Michael Ring
Question:93 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will receive a suckler cow premium and extensification payment for 2002. [21622/03]
Written Answers. - Grant Payments.
An application for premium for 12 animals under the 2002 suckler cow premium scheme was lodged on 4 March 2002. Payment of the 80% advance instalment issued to the applicant on 18 October 2002. The district livestock office of my Department has since been informed that the applicant is now deceased and the person named is now the registered herdowner. The 2002 suckler cow application has been processed fully for balancing payment. The solicitors in charge of the estate were contacted with regard to submitting the relevant documents to allow payment to be released. It is expected that this case will be finalised shortly.
The applicant participated in 2002 extensification premium opting for the simplified system for the purposes of determining eligibility. He chose to observe a stocking density of 1.8 livestock units or less per hectare for each and every day of 2002. Under the terms of the relevant regulation, prior to payment, the Department is required to carry out stocking density cross-checks against the CMMS animal database to ensure that the stocking densities as chosen were not breached. Cross-checks were carried out on 19 May and 15 September 2002 at which respective stocking densities of 1.9113 and 1.9645 livestock units per hectare were established. These stocking densities were calculated also taking into account a 19.5 livestock unit value attributable to the 130 ewes that qualified for payment of 2002 ewe premium on the holding which itself consisted of 22.55 hectares.
A CMMS based herd profile showing by livestock unit value the eartag number and date of birth of each bovine animal over the age of six months present on the holding on both dates cross-checked issued to the person named recently. Unless the person named can show that there are discrepancies on the herd profile, he cannot be considered for payment of 2002 extensification premium in view of the fact that the stocking densities found exceeded 1.8 livestock units per hectare on the dates the cross-checks took place.
Denis Naughten
Question:94 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if all animals will be paid in full under the extensification scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21623/03]
Denis Naughten
Question:95 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will review his decision to cut the special beef premium and extensification scheme by 20%; if he will consider spreading the overshoot over 2002 and 2003; the proposals submitted to the Agriculture Commissioner; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21624/03]
Denis Naughten
Question:96 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has satisfied himself that the overshoot in 2002 for the special beef premium was due to the leaking of the mid term review document; his views on whether it is acceptable that farmers should be penalised for this leak; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21625/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 94 to 96, inclusive, together.
Earlier this week, following protracted negotiations over many months with Commissioner Fischler and his officials, I secured a very satisfactory resolution of the difficulty that arose for particular farmers as a result of the overshoot of the special beef premium in 2002. In recognition of the particular circumstances that gave rise to the overshoot, the Commission has allocated €6.4 million each year, which will be incorporated into the single payments of the farmers affected by the overshoot.
Under EU regulations, the once-off penalty that was imposed on the farmers concerned could not be changed retrospectively. That penalty amounted to some €25 million. The solution I have negotiated will result in increased annual payments into the future and for as long as the new system of direct payments applies. It will therefore amount to a far greater cumulative sum than the actual cost of the penalty. I am satisfied that the increased annual payments stretching into the future that result from this agreement will be far more beneficial than the remission of a once-off penalty and represents a fair and equitable solution for all concerned.
Denis Naughten
Question:97 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food his plans for the implementation of decoupled livestock payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21626/03]
The agreement reached by the Council of Ministers on 26 June 2003 on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy provided, in the case of cattle, sheep and arable crops, for full decoupling of direct payments and for a number of options for partial decoupling. In early July I launched a consultation process in which I invited the social partners and the wider public to submit their views on the most appropriate arrangements to apply in the Irish context. I am examining the submissions received at present with a view to making a decision on these sectors in the near future.
In the case of direct payments in the dairy sector, while the relevant Council regulation provides for full decoupling only, it allows certain discretion to member states to decide on the timing of its introduction. In the interests of clarity, and to allow producers to take informed decisions in the period ahead about the sale and acquisition of quota and land and associated investment decisions, and having taken into account the views expressed to me by representatives of dairy producers, I have decided that full decoupling in the dairy sector should take effect from 1 January 2005. In order to ensure a consistent approach across the sectors, I have decided that the arrangements in the cattle, sheep and arable sectors, when decided upon, will also apply from 1 January 2005.
Paul Connaughton
Question:98 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the position with regard to an appeal by persons (details supplied) in County Galway against a penalty imposed on them as a result of them not 30-day testing female animals that were purchased into their herd before their entire herd was depopulated with brucellosis. [21628/03]
An appeal has been received in this case and is under active consideration at present. A decision will be made shortly and will be conveyed to the persons concerned.