Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 May 1994

Vol. 443 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Sheep Grant Payments.

Mr. Connaughton

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment and the Minister for being present. This very important issue is of concern not only to the farmers involved but to all farmers. The rules governing the ewe premium scheme are bonkers and the insanely rigid adherence by the Department to these rules is worthy of exposure. Farmers stand to lose approximately £10 million because 30 per cent of the application forms will be deemed to have been incorrectly filled in. There are 52,000 sheep flocks in the country and of the 7,500 sheep farmers in County Galway approximately 2,500 are in grave danger of losing either their ewe premium or ewe hogget grant or both.

Last Monday morning a farmer outside Loughrea had an inspection to assess his eligibility under the ewe premium scheme. He applied for this premium on 154 sheep which were presented and accepted to be in order. However, he made a minor error when filling in his form in that he omitted to say that 65 of the 254 sheep were ewe hoggets, which are entitled to an extra headage payment of £10 per head. This means that the farmer has lost £650, and was so informed by the inspector.

A few miles away another Loughrea farmer who had applied for the ewe premium and gave the correct number of ewe hoggets, five, and the correct total flock number, 60, omitted to insert the figure 55 for the ewes in the small box marked A. His losses are even worse — he will lose the entire premium on the 55 ewes, which amounts to approximately £1,300. What crime would a person have to commit for a judge in a court of law to fine him £1,300? I believe it would have to be a very serious crime. The Minister and his Minister of State seem to have lost all authority in the administration of these schemes.

The irony is that an inspector who inspects the flocks is not allowed to rectify minor mistakes, should he see fit to do so. Inspectors should be given sufficient latitude to correct any minor errors which can lead to a loss of income for farmers. I want to make it absolutely clear that I hold no brief whatsoever for any farmer who tries to defraud the Department of moneys. However, any minor errors made in the filling of a very complicated form should not lead to farmers losing up to half their income. If the Department inspector is satisfied that a genuine error has been made in filling in the application and that the sheep for which the premium was applied for are present then the grant should be paid.

Two major questions arise from this matter. The number of forms incorrectly filled in is approximately 30 per cent. I did not pick that figure out of the air — I have carried out some research. Most farmers do not realise this as the grants under the ewe hogget scheme will not be paid until next November and, due to pressure, the livestock offices have not told them. The livestock office telephoned one of the farmers to tell him that there was something wrong with his application form. He was asked for a dipping certificate and to set out in a letter the reasons the application form was not properly filled in. Even though all this information was supplied, I was told by the Department in writing that the farmer could not be paid the grant. If the problem is as widespread as I believe it is, why would the Department allow a situation to develop where farmers and, in turn, the economy, will be left without £8-£10 million simply because these application forms were incompletely filled in. I rest my case.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (Mr. O'Shea)

Under the ewe premium scheme farmers are entitled to apply for premium in respect of all breeding ewes that have lambed at least once and any other ewes that will be one year old by 7 June 1994. Under the sheep headage scheme farmers are entitled to apply for headage payments in respect of all mountain breeding ewes substantially maintained on mountain grazings and on hogget ewes, born in 1993, maintained on both mountain and lowland grazing. For ease of administration and in order to reduce the amount of paper work for individual flockowners, the ewe premium scheme and sheep headage scheme are included on one composite application form. The form has been in use in its present format for a number of years already. The ewe premium scheme is on schedule 1 of the application form while the sheep headage scheme is on schedule 2. I understand that the Deputy's question relates to two separate flockowners to whom I will refer as applicant A and applicant B.

Applicant A completed the ewe premium part of the application form and applied for premium in respect of 89 breeding ewes and 65 hogget ewes — a total of 154 sheep. He did not complete the sheep headage part of the application form but simply drew a line through schedule 2. Applicant B completed the ewe premium part of the application form and applied for premium in respect of 59 breeding ewes only. He did not complete the sheep headage part of the application form. He also supplied a dipping certificate in respect of 60 breeding ewes only. Prima facie, therefore, neither of these flockowners made a valid application for sheep headage payments.

My Department is obliged, under EU regulations, to carry out administrative checks on all applications for headage and premia schemes. These administrative checks are supplemented by on-farm inspections in a percentage of cases. The question of whether an applicant is entitled to be paid grants under the headage and premia schemes cannot be determined until all these checks have been completed. Decisions on entitlements under the 1944 ewe premium and sheep headage schemes have not yet been made.

Applicant A was subject to an on-farm inspection during which he presented a total of 154 sheep for the ewe premium scheme. Applicant B was not subject to an on-farm inspection. He should be eligible for ewe premium payments in respect of the 59 ewes on which he applied, subject to compliance with the retention period requirement, and so on. Our records suggest that this particular applicant is not entitled to sheep headage as he does not have mountain grazings on which to graze mountain breeding ewes nor does he have hogget ewes grazed on lowlands which would also be eligible for headage payments. If this does not reflect the true position, I will have the case re-examined.

Mr. Connaughton

It is not the true position.

Mr. O'Shea

I will get the details from the Deputy later.

These cases highlight once again the difficulty my Department faces in making payments in respect of premia and hedage applications by farmers who do not complete the application forms carefully and fully. Any apparent omissions by farmers normally will come to light only at payment stage when an individual becomes aware that he has not been paid in respect of a particular scheme. In turn this leads to delays in payments for those farmers who made an effort to complete appiciation forms fully.

All premia and headage schemes are now subject to EU regulations governing an integrated administration and contol system. Those regulations were extended to the disadvantaged area headage schemes for the first time in 1994. While my Department was previously in a position to exercise some discretion in regard to headage schemes the position is no longer as flexible under the new EU rules. I have stated on many occasions that I fully appreciate the complexity of the schemes both from the point of view of the farmers and of the administration. Farmers have found it necessary to devote much time and effort to the completion of the necessary documentation which is an essential part of the new regime under the CAP reforms. My Department in conjunction with Teagasc, has made great efforts to give the necessary information and help to all farmers.

Given that the schemes involve a considerable amount of money — as much as £640 million when the CAP reforms are fully in place in 1995 — it is not unreasonable that the European commission lays down very specific conditions for the filling of forms and the meeting of other requirements.

I have asked my Department to carry out a full re-examination of the application form submitted by applicant A and those of any other farmers in a similar position, with a view to ensuring payment of full entitlements. As already stated, no decisions have yet been made on foot of 1994 applications for premia and headage schemes.