Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Nov 1996

Vol. 471 No. 7

Written Answers. - Disadvantaged Areas Scheme.

Brian Cowen

Ceist:

388 Mr. Cowen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the reason for the rejection of a townland (details supplied) in County Laois which applied for inclusion in the disadvantaged area scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter based on the further submission forwarded to his Department by letter dated 29 July 1996. [21576/96]

Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry (Mr. Yates)

The townland of Ashfield, in the district electoral division of Arless, County Laois was considered by the disadvantaged areas appeals panel in conjunction with other townlands in the area which had appealed for inclusion in the disadvantaged areas scheme. However, based on the information supplied by those farmers in the area who were surveyed, the stocking density of the townland exceeded the limit of 0.99 livestock units per forage hectare.

The appeals panel attempted to aggregate the results of Ashfield with those of other townlands in the DED to see if a group of townlands could be identified which would together satisfy the criteria. However, since most of the other townlands also exceeded the stocking density limit, this was not possible, and the panel had no option but to exclude this area from its recommendations.

On 29 July 1996, a letter was received in my Department requesting an explanation for the omission of Ashfield and expressing the fear that this omission had resulted from incorrect processing of the data received. Following receipt of this letter, the survey returns were thoroughly rechecked, and it was found that all of the data had been accurately entered on computer, resulting in confirmation that the figures used by the appeals panel in making its decision were correct. A reply was duly issued on 12 August 1996 giving the results of the re-examination relating to Ashfield, and a detailed explanation of the way the data had been processed and how the appeals panel had used the results in arriving at its decisions.

My Department has since had further correspondence about this matter but no justification has been found for a change in the stated position regarding the ineligibility of Ashfield for disadvantaged status.