €248 million in terms of discrepancies around payments. Either we deal with this issue, including the retrospective element of it, by finding a way for farmers who have over-claimed, whether by mistake or otherwise, to make the repayments in a way that is sensible and does not cause them undue hardship, or the Commission representatives will come here, make an estimate of the overpayments and multiply that figure by five or so, resulting in a disallowance and fine for the State which will be payable by all taxpayers. I am not prepared to allow that scenario to arise. We are trying to work out this over-claim issue, in as fair a way as possible and with multiple appeals mechanisms. It is about facing up to instances where payments were made in respect of land that was not eligible to draw down payments because it is not agricultural land, and convincing the Commission we have dealt with the issue in a thorough and fair manner.