Written Answers. - Grant Payments.
Ulick Burke
Question:
227
Mr. U. Burke
asked the
Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
his proposals to make a concession in the extensification scheme similar to the 80% concession he made at the time of the foot and mouth epidemic.
[28555/01]
Article 32.11 of EU Commission Regulation 1900/2000 provides for the application of a co-efficient of 0.8 to the number of bovine livestock units recorded on holdings for extensification premium purposes in cases where, owing to an epizootic, the competent veterinary authorities decide that no animals may leave the holdings except for slaughter. The concession applies for the duration of the restriction on movement and for 20 days thereafter and is conditional on the farmer taking all measures necessary to prevent and/or limit the occurrence of the epizootic that led to the restriction.
The concession will be applied automatically in the case of farmers who co-operated with the measures put in place to prevent the occurrence or spread of foot and mouth disease in the early part of 2001. It will also be applied automatically in the case of farmers whose herds are restricted under the TB and brucellosis regulations at any time during 2001, provided of course those farmers have taken the measures necessary to prevent the spread or recurrence of disease.
Michael Ring
Question:
228
Mr. Ring
asked the
Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will receive an area based payment.
[28563/01]
In processing the 2001 area aid application of the person named it initially appeared that one of the parcels which he claimed overlapped with a parcel of land claimed by another applicant. This occurred when a plot being claimed by the other applicant was being digitised onto the Department's electronic database. The area aid unit has now resolved the issue and payments due to the person named under the 2001 area-based compensatory allowance scheme will issue as soon as possible on the full area claimed by him.
Michael Ring
Question:
229
Mr. Ring
asked the
Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
the reason a person (details supplied) in County Mayo has not received headage payments, suckler cow and extensification payments for 2000.
[28564/01]
The person named applied on 23 cattle under the 2000 cattle headage scheme on 9 May 2000 and was paid £1,290 on 29 September 2000.
Following a subsequent office check on his application, it was noted that six of the animals applied on had been sold at the mart on 11 May 2000. Under the terms and conditions of the 2000 cattle headage scheme animals applied on had to be retained on the farm for two calendar months from the day following receipt of application, or had to be replaced with other acceptable animals.
My Department wrote to the person named on 6 October 2000 advising him of the situation and asked him to forward the tag numbers of replacement animals, if any. In reply, he stated that he had written to his district livestock office on 16 May 2000 to inform the office that he had sold the six animals. He was then advised that cattle headage grants paid to him would have to be recouped. He was given the opportunity to have this decision reviewed by writing to the regional higher executive officer setting out any facts which he wished to put forward to support his case. He was also requested to forward proof of posting of his letter of 16 May 2000, as there was no record of receipt of this letter. He furnished a certificate of posting and he was written to on 25 January 2001 advising him that the decision was upheld on review, and the amount of £1,290, 1,637.96, already paid to him would be recovered from other grants due to him. He was given the opportunity to appeal this decision by writing to the headage and premia appeals unit within 21 days. The person named appealed the decision to the appeals unit. The decision was upheld on appeal and he was notified of same by letter of 3 July 2001. However, following further consideration of the matter, the appeals unit reviewed its earlier decision, and informed him by letter of 4 September 2001 that the six animals in question would be deleted from his claim, and the remaining animals would be accepted for payment without penalty. Grants on the six animals amounted to £118.80, 150.84, and as he was already paid £1,290, 1,637.96, the sum of £118.80, 150.84, was recouped from the second instalment of his 2001 ewe premium grant which issued to him on 19 October 2001, leaving him with a balance of £110.42, 140.20.
He has been paid his full entitlement of £880.00, 1,117.37, on 80 sheep under the 2000 sheep headage scheme. He was paid £800, 1,015.79, on 8 September 2000, and £80, 101.58, top-up on 20 December 2000.
Under the 2000 suckler cow premium scheme the person named was paid the 60% advance of £1,149.64, 1,459.74, on 16 October 2000 and the 20% advance of £383.21, 486.58, on 19 December 2000 in respect of 13 animals. The balance of his entitlement, amounting to £383.22, 486.59, will issue to him shortly as will his entitlement of £59.02, 74.94, under the 2000 suckler cow premium scheme euro compensation.
Following payment of the balance of 2000 suckler cow premium, the person named can expect payment of his 2000 extensification premium. The payment, based on his 13 eligible suckler cows, will amount to £675.74, 858.01. In addition, he can also expect payment of euro compensation of £17.68, 22.45, in respect of the same 13 animals.
Gerry Reynolds
Question:
230
Mr. G. Reynolds
asked the
Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
the reason a person (details supplied) in County Sligo has not received a 2001 slaughter premium payment in November 2001.
[28574/01]
The person named will receive slaughter premium 2000 as soon as the CMMS database has been amended to reflect all movements of the animal in question. The relevant form has been sent, this week, to the person named for completion. There are no payments due to the person named in respect of the slaughter premium scheme 2001.
