Vol. 467 No. 5
124 Mr. Kirk asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will re-examine the position whereby farmers are being disallowed payment of various premiums and headage on the basis of trivial clerical errors in the completion of application forms; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13743/96]
Generally speaking, payments are not refused simply on the basis of trivial clerical errors in the completion of application forms. The problem is that failure to properly complete an application form leads to delay in processing a case for payment. In practice many errors, e.g. invalid tag numbers, are capable of correction following consultation with the applicant. In this regard I am satisfied that my Department's response time to farmers who have had problems with their applications improved considerably during 1995 and will improve further in 1996.
I fully appreciate that many schemes are highly complex but, given the considerable amount of money involved, as much as £650 million annually, it is not unreasonable that the EU Commission lays down very specific conditions for filling forms and meeting other requirements. My objective is to keep administrative procedures as simple as possible within the constraints of the Commission regulations. My Department is continuously monitoring all aspects of the schemes with this in mind. Help sheets and checklists are made available with all application forms. In addition, assistance is available to farmers at local offices and through the services offered by Teagasc.
125 Mr. Dempsey asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the reason a person (details supplied) in County Meath who applied for grant aid in respect of his enterprise was allocated only £6,000 on projected expenditure of approximately £200,000; the reason it took ten months to have this grant approved; the reason for a similar delay in the processing of his current application; the reason a farmer in Wexford was able to obtain a much larger grant for second hand equipment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13765/96]
The person in question applied for assistance under the scheme of grant-aid for investment in commercial horticulture which has a budget of approximately £600,000 per annum. One of the conditions attached to this scheme is that only investments which do not qualify for assistance under another scheme are eligible. Most of the investment being undertaken in the case in question qualifies for assistance under the farm improvement programme. The position has been explained to the person in question by staff of my Department on a number of occasions.
While the farm improvement programme was suspended on 8 December 1994 it was re-introduced on 1 November 1995 but limited to horticulture only. The person in question should now make application for assistance under this scheme.
In view of the size of the budget for the commercial horticulture scheme compared with the demand for assistance from it, it is necessary to award grants on a priority basis. A deadline of 31 January 1995 was set for receipt of applications for the first round of grants. A total of 423 applications were received. Each of these applicants had to be visited by an inspector of my Department and an overall assessment of the applications made which of necessity, took some time. One hundred and thirty-five applicants were approved for grant assistance and these were notified in October 1995.
