Vol. 547 No. 4
115 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if an area aid application by a person (details supplied) in County Roscommon will be approved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3784/02]
The person named submitted an area aid application which included land that was also claimed by another herdowner. My Department contacted both herdowners to clarify the matter. The person named has responded indicating that he does not have a right to claim the parcels in question, which constitute 6.07 hectares. The person named claimed a total of 34.44 hectares on his 2001 area aid application. When his claim is reduced by the 6.07 hectares on which he was not entitled to claim his entitlement is 28.37 hectares. This represents a difference of 6.07 hectares or 21.40 % between the area claimed and that determined. Under Article 9 of EU Regulation 3887/92, when the difference is more than 20%, a 100% penalty must be applied. Therefore in this case as the overclaim is greater than 20%, no payment under the 2001 area-based compensatory allowance scheme can issue to the person named.
The person named applied for premium for ten cows under the 2001 suckler cow premium scheme. Following an examination of his application, it was discovered that the ten animals were sold before the retention period had expired. A formal notification issued to the applicant on 3 December 2001 advising him that, as clause 26 (a) of the terms and conditions of the scheme had been contravened, no payment would issue under suckler cow 2001 scheme. The person named was also advised that he could appeal this decision by contacting my Department within 21 days.
116 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason for the delay in the payment of the sheep premium to a person (details supplied) in County Mayo. [3792/02]
Due to the foot and mouth alert, it was necessary to put in place additional checks and controls to ensure that applicants complied with the terms and conditions of the 2001 ewe premium scheme. As part of these checks, letters were issued to a number of applicants, including the person named, who disposed of sheep during the retention period for the 2001 ewe premium scheme. These letters sought details of the numbers and type of sheep in their flocks and the numbers and type disposed of in order to verify compliance with the retention requirement.
Following correspondence received from the person named, an inspection of his flock was arranged for 24 August 2001. He refused to have his flock inspected and consequently he was deemed ineligible for payment under the terms and conditions of the scheme. He was informed of this decision in writing on 15 October 2001 and was advised that he could appeal the decision to the district livestock inspector at Hynes Buildings, Galway. There is no record of him having done so to date.
117 Mr. Boylan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason a suckler grant payment has not been made to a person (details supplied); if his attention has been drawn to the serious financial position this person is in; and if payment will be made forthwith. [3798/02]
The person named applied for premium for 22 animals under the 2001 suckler cow premium scheme. Following an examination of his application, it was found that four animals were sold within the retention period. The applicant did not notify the district livestock office of details of suitable replacement animals as is required under clause No. 26 of the terms and conditions of the scheme. A formal notice issued on 30th November 2001 to the person named informing him that the four animals were to be rejected with a resultant penalty to be applied in accordance with clause No. 33 of the said terms and conditions. The person named requested a review of his case on 7th December 2001. He has been in contact with my Department regarding the progress of his appeal and has been informed that his file is now being prepared for submission to the regional officer for a decision.
Question No. 118 withdrawn.
