Jim Higgins
Question:212 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason for the delay in the payment of the slaughter premium to a person (details supplied) in County Mayo. [25687/00]
Written Answers. - Grant Payments.
The person named has not been paid slaughter premium 2000 on animals tag numbers PTA 115255 and PMA 254299 as both of these animals are recorded on the cattle movement monitoring system as being slaughtered on 20 December 1999. Under the terms and conditions of the slaughter premium 2000 scheme only animals slaughtered during the period 1 January to 31 December 2000 qualify for the slaughter premium 2000 scheme.
Ulick Burke
Question:213 Mr. U. Burke asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if, further to Parliamentary Question No. 299 of 7 November 2000, he will outline the reason statistics on the number of herd owners who have repaid beef premia payments because of multiple herd numbers are not maintained by his Department in view of audit need. [25728/00]
Ulick Burke
Question:214 Mr. U. Burke asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the amount repaid by herdowners, in the latest year for which figures are available, who exceed the limits set down for payment of the beef premia due to the fact that they had multiple herd numbers. [25729/00]
Ulick Burke
Question:215 Mr. U. Burke asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if his Department has recouped any beef premium payments made to Teagasc in recent years due to the possession of multiple herd numbers by that body; if he regards Teagasc as a single producer; if not, the reason therefore; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25730/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 213 to 215, inclusive, together.
My Department maintains a central register of all overpayments. The purpose of the register is to ensure that any overpayments are registered as soon as possible and that recovery is monitored and effected on an ongoing basis. As the reason for overpayment is distinct to each individual case and relates to specific factors exclusive to the case it would not be possible to register overpayments by reference to the specific reason for the overpayment. Consequently, it would not be possible to provide the information requested by the Deputy without a full manual examination of each individual case on the overpayments register. If the Deputy wishes to seek information in relation to an individual or a number of individuals I will arrange to provide this information.
Audit needs are fulfilled by maintaining a register of overpayments and effecting recovery. If an audit query arises it is resolved by reference to the individual file on the case under query.
In so far as Teagasc is concerned each herdnumber has been individually examined and I can confirm that no overpayment of special beef premium has been made to Teagasc in recent years for reasons associated with multiple herdnumbers held by that body.
Each herd number held by Teagasc, whether for research or other farming purposes, is in respect of a separate operation-enterprise and is managed as an individual production unit.
Liam Aylward
Question:216 Mr. Aylward asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if he will review the plan submitted to his Department by a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny pertaining to his REP scheme application which was prepared under the charge of Teagasc, which is now deemed ineligible by his Department and where the area aid now due is being refused because the plan is deemed unacceptable; and if he will now accept a revised plan from the applicant who should not be penalised in view of the fact that the error was not of his making; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25731/00]
The person named had his participation in REPS terminated because penalties for non-compliance with the scheme requirements, detected in the course of an inspection of his farm in September 1998, amounted to 235%. The matters detected were serious and included failure to maintain records in accordance with the scheme requirements and exceeding the permitted nitrogen and chemical phosphorous levels. He lodged an appeal with the national REPS appeals committee. The committee overturned one of the smaller penalties but the total still came to 225%. The decision of the appeals committee is my Department's final position on any case in which penalties are applied under REPS.
As the penalties amounted to more than 100%, the scheme conditions at the time required that his participation in REPS be terminated and that he refund all payments received. He was notified of this. When he made no arrangements to refund the payments, my Department had to seek to recover the amount owed from payments due to him under other EU-funded schemes.
It is open to the person named to apply to join the new REP scheme which commences later this month, but no application could be considered until his existing debt has been repaid in full.
Michael Ring
Question:217 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason a person (details supplied) in County Mayo received a reduced cattle headage payment for 2000. [25735/00]
The person named applied under the 2000 cattle headage scheme on 15 beef cows and one other bovine over two years old.
He was paid his full entitlement of £1,059.75 under the 2000 cattle headage scheme on 19 October 2000. This is in accordance with clause 27 of the terms and conditions governing the scheme which sets limits on the amount of grant to be paid per forage hectare. The forage area as shown on the area aid application for 2000 of the person named was 12.22 hectares.
Based on this area, the grant payable on the 15 beef cows and the other animal applied on was £1,059.75. If no restriction applied, the grant would have been £1,293. Accordingly, the grant of the person named was restricted by the difference between the two amounts, which was £233.25.
Michael Ring
Question:218 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will received his sheep headage payment for 2000. [25736/00]
Following the transfer of the holding to the person named from his brother some checks remain to be completed. These are expected to be finalised shortly following which any payments due under the 2000 sheep headage and ewe premium schemes can be processed.
Michael Ring
Question:219 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will receive his cattle headage payment for 2000. [25737/00]
The person named included 11.79 hectares in his 2000 area aid application. An area of 11.47 hectares was determined which is some 0.32 hectares or 2.79 % less than the area claimed.
Under Article 9 of EU Regulation 3887/92, no penalty is applied when the difference is less than 3%. Therefore, in this case no penalty is applied, leaving the area determined for payment purposes at 11.47 hectares. Any payments due will issue as soon as possible.