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

I thank the witnesses for the detail they have given us. The LPIS process is causing huge grief. The major problem with the 2013 maps is that many of the features being picked out involve 0.01 ha or 0.02 ha. Some of it is a matter of opinion with regard to whether it is scrub with no grass growing on it and therefore not forage. Many farmers dispute this. The Department may state that an area is 50% or 80% scrub but a farmer will state it is 20% scrub and the rest of it can be grazed at times of the year over the required period. The statement that a farmer knew and it was on the forms is fairly simplistic and does not reflect the reality. Most farmers did not have methods or ways of measuring down to 0.01 ha and in many cases relied on measurements taken many years ago relating to land registry maps.

There is a further issue to which the witnesses alluded. They spoke about the fact that between 2004 and 2006 all of the land was reviewed, and significant reviews also took place in 2007 and 2008. Most farmers thought if they were not written to it was not because they had not been reviewed but because everything was in order. When they received the form they were asked by the planner whether any changes had occurred. They stated they had not, that they had the same land as they did last year when everything seemed to be in order, and they sent back the forms. If we were speaking about a significant amount of land, such as 2 ha, 5 ha or 10 ha, one could state that a farmer could not miss it, but we are arguing about farm roads and rocks, which are hard for a farmer to measure. The big issues are farm roads, rocks and scrub. In many cases farmers would dispute how much rocky land is not grazable in the summer and they would certainly dispute this with regard to many areas now declared as scrub.

Some of the maps are not square on the land. When the Minister came before the committee I had a copy of a map on which one could see parts of the green land were outside the line and parts of the strand were inside it. The lady with the farm in question had 3 ha. Ten percent of 3 ha is 0.3 ha and 3% is 0.03 ha. This is where penalties come in because once it goes over 3% one is penalised by three times the amount of land on which one is meant to have over-claimed. When this is multiplied by five years - one might argue the rocks were there all the time or the scrub is no different, and I will not disagree with this - one finds that people who happily took and spent the cheques are facing huge fines. I know of cases where the fine amounts to 3% multiplied by three, as the penalty is 9%, then multiplied by five, which is 45% of one year's payment. It is quite devastating. I have asked the Department for figures on this because it seems it will disproportionately hit farmers with very small farms on very poor land with a large amount of rocks which are not so productive, because the percentage game means it is easier to make an error and be tripped into the penalty regime of 3% on a small holding than on a significant holding.

Has the Department reviewed the 132,000 applicants? My figures suggest there are 120,000 single farm payment applicants, and I wonder from where the extra 12,000 come. Have they all been reviewed at this stage? Do we know, in rough terms, what percentage had no cut, what percentage had a cut of less than 3% with just a deduction in the land, what percentage had a cut of between 3% and 20% with all of the penalties attached, and what percentage was ruled out completely because the error was over 20%? Do we know how they relate to the size of farms? Are the vast majority of the people getting caught on very small farms because it is much easier to make a small error? It is very hard to miss a hectare but not so hard to miss a very small part of a hectare. Do we have this information, and can we relate it to farm size to see what is happening? If it is predominantly on very small farms, the total amount of over-claimed land about which Europe might be concerned would be very small; 3.5% of 10 ha is a very small amount of land compared to 3.5% of 100 ha or 1,000 ha.

I have a big objection to the retrospective element of this. Farmers sent in the forms in good faith believing they had been checked, that no change had been made and that they were in order. It came as a total surprise to them to find that, with no change in their farming, they were being slapped with a five-year penalty. How many of the 132,000 farmers will receive retrospective penalties for the five years?

It was stated that the amount involved was €1 million, or an average of €100 per annum. Does this mean the total overpayment was €1 million with regard to all of the farmers in Ireland? Is it an average of €100 per farm per annum?

Does that include all the penalties and is it just for one year? Does it mean that if it dates back to 2008, which is six years, it will then become an average of €600?