I propose to take Questions Nos. 155, to 157 inclusive together as they refer to the same case. The reason two animals, which were presented as suckler cows at an inspection on 6 October 1992 in the herd of the person named, were rejected as uncalved heifers is that the two inspecting officers concurred in the opinion that the two animals were uncalved heifers. The reason the person named was not informed at the time was because of his hostile attitude to the inspecting officers. The reason a second inspection was not carried out when it became apparent that there was a discrepancy between the inspecting officers' findings and the description of the animals in a report on a herd test was that the animals were very carefully inspected on 6 October 1992 and the two inspecting officers were satisfied their findings were correct. A second inspection therefore was not seen as being necessary.
The person named had a meeting with two officials from my Department in the district livestock office in Roscommon on 13 November 1992. At that meeting he was requested to submit proof that the two animals, rejected by the inspecting officers as uncalved heifers and which he claimed were cows, had calved by the date of application. He was also asked to provide proof that he had, at the date of application, the 20 suckler cows on which he claimed cattle headage and suckler cow grants. He was informed that on receipt of satisfactory evidence the question of paying grants could be considered but to date he has not submitted satisfactory evidence.
Since the person named has not produced the documentary evidence requested his case cannot be advanced further. In the absence of the documentary evidence requested I am not convinced that an independent inquiry would serve any useful purpose.
