Michael Ring
Ceist:314 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason a person (details supplied) in County Mayo did not receive his full entitlement to 1999 sheep headage. [1969/00]
Written Answers. - Grant Payments.
The person named applied for a total of 88.86 hectares on his 1999 area aid application form. Following processing of his application an area 74.32 hectares was determined. This represents a difference of 14.54 hectares or 19.56% between the area claimed and that determined. Under Article 9 of EU Regulation 3887/92, no penalty is applied when the difference is less than 3%, the penalty is based on double the difference when it is between 3% and 20% and when the difference is over 20% a 100% penalty must be applied. Therefore, in this case, a penalty of 29.08 hectares has to apply, leaving the area on which payments are based at 45.24 hectares which would entitle the person named to payment on the max of 200 sheep. He has already been paid in respect of 102 sheep and a payment on the balance of 98 sheep will issue shortly.
Michael Ring
Ceist:315 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason a person (details supplied) in County Mayo did not receive £38 per ewe de-stocked under the cull ewe scheme. [1970/00]
Under the Dúchas compensation scheme for ewes culled under the ewe supplementary measure 1998 the rates of payment were fixed at £25 for the loss of each premium under the 1999 ewe premium scheme, £11 for the loss of each grant under the 1999 sheep headage scheme and £2 for each ewe culled. The maximum payable on any ewe was therefore £38.
A re-examination of my Department's records for the 1999 schemes shows that the person named was at the loss of 119 ewe premia but the initial payment made by Dúchas was in respect of 45 ewe premia only. Arrangements are being made with Dúchas to have a balancing payment issued as soon as possible. He suffered no loss in respect of sheep headage grants. He has been paid in full for the number of ewes culled.
John Perry
Ceist:316 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if the decision will be rescinded for a person (details supplied) on a ten month premium in view of the fact that his son completed the forms and made a genuine error; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1971/00]
The person concerned lodged a special beef premium application for four bulls on 5 February 1999 He notified the Department on 8 November 1999 that these animals were, in fact, castrated male animals and, therefore, they were ineligible for the bull premium. He was advised to apply instead for ten month premium (castrated male) on the animals and would have to comply with a further two month retention period, but he sold the animals without applying for the ten month premium.