Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 23 June 2004
84 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason a person (details supplied) in County Mayo was awarded extensification premium on three animals, when he expected to be paid on 27 animals. [18750/04]
View answerOn 11 June 2004, a payable order for €240 issued to the person named representing his full entitlement to 2003 extensification premium in respect of the three animals that had already qualified for payment of 2003 special beef premium on his holding.
He did not apply for any other animals under the 2003 special beef premium scheme. Also, he did not lodge an application under the 2003 suckler cow premium scheme. Accordingly, he has been paid his full entitlement of 2003 extensification premium.
85 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason a person (details supplied) in County Mayo has been paid slaughter premium on three animals, when he expected to be paid on nine animals. [18751/04]
View answerUnder the 2003 EU slaughter premium scheme, four animals were deemed eligible under the herd number of the person named. Full payment has issued on these animals.
The person named contacted my Department regarding four animals which had been slaughtered under the herd number of the deceased brother of the person named. My Department wrote to the person named advising that CMMS records for these animals did not deem them eligible for slaughter premium to the person named. These records have now been amended to reflect eligibility to the person named and accordingly payment will issue shortly.
86 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when the extensification grant will be awarded in full or in part to a person (details supplied) in County Monaghan; his views on whether it is fair to hold money from a full-time livestock farmer who is depending on this money to meet his bills; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18752/04]
View answerThe person named was prosecuted by the Northern Regional Fisheries Board under section 171 of the Fisheries Act 1959, as amended, for alleged pollution of a river. The case was heard on 1 April 2004 and the facts were found proven. On payment of €2,517.19 costs and €2,200 contribution towards rehabilitating and restocking the stretch of the river affected, the case was dismissed on 6 May 2004 pursuant to the Probation of Offenders Act 1907.
My Department is obliged under EU regulations to ensure that farmers in receipt of direct aid follow good farming practices and in certain cases to penalise farmers found in breach of regulations. The payment of extensification premium to the person named was held pending clarification of the court's ruling. It has now been decided to pay the extensification premium of €5,680 in full and payment will issue shortly.
