Written Answers. - Grant Payments.
John McGuinness
Ceist:
55
Mr. McGuinness
asked the
Minister for Agriculture and Food
the reason an appeal in relation to payments due under the 2001 special beef premium scheme to a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny has not been dealt with; if correspondence to his Department from the applicant dated 23 April 2002 and 28 March 2002 will be considered immediately; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[19636/02]
The third 2001 special beef premium application of the person named listed a total of 14 animals and was received on 9 November 2001. Premium had previously been paid in the age category claimed in respect of one animal on the third application. A second animal listed on this application was slaughtered during the compulsory two month retention period. The person named was informed in writing dated 26 March 2002 that the animal slaughtered during the retention period was being rejected with a consequent reduction penalty on the remaining 12 eligible animals.
The person named appealed this decision to the special beef premium unit in a letter dated 28 March 2002 and the original decision to reject the animal was upheld. The person named was informed on 15 April of his right to refer the case to the headage and premia appeals unit. There was no record of an appeal dated 23 April on behalf of the person named to the headage and premia appeals unit. However, a copy of this appeal has been received from the person named and forwarded to the headage and premia appeals unit for its attention. Following its review of this matter, a decision will issue.
Paul Kehoe
Ceist:
56
Mr. Kehoe
asked the
Minister for Agriculture and Food
if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a person (details supplied) in County Wexford had his animals taken on 25 March 2001 and destroyed, although they tested clear for foot and mouth disease, and was told that they would receive all the premiums for the animals but has not to date received payments; the position regarding these payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[19637/02]
The person named applied for 2001 ewe premium on 50 breeding ewes and 100 hoggets. The application was received in my Department on 29 December 2000.
On 25 March 2001 the entire sheep flock of the person named was culled as a precautionary measure in the foot and mouth disease crisis. One hundred and forty-three of the sheep slaughtered, 64 ewes and 79 hoggets, would have been potentially eligible for the ewe premium scheme if the person named complied with the terms and conditions of the scheme. My Department is not satisfied that he did, as he purchased 79 sheep in February 2001 at three marts on six different days. He has been unable to satisfy my Department that he had the number of sheep that he entered for the ewe premium scheme in his ownership and possession at the date of lodgement of his application and that he maintained those sheep on his holding. His flock register does not support various claims he has made in regard to the sale of sheep and the killing of sheep by dogs. He appealed the decision to refuse ewe premium to a regional inspector in my Department and later to the headage and premia appeals unit. Neither review saw any reason to alter the decision already made. As the person named was unable to show that he had not made an irregular application by applying for premium on sheep which were not in his ownership and possession on the date of lodgement of his application, he was debarred from the 2002 ewe premium scheme in accordance with EU regulations, in addition to being refused 2001 ewe premium.
The person named lodged an area aid application for 2001 and under that application established a forage area of 13.07 hectares for suckler cow, special beef and extensification premium purposes. The person named lodged a suckler cow premium application on 23 March 2001. He had a suckler cow quota for 17 cows and would have been considered for payment on 17 animals if he had sufficient forage area to support that number. His forage area, however, was only 13.07 hectares and there is a limit of two livestock units per hectare on suckler cow and special beef premium payments combined. The maximum number of livestock units that can be taken into account for payment purposes is 13.07 multiplied by 2, equal to 26.14. In calculating the number of suckler cow grants that can be paid, account must be taken of the number of ewes for which ewe premium was applied. That number was 150 and at a livestock unit value of 0.15 each they account for 22.5 of the 26.14 livestock units available for payment. Accordingly, only 3.64 suckler cows can be considered for premium. Payable orders amounting to €750.39 premium and €9.75 compensation will issue shortly. Even if the herd of the person named had not been depopulated he would not have qualified for any more suckler cow premium or euro compensation in view of his high stocking density.
The person named lodged an application for special beef premium on 9 April 2001 but since the animals on the application were already slaughtered the application could not be considered. In any event the forage area available to him would not have been sufficient to cover both suckler cow and special beef premium payments. As indicated, the forage area was not even sufficient to cover the entire suckler cow application. The foot and mouth disease compensation paid to the person named for the slaughter of his animals took the loss of EU slaughter premium into account.
The person named was also an applicant for extensification premium under the census system. In order to qualify for the high rate of premium he would have needed to have an average stocking density throughout the year of less than 1.6 livestock units per hectare and to qualify for the low rate of premium the stocking density would have to be less than 2.0 livestock units per hectare.
The first census date for 2001 was 11 March. On that date, the person named had cattle that were equivalent to 44.8 livestock units. Averaging this number over the five census dates gives 8.96 and after the application of a 20% reduction on foot of a concession granted by the EU the number of bovine livestock units to be taken into account for stocking density purposes is 7.168. This figure and the number of livestock units attributable to the sheep entered for the ewe premium scheme, 22.5, gives the total livestock units to be taken into account for extensification premium purposes, 29.668. When 29.668 is divided by the forage area of 13.07 hectares it gives a stocking density of 2.2699. This is in excess of the 2.0 livestock units per forage hectare necessary to qualify for extensification premium.
With the exception of the suckler cow premium and euro compensation already mentioned there are no further premium payments due to the person named for 2001. The person named was paid compensation under the foot and mouth disease compensation scheme amounting to €34,633.71.
Phil Hogan
Ceist:
57
Mr. Hogan
asked the
Minister for Agriculture and Food
when an extensification payment will be made to a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[19675/02]
As pointed out in my reply of 9 October 2002 to Question No. 356, the person named participated in the 2001 extensification premium opting for the simplified system. However, extensification premium payments may only issue to herd owners in respect of animals that have already qualified for payment of 2001 suckler cow or special beef premiums in their own herds.
Since the person named did not apply for grants in 2001 under the suckler cow or special beef premium schemes, he cannot be considered for payment of the 2001 extensification premium.
