Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Nov 2001

Vol. 545 No. 3

Written Answers. - Grant Payments.

P. J. Sheehan

Question:

40 Mr. Sheehan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if his attention has been drawn to the mistakes some farmers made when completing their application forms for the suckler cow premium scheme 2001 (details supplied); and his views on whether all such applications for the scheme should be accepted without penalty for the farmers involved by debarring them from the scheme for 2001. [30039/01]

Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (Mr. Walsh)

The position is that applicants under the 2001 suckler cow premium schemes had the option of applying on heifers up to a maximum of 20% of the total number of animals for which premium was requested. Clause 20 of the terms and conditions of the scheme states that a cow "is a bovine animal that has calved at least once already" and a heifer is defined as "at least eight months old at date of application".

The status of any animal applied on at the date of application is the relevant issue and which must be considered for the purposes of the scheme. In-calf heifers cannot be regarded as cows even if they are near calving or where they have calved after the application has been lodged but prior to the official closing date of the scheme. Clause 23 of the terms and conditions states that, in order to avoid penalties, applicants should ensure that they have completed the application form in accordance with the provisions as set out under Clause 20.

The suckler cow premium scheme is fully financed by the EU and it is essential that my Department take appropriate steps to ensure that the EU regulations governing the scheme are implemented.

All applications under the bovine schemes are cross-checked against the details contained in my Department's cattle movement monitoring system's database. These checks have shown that, in a number of cases, applicants declared animals as cows on the application form when in fact they were heifers at the date of application. In these cases my Department follows up on the error by writing to the applicant, setting out the details concerning the error and seeking an explanation. On the basis of the information received from the applicants, a decision is taken on each case based on its merits.

Where a decision is taken to apply a penalty, the applicant is advised of the position in writing. He is given the opportunity of having the decision reviewed by writing to an officer of my Department at a grade higher than that of the officer who took the decision. In the event that the review is unsuccessful, the applicant is again advised in writing and is given the opportunity of appealing the decision by writing to the independent headage and premia appeals unit where the case is examined afresh.

Question No. 41 answered with Question No. 28.