Michael Ring
Ceist:221 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will be paid the second instalment of the REP scheme. [4911/96]
Written Answers. - Grant Payments.
An application for a second payment under REPS has been received in the local office of my Department from the person concerned.
Under revised control and monitoring measures implemented by my Department, all participants must now certify that they have farmed in accordance with their plans and that they kept specified records. Additionally, their REPS planners must now certify that the plans submitted on behalf of their clients comply with the scheme and that the participants kept appropriate records. Until such certification is received no second year payment can be made.
Officials of my Department are in contact with participants and planners with a view to having the necessary certification supplied in cases such as this where second year payments are now due.
Joe Walsh
Ceist:222 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will have arrangements made to expedite payment of a REP scheme grant to a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [4912/96]
An application for REPS from the person concerned has been received in the local office of my Department.
The application is being processed at present and payment will issue in the next few weeks.
Paul Bradford
Ceist:223 Mr. Bradford asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the payments made to a person (details supplied) in County Cork under the beef premium scheme in each of the years from 1992 to 1996. [4913/96]
The following table sets out the position covering special beef premium payments to the person named:
|
Scheme |
Year |
Amount Paid |
No. of Animals |
|
£ |
|||
|
Special Beef Premium |
1992 |
1,476.30 |
42 |
|
Special Beef Premium |
1993 |
369.11 |
7 |
|
Special Beef Premium |
1994 |
2,637.75¹ |
40 |
|
Special Beef Premium |
1995 |
776.85 |
11 |
|
Special Beef Premium |
1996 |
Nil² |
Nil |
¹ An amount of £644.77 in respect of an overpayment under the 1994 suckler cow scheme was deducted from this figure.
² Payments under the 1996 scheme cannot commence before 16 October 1996.
Paul Bradford
Ceist:224 Mr. Bradford asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the payments made to a person (details supplied) in County Cork under the suckler cow premium scheme in each of the years from 1992 to date. [4914/96]
The person named was paid £1,028.10 under the 1992 suckler cow premium scheme on 15 cows.
He applied for grants under the 1993 and 1994 suckler cow premium schemes under his own herd number. This herd number was amalgamated with that of his brother in February 1993 because the Department was not satisfied that his holding was being operated as a separate unit. He was not, therefore, entitled to the suckler cow premium scheme in 1993 or 1994 as milk was being supplied from the holding with a milk quota in excess of 25,638 gallons. An advance amounting to £644.77 under the 1994 suckler cow premium scheme was paid, in error, but has since been recovered.
The Department is now satisfied that the holding of the person named is being operated separately from his brother's holding and the 1995 suckler cow premium will be paid to him shortly.
Ned O'Keeffe
Ceist:225 Mr. E. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when payment will issue to a person (details supplied) in County Cork in respect of two animals; and the reason for the delay in having payment issued. [4927/96]
Payment of reactor grants under the disease eradication schemes is conditional on compliance by the herdowner with animal health regulations and requirements. One of the essential requirements is that reactor animals are removed to slaughter via the reactor collection service, which is provided free of charge, to a designated meat plant, selected on a weekly basis by means of competitive tender. Reactor grants are not payable in respect of the two reactor animals in question as these requirements were not met by the herdowner who was made aware in advance of the consequences of noncompliance.