Michael Ring
Ceist:151 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if a person (details supplied) in County Mayo can be supplied with a copy of his 2001 area aid application urgently. [14633/01]
Written Answers. - Grant Payments.
The closing date for the submission of 2001 area aid applications was 27 April last and at this stage my Department is not in a position to supply farmers with copies of their applications. I have to point out that my Department's area aid unit has a relatively small number of staff engaged in processing more than 130,000 area aid applications.
All farmers were repeatedly advised to keep a copy of their area aid applications.
152.Mr. Neville asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development when reactor and depopulation grants will be made to a person (details supplied) in County Limerick. [14670/01]
The person referred to has been paid his full compensation entitlement under the brucellosis eradication scheme.
John Ellis
Ceist:153 Mr. Ellis asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if a REP scheme payment will now be made to a person (details supplied) in County Leitrim. [14699/01]
An audit of the agri-environmental plan of the person named carried out by my Department revealed that he is the registered owner of only part of the land declared for REPS. The remaining land contained in his plan is not eligible for payment under the scheme conditions.
The person named had already received payments based on the original declared area, including the land that has now been found to be ineligible. As he had been overpaid for those years, my Department had no option but to recoup the amount of the overpayment from moneys now due to him. He has been informed of the situation and told that payment of the residual amount due to him is being processed by my Department.
Andrew Boylan
Ceist:154 Mr. Boylan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason a person (details supplied) in County Cavan has not received a headage payment for 2000; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that this person submitted a letter to his Department outlining details of his application before Christmas 2000; and if he will now have the necessary payments made. [14751/01]
The person named applied on 40 cattle under the 2000 cattle headage scheme on 31 May 2000.
Following an examination of his application, it was noted that four of the animals applied on, tag numbers 121301630091, 121301690097, 121301620099 and 121301680105, had been sent to the factory on 12 July 2000. Under the terms and conditions of the 2000 cattle headage scheme animals applied on had to be retained on the farm for two calendar months from the day following receipt of application, or had to be replaced with other acceptable animals.
My Department wrote to the person named on 9 November 2000 advising him of the situation and asked him to forward the tag numbers of replacement animals, if any.
A reply was received in my Department from the person named on 16 November 2000. He stated that he had three replacement animals. These animals were not accepted as eligible replacements and he was written to on 12 December 2000 and advised that four animals were being rejected and that a reduction penalty would apply to the remaining eligible animals on his application. He was given the opportunity to have this decision reviewed by setting out any facts which he wished to put forward to support his case. His application for a review was received by my Department on 18 December 2000. He was written to on 14 May 2001 and advised that two of the replacement animals were acceptable, two animals were rejected and that a reduction penalty would apply to the remaining eligible animals. He was given the opportunity to appeal this decision by writing to the Headage and Premia Appeals Unit, Agriculture House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2 within 21 days.
However, a further check on his application has shown that a fifth animal, tag number SPMM006IT was sent to the factory on 12 July 2000. Three animals have therefore been rejected for grants, with a consequent reduction penalty on the remaining animals, and payment will now be made on this basis.