Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Jan 2001

Vol. 529 No. 1

Written Answers. - Grant Payments.

Tony Gregory

Question:

399 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if the State aid paid to a company (details supplied) was recovered, with interest, as required following the EU Commission's decision in 2000 that this payment was incompatible with the Common Market; and, if not, the steps being taken to recover this money. [1629/01]

Commission Decision (2000/625/EC) held that the State aid provided to assist in the provision of an outlet for the export of livestock was incompatible with the Common Market and should be recovered. However, the Commission recognised that there are special circumstances in this instance and invited the Irish Government to detail its arguments on the difficulties in recovering the aid granted. My Department has fully set out its arguments in a submission to the Commission in August 2000. The Commission is examining the case made.

Michael Ring

Question:

400 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will receive cattle and sheep headage for 2000. [1630/01]

The 2000 area aid application form submitted by the person named was completed incorrectly and consequently the area aid unit has been in contact with him with a view to clarifying the position.

In addition, the herdowner also included commonage in his 2000 area aid application but did not provide any proof of his entitlement to claim this commonage. He was contacted regarding both problems some months ago, and so far no reply has been received. A reminder letter outlining the outstanding problems issued to the person named last week. No payments can issue until all these outstanding issues have been resolved.

Jim Higgins

Question:

401 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason for the delay in the payment of cattle headage to a person (details supplied) in County Mayo. [1632/01]

A herdowner must submit a valid area aid application for the relevant year in order to be considered for payment of headage grants. No area aid application was received from the person named for the year 2000, and consequently no area aid related payments can be made for that year.

Question No. 402 answered with Question No. 360.

Denis Naughten

Question:

403 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the number of flock owners who have not been paid sheep headage in each of the past five years solely because they have failed to tick the box to claim the payment, even though they are in counties where all flock owners are eligible for a headage payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1662/01]

A combined application form, covering ewe premium and sheep headage, had been in existence for some time until this year when the application covers ewe premium only since headage payments are moving to an area based payments system. Applicants for sheep headage grants were required to complete schedule 2 of the application form giving the number of mountain breed ewes being applied on and the number of other hogget ewes being applied on.

All flock owners in the disadvantaged areas are not automatically eligible for headage. While hogget ewes on all disadvantaged lands qualify for headage, mountain breeding ewes only qualify if they are grazed on mountain grazings. The number of cases which were unpaid because the flock owners concerned claimed to have mountain breeding ewes but did not have mountain grazings in each of the last five years is as follows:

Scheme Year

Number of cases

2000

178

1999

187

1998

167

1997

196

1996

167

Where an applicant makes a mistake in completing his application form by entering his lowland hoggets in the box meant for mountain breeding ewes, he has the right to appeal any subsequent disallowance to the local office initially and subsequently, if necessary, to the appeals unit.

Denis Naughten

Question:

404 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if he will reconsider a decision to refuse a sheep headage payment to a person (details supplied) in County Roscommon due to a clerical error in view of the fact that all flock owners in County Roscommon are entitled to sheep headage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1664/01]

Grants under the 2000 sheep headage scheme are based, inter alia, on the forage area and classification of grazings available in the disadvantaged area as indicated on an applicant's 2000 area aid form. In this case the person named applied on 80 mountain ewes and according to area aid records the forage area available is classified as lowland grazings only. Following an inspection of his flock the person named was notified in writing that he was ineligible for any payment under the scheme. He was also advised that he could have his case reviewed by submitting a written appeal to the district livestock inspector at his local office. No record of an appeal has been received by my Department. However, if he wishes to have his case reviewed he should contact his local office.

Dan Neville

Question:

405 Mr. Neville asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development when special beef premium will be paid to a person (details supplied) in County Limerick. [1698/01]

The person named applied for special beef premium in respect of 47 animals on 1 March 2000. His application was the subject of an on-farm inspection. During the course of that inspection it was discovered that one animal was not in the applicant's ownership and possession on the date of application. This animal was rejected with penalty. In addition, a number of animals on the applicant's holding were found to be non-compliant with regard to the identification and registration regulations resulting in a reduction penalty on the applicant's three applications lodged in the 12 months prior to the inspection date of 18 May 2000. The person named appealed this decision and the case is currently being reviewed. The person named will be informed of the outcome of this review as soon as possible.

Top
Share