Vol. 531 No. 3
149 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the plans he has to compensate those farmers who have suffered a loss arising from the changeover to area based headage payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5411/01]
169 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the way in which the Minister proposes to ensure that losses in the mountain areas are resolved in the new disadvantage areas scheme; and when a new proposal will be submitted to the European Commission for approval. [5702/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 149 and 169 together.
The position relating to compensation is as outlined in my reply to Parliamentary Question No. 148 on Tuesday, 5 December 2000. My officials are carrying out a review of the compensatory allowances scheme to see if an equitable long-term solution can be found to the problem of reduced payments, particularly in mountain type areas.
150 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development when a suckler cow grant payment for 2000 will be made to a person (details supplied) in County Donegal. [5426/01]
As the person named did not submit a 2000 area aid application, his entitlement to grants under the 2000 premia schemes is limited to payment on up to 15 livestock units in accordance with the terms and conditions governing these schemes. He submitted an application under the 2000 special beef premium scheme and he was paid his full entitlement of £2,107.47 in respect of 12.6 livestock units. While he applied on eight suckler cows under the 2000 suckler cow premium scheme, his entitlement was accordingly restricted to 2.4 livestock units and he has been paid his full entitlement of £353.73 under this scheme. The first advance, 60%, of £212.24 issued to him on 30 November 2000; the second advance, 20%, of £70.74 issued to him on 19 December 2000 and the balancing payment of £70.75 issued to him on 31 January 2001.
The person named applied on 27 animals under the 2000 cattle headage scheme. Clause 23 of the terms and conditions governing the scheme provides that an applicant must have submitted an area aid application in order to receive grants. Consequently, as no 2000 area aid application has been received by my Department from the person named, he is not entitled to any grants under this scheme.
151 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if he will intervene on behalf of a person (details supplied) and waive all penalties applied on his 2000 suckler cow-cattle headage in view of the fact that he made a genuine error duplicating a tag number; the reason he received payment on only 48 ani mals and not 49; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5463/01]
The person named applied for premium on 40 cows and ten heifers under the 2000 suckler cow premium scheme and 40 beef cows under the 2000 cattle headage scheme on 8 May 2000. When the application was being processed it was discovered that a cow bearing tag number UGA 546125 was entered twice on the application. In accordance with the regulations, the animal bearing this tag was deleted from the application without penalty leaving the remaining 39 cows eligible for payment. As animal bearing tag number WJWN0078F was not listed on the original claim, it could not be considered for payment unless it was accepted as a replacement.
Under the terms and conditions of the suckler cow scheme, an applicant is entitled to apply on up to 20% of the total number of animals applied on as heifers. The person in question applied on ten heifers. However, as he was deemed to have 39 eligible cows for payment he was therefore entitled to payment on nine heifers under the 20% rule.
The person in question was notified of the discrepancy regarding the duplicate tag on 12 July 2000 and was advised that payment would be reduced. He then sought a review of the case on 18 July 2000. The review upheld the original decision. A letter notifying the applicant of the outcome of the review issued on 8 September 2000. A notice of appeal was received in the appeals unit on 26 September 2000 and the result of this investigation was that the penalty was properly applied. He was notified of these findings on 1 February 2001.
It was, therefore, established that the person named was entitled to payment on 39 suckler cows and nine heifers under the 2000 suckler cow scheme and, accordingly, was paid a total of £7,074.72 as follows: 60% advance, £88.434 × 48 = £4,244.83 on 14 December 2000; 20% balance, £29.478 × 48 = £1,414.94 on 19 December 2000; 20% balance, £29.478×48 = £1,414.95 on 31 January 2001. The penalties applied in this case are part of the regulations laid down by the EU. The person named did not suffer any penalty under the 2000 cattle headage scheme.
