Vol. 549 No. 2
71 Mr. Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if he will review his Department's decision not to sanction grant aid to persons (details supplied) in County Cork for pollution control measures completed without prior approval. [6127/02]
There are a number of cases around the country similar to the one outlined and these are being reviewed at present. I will write to the Deputy in the case in question when this review has been completed.
72 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason an extensification payment for 2000 was not made to a person (details supplied) in County Galway; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6128/02]
The person named participated in the 2000 extensification premium opting for the census system.
Under this system a herdowner's stocking density was based on the size of the holding, the average livestock unit value of the bovine animals over the age of six months present on the holding plus the livestock unit value of any ewes entered for the ewe premium scheme. Where the stocking density was less than 1.60 livestock units per hectare, the herdowner could qualify for 2000 extensification premium at the higher rate of €66 per eligible animal. Where the stocking density was between 1.60 and 2.0 livestock units per hectare, both figures inclusive, he could qualify for the premium at the lower rate of €33 per eligible animal.
73 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason a suckler cow grant payment for 2001 has not been made to a person (details supplied); if his attention has been drawn to the fact that this person believed that the retention period was for six months and that the cows are deemed to be slaughtered only one day inside the retention period; and if the grant payment will be made at this stage. [6129/02]
The person named applied for premium for eight animals under the 2001 suckler cow premium scheme. Following an examination of the application it was found that four animals were disposed of inside the six months retention period and were not replaced as required under the terms and conditions of the scheme. A formal notification dated 5 February 2002 issued to the person named advising him that under clause 26(d) of the terms and conditions of the scheme, the four animals were being rejected with a resultant penalty to be applied on the remaining animals. The applicant, in correspondence received on 19 February in the district livestock office of my Department, has requested to have his case reviewed. He will be contacted regarding the outcome as soon as possible.
