Ned O'Keeffe
Question:112 Mr. N. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if payment of a number of premia can be made to a person (details supplied) in County Cork who is owed substantial payments. [14796/04]
View answerWednesday, 19 May 2004
Questions (117, 118, 119, 120)
Written answers
Between 1997 and 2003 the person named was paid full entitlements under the following schemes: 1997 suckler cow premium scheme, paid on 68 animals less late application penalty of 5% and late area aid application penalty of 8%; 1998 de-seasonalisation slaughter premium schemes, on 22 animals; 2000, 2001 and 2002 slaughter premium schemes, on 14, 169 and two animals, respectively; and 2003 area-based compensatory allowance scheme, on the maximum 45 hectares allowed. The position in respect of the only other schemes for which he submitted applications during this period is as follows: 2002 and 2003 suckler cow premium schemes, neither of which he could be paid under as he had no suckler cow quota as required by their terms and conditions. In respect of the 2003 special beef premium scheme, he applied on six animals but one of these was found to be under-age. He will be paid soon on the five remaining eligible animals. On the 2003 extensification scheme, payments under this scheme will not commence until next month. His application will be processed for payment in the normal way.
The herd number was withdrawn from the person named between July 1998 and May 2000 and, as a result, he could not apply under livestock schemes during that period of withdrawal. He has contended that the withdrawal was unfair and that he should have been allowed to submit livestock applications during that time. The district livestock office of my Department contacted his agricultural adviser in connection with this matter late last year. So far, however, no further contact has been made with the district livestock office.
Paul Connaughton
Question:113 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when forestry grant approval will be issued to a person (details supplied) in County Galway; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the original application for approval was mistakenly made for native woodlands species but that approval is now sought for softwood species; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14825/04]
View answerTwo applications for afforestation grant aid on behalf of the person in question have recently been received in the forest service of my Department. These applications were previously ruled ineligible for the native woodland scheme. One of the applications has been rejected because it did not meet the minimum width requirements for the afforestation grant scheme. The other application requires referral to the national parks and wildlife service section on environmental grounds. I have asked that a decision be given in this case as quickly as possible.
Paul Connaughton
Question:114 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason the ten month special beef premium was not awarded on all cattle applied in 2002 on behalf of a person (details supplied) in County Galway; the reason the cards were punched, thereby dramatically reducing the value of the animal in the mart, in view of the fact that a number of the animals were deemed ineligible; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14827/04]
View answerUnder EU regulations governing the 2002 special beef premium scheme a stocking density limit of 1.9 livestock units per hectare applied based on the forage area declared on an applicant's area aid application. The area aid application of the person named declared a forage area of 9.11 hectares which gave entitlement to 17.30 livestock units. Each producer's reckonable livestock units for the calendar year in question were calculated as follows, based on the declared forage area of 9.11 hectares an entitlement to 17.30 livestock units equates with 28.8 premium rights, where the animals concerned each represent 0.6 livestock units. While the person named submitted applications under the 2002 special beef premium scheme in respect of a total of 34 animals, payment of premium was restricted to 28.8 premium rights. As EU regulations governing the scheme specifically provide that animals applied on in excess of the individual's permitted stocking rate of 1.9 livestock units per hectare be deemed paid premium, the cattle identity cards of all 34 animals in question were correctly stamped and punched to reflect this.
Paul Connaughton
Question:115 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason a person (details supplied) in County Galway has not received the second part of the suckler cow grant 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14828/04]
View answerSeven animals were submitted for 2003 suckler cow premium scheme on 19 June 2003. At an inspection carried out on 21 November 2003 it was found that one animal, tag number GCB154643, was applied on in error. That animal has now been deleted from the application. As two unclaimed animals were found to be non-compliant with the identification and registration requirements as set out in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the terms and conditions of the scheme, the applicant was advised that the application would be subject to a reduction penalty in accordance with paragraphs 40 and 43 of those terms and conditions and was given the opportunity to write to my Department within 21 days in order to have this decision reviewed. As the person named has confirmed recently by telephone that the application of the penalty was accepted, calculation of the total suckler cow premium due for 2003 can be made now.
The applicant was paid €1,255.24 on 16 October 2003 in respect of the seven animals applied for on 16 October 2003, that is, before discovery of the facts outlined in the previous paragraph. Application of the penalty arising from the non-compliant animals and of the recalculation necessitated by payment on six instead of seven animals shows that only €1,178.81 should have been paid. This means the overpayment of €76.43 arising will now have to be sought from the applicant.