Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

4. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the progress made in discussions with the European Union on achieving a reduction in the fine imposed on Ireland over claims on the land parcel identification system; the amount of the fine imposed on Ireland by the European Union; when this matter will be brought to a conclusion; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18721/15]

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A fine, or as it is called in the jargon a flat rate financial correction for Ireland which is a fine by any other name, of €181.5 million was imposed on Ireland by the European Union over the land parcel identification system, which was totally disproportionate, ridiculous and outrageous. The Minister has been in negotiations. When will we have the white smoke and good news that it has been reduced, as it should be, to nothing?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy was a Minister and knows well it will not be reduced to nothing because there is an issue. We are in negotiations on it. The EU has not imposed the fine, it has made a claim this is what should be paid. To be clear, we have not paid anything yet.

The Deputy will be aware that the EU Commission, in its letter dated 14 May 2014, proposed a 2% flat rate financial correction for Ireland of €181.5 million arising from its conformity clearance audits in 2009, 2010 and 2012. The payments audited covered the period from 2008 to 2012, inclusive, during which over €9 billion was paid to farmers in Ireland under the direct payment schemes. I have always been opposed to the imposition of a flat-rate penalty, particularly in this case. I have strongly refuted the application of this proposed correction as disproportionate to the true level of risk involved and my Department accordingly sought a hearing with the conciliation body at European level.

The conciliation body met the Commission and officials from my Department on 9 December and 10 December, respectively. The Commission held its position on the 2% flat rate correction before and during its meeting and advised that it was still reviewing the information received from my Department in advance of the hearing. During their meeting, officials from my Department outlined Ireland's fundamental objection to the flat-rate correction and argued that the risk to the fund should be a calculated amount. My officials informed the conciliation body regarding the amount of work undertaken by my Department to identify and remove all ineligible features from the land parcel identification system, LPIS, database, the technical improvement in the LPIS system and the time and resources used by my Department to address all issues raised by the Commission. The conciliation body acknowledged the amount of work done by my Department in the calculation of the risk and stated that it was of the opinion that the issue hinged on only a few, though important, elements of the calculations.

The report of the conciliation body concluded that conciliation seemed within reach and that the Commission and my Department should continue discussing the matter with a view to an agreed settlement. On foot of this advice, my Department has maintained regular contact with the Commission with a view to bringing the matter to a conclusion. Further work has recently been carried out to quantify the level of risk to EU funds and this information is currently with the Commission for consideration and will be the subject of a Commission visit shortly. It is expected that the matter will be concluded in the near future.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Minister tell me how much was clawed back from farmers as a result of the LPIS review for the five years, 2008 to 2012, inclusive? It is actually up to 2013. In other words, how much money was overpaid?

Has the Minister any idea how soon this matter will come to a close? My understanding, in simple English, is that this fine or financial correction - call it what one wishes - will come out of the Department's budget and if the Commission wants €100 million or, as it wants at present, €181 million, that will come out of the Department's budget and would have to repaid that way. Could the Minister confirm that such is the position, how much money was clawed back from farmers or how much were farmers overpaid having gone through the LPIS, and how many outstanding cases are there?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, that was not the question Deputy Ó Cuív asked in writing and I do not have all those numbers, but I can certainly share some of them with him.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They used to prepare supplementaries for all eventualities.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank farming organisations and the Opposition spokesperson for being reasonable on this issue. This is an issue we cannot ignore. If one gets a €181 million proposed fine from the Commission, one cannot simply put one's head in the sand and say that we refuse to pay.

We have gone through a tortuous process of assessing 900,000 land parcels across Ireland to ascertain what the appropriate level of reimbursement to the Commission should be. I refer to what was the level of overpayment over a five-year period. The issue is not so much whether that was by mistake or whether it was deliberate. The Commission looks at this from an audit perspective and asks what public money was spent that should not have been spent because it did not quality, how much should it get back and what fines should be imposed to go with that.

Our calculations are that this figure should be approximately €50 million. We will have to look at how that gets paid. Some of it will be paid back by farmers and some may well be paid by the Department over a period of time. We fist need to conclude with the Commission what is the figure. The Commission strongly disagrees with that figure because otherwise it would not be asking for €181 million. We have a credible case here and we have worked hard to make it. I would be hopeful that we will reach a conclusion on it in the next month to six weeks. That is a guesstimate but I would be hopeful that it would be done within that timeframe.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Deputies and Ministers to look at the clock because if we go over time on these questions, Other Questions for backbenchers will not be reached.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister send me the figures of how much he will through this process have sought to reclaim from farmers and then give me some estimate of the outstanding cases that still have not been resolved because it is important that we understand that? In measuring what Europe is claiming to do, it gives us an understanding of the measure of how much this was a finicky exercise, which in most cases it was.

The Minister lost €200 million in terms of underpsend in his first year in Government. With this €181 million over our heads at present, we have a significant superlevy taken out of farmers' pockets. It is running to hundreds of millions of euro. Has the Minister any idea when this matter will be brought to a conclusion and when we will have some certainty as to how much money is being taken out of farmers' pockets?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The superlevy is not hundreds of millions of euro.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As to whether it is taken from the Department or taken directly from the farmers, if taken out of the Department it is indirectly taken off the farmers as well. Perhaps the Minister could give us some indication.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish Deputy Ó Cuív would not try to paint a difficult issue into something that it is not. This is not connected with the superlevy. The superlevy is not hundreds of millions of euro either-----

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I never said that.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and farmers have the option to repay the superlevy over a three-year period in interest-free instalments. By and large, farmers understand that.

This is a separate issue. It is an issue we cannot avoid. It is an issue of public money being spent on land, some of which was not eligible. It is a relatively small amount. In percentage terms, it is a small percentage of farmers who are involved, but obviously, for those farmers, it is a big issue.

I cannot send Deputy Ó Cuív the figures on what portion of the end figure farmers will pay until we know what the end figure is and until we make decisions around penalties, etc., but what I can send him is the amount of money that farmers have been asked to pay already. Where farmers have a small amount to repay, we have taken that from their single farm payment to get those farmers out of the problem area, which is what they wanted - we spoke to farming organisations about this. There is a relatively small percentage of farmers who have an issue here and we will try to deal with them in a way that manages cash flow and that certainly does not put farmers out of business.