Where the case cited by the Deputy arose in 1995 — i.e. a Friesian cow was applied on and the animal was described as a Friesian on its cattle identity card — the only penalty applied was that the animal in question was not paid 1995 suckler cow premium as Friesian cows were not eligible for such premium and as the ineligible Friesian had been declared openly and innocently by the applicant.
Where the converse happened — i.e. an animal declared as a Friesian in previous years when animals of that breed were eligible for premium was shown on the 1995 application as a beef breed instead by the farmer — the following was the procedure. An on-farm inspection was arranged to see whether or not the animal was indeed a Friesian or belonging to a beef breed. If the animal was found to belong to a beef breed it was accepted for payment. If it was found to be a Friesian and to have been declared by the same farmer as a Friesian in previous years and there was no possibility of the animal being confused with that of a beef breed, the applicant concerned was ruled out of the scheme for two years as a result of the deliberate false declaration involved. The EU Commission advised my Department that no lesser penalty could apply in such a case. In case of dispute after an inspection a second inspection by a different officer was arranged. If it was found to be a Friesian and the cattle identity card showed it to be of a beef breed before it came into the possession of the applicant then that animal was rejected for payment of the premium.
I believe the above shows that my Department has taken a very reasonable line in cases such as these and has gone to the trouble of seeing the situation on the ground in each case so as to ensure that no farmer will be penalised incorrectly.
