It was a condition of the 1992 ewe premium scheme that applicants keep on their holding for 100 days from 7 March 1992 to 14 June 1992 the number of sheep on which they applied for premium. Following two inspections of the flock of the person named, on 26 May 1992 and 5 June 1992, he was deemed to have been in breach of the requirement to maintain all the sheep on which he applied for premium for the 100 day retention period. Of the 400 sheep applied on only 295 were presented at the inspection on 26 May 1992. At the inspection on 5 June 1992 151 sheep were presented but the brands on these sheep were fresh and the inspecting officers were not satisfied that the sheep in question formed part of the original flock.
The person named would have been aware of the difficulties with his application following these two inspections. He was also informed verbally of the decision to withhold payment on 12 November 1992 and again on 21 December 1992 and was also given the reasons for that decision.
This case was the subject of a parliamentary question on 2 March 1993 and of various representations in 1993 and 1994. The person named was also written to on 27 July 1994 concerning the non-payment of the 1992 ewe premium.
The position in 1992 was that an informal appeals procedure was in place whereby an applicant who was dissatisfied with a decision in relation to headage or premia grants could appeal that decision to the Department. The person named made verbal representations to both his local office and to the offices of my Department in Castlebar. The decision to withhold payment of his 1992 ewe premium was maintained.
The Deputy will be aware that towards the end of 1995 I put in place a new headage and premia appeals unit in my Department. That unit operates independently of the staff involved in implementing the schemes and the appeals process includes the right to an oral hearing.
