Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 560: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food the number of farmers nationwide who will be penalised as a result of the 2004 EU special beef premium penalty; the number of farmers in County Galway who are similarly affected; the position concerning the first 25 animals that farmers apply for; if her attention has been drawn to the fact that some farmers are being penalised by as much as €20,000; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [19855/05]

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy is aware, Ireland implemented the single payment scheme in January 2005. The special beef premium scheme and the slaughter premium scheme were the only schemes for which the deadline for receipt of applications was 31 December 2004. This meant that as many farmers as possible submitted their applications in late December 2004 to benefit from the special beef premium.

Under the 2004 scheme, applications for in excess of 2.4 million animals were lodged of which almost 1.4 million were quota animals, that is first age-bull animals. The application figure in each of the three previous years was 1.9 million animals.

The special beef premium application overshoot will not result in any reduction below 25 in the number of animals to be fully paid under the scheme. I am fully aware of the impact that the overshoot reduction will have on farmers who claimed on more than 25 animals.

The decision to opt for full decoupling was arrived at following careful consideration of all options and following a widespread public consultation process. A very persuasive factor in this process was the suggestion that farmers in those member states who fully decoupled would not be disadvantaged during the transitional period. The level of overshoot of the regional ceiling is attributable to the ending of the special beef premium scheme in 2004 and application patterns, both in terms of total numbers of animals applied upon and the timing of lodging of applications, strongly suggest this to be the case.

I am seeking a solution to this issue and will continue to do so with the European Commissioner. I have already raised the issue with the Commissioner on a number of occasions during various meetings. My Department also forwarded a detailed submission to the European Commission dealing with this matter on 25 April 2005 and a meeting between my officials and the various services of the Commission's Director General of Agriculture will take place later this week. The matter has also been discussed with the Commissioner's cabinet and with the most senior officials of the European Commission.

I am continuing to avail of every opportunity to press for appropriate measures to be put in place to alleviate the difficulties encountered by Irish beef farmers as a result of the ending of the special beef premium in 2004. Given the current position with regard to the processing of the 2004 scheme and the ongoing discussions with the Agriculture Commissioner on the overshoot, it is not possible at this stage to be definitive about some of the issues raised.

Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 562: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason a person (details supplied) in County Galway is being penalised heavily under the special beef premium scheme for 12 animals; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [19857/05]

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The person submitted two applications under the 2004 special beef premium scheme in respect of 12 animals. The first application, in respect of eight animals, was received on 25 November 2004, while the second application, in respect of four animals, was received on 17 December 2004.

Following computer validation, it was found that six of the animals on the first application and the four animals on the second application were not recorded as being in the herd of the person named on the date the applications were received by the Department. This is a basic requirement of the scheme and if not complied with can result in regulatory penalties.

By letter dated 1 June 2005, the person named was requested by my Department to provide an explanation as to why the animals were found to be non-CMMS compliant. A reply is awaited, following which the case will be reviewed further in the light of the explanation offered by the person named.