Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will focus on the macro rather than the micro. How can the Minister justify reductions of 17% in respect of disadvantaged areas, 30% in respect of animal health, 53% in respect of the REPS - a reduction over three years - and only 9% and 7%, respectively, in respect of the administrative budget and non-commercial State bodies? It seems that farmers are being hit, while the bureaucracy is being saved. What is being done in this regard is completely unacceptable. We know that the use of technology means that much of what needs to be done manually from an administrative point of view can be reduced.

The second issue to which I wish to refer relates to those who were responsible for writing the code for the maps issued by the Department and its claim to the effect that certain people over-claimed in respect of their lands. One would need a microscope to see the X01, X02 and X03 designations on the maps to which I refer. Many farmers are elderly and either cannot understand what is involved or cannot see the X designations on maps. I have looked at many such maps in recent months and trying to find an X on one is similar to playing a child's game. It is also difficult to establish whether a designation is X01 or X03. If the Department had done what I am about to suggest, it would have saved itself a great deal of trouble. When it wrote farmers, why was it not in a position to indicate the estimated over-claims made - according to its computer files - and the penalties that would arise in 2013 as a consequence? Many farmers receive letters which only indicate the plots of land that the Department is disputing. They do not understand they are obliged to revisit their figures, carry out a new calculation in respect of the eligible area and discover whether it is over or under 3% or over or under 20%. If it is greater than 3%, one multiplies the figure for the lost land by three. If it is greater than 20%, one is out the gate and cannot claim.

In the light of all of the computer technology used and all of the money spent, it is amazing that the information the Department has in its possession cannot be provided for farmers in an accessible and understandable form. If a farmer knows he or she is going to lose €100 in a year, he or she might not bother to pursue the issue. The Department might state 60% of an area of his or her property is scrubland, whereas he or she might state it is 40%. In addition, it might be stated it is 30% or 80% rock.