Written answers

Tuesday, 20 November 2007

Department of Agriculture and Food

Grant Payments

8:00 pm

Photo of Pat BreenPat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 367: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason a person (details supplied) in County Clare did not receive full REP scheme payment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29297/07]

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

The person named completed his contract in REPS 1 on 31 March 2001, having received all his full basic REPS payments. He had also undertaken the organic farming supplementary measure, which was paid in arrears. He applied for his fifth payment for this measure on 24 May 2001. So that his application could be processed, he was asked on 25 May 2001 and again on 9 July 2001 to submit his organic licence for the final year of his REPS 1 contract. He did not respond, and it emerged subsequently that the organic certification body had withdrawn his licence in November 2000.

He applied for REPS 2 in October 2001 but his application was rejected because the matter of his fifth organic payment was still unresolved and there was the possibility that my Department would have to ask him to return the four organic payments he had received. The situation was reviewed within my Department and it was decided on 8 April 2003 that, exceptionally, the person named would not be asked to return those payments.

He subsequently applied for REPS 2 in April 2004 and commenced his contract on 1 May 2004. He has so far received his first four annual payments in full.

The person named is now contending that he was at the loss of two and a half years' REPS payments because of the delay in starting his REPS 2 contract. However he was partially responsible for the delay due to his own failure to provide the documentation my Department requested after he applied for his fifth organic payment in 2001, and he was reasonably treated by not being asked to return the four organic payments he had received before his organic licence was withdrawn. The series of events I have outlined has also been set out in a letter dated 19 September 2007 from my Department to the person named. In this letter he was informed of his right to appeal to the independent Agriculture Appeals Office.

Photo of Phil HoganPhil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 368: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a single farm payment will be awarded to a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29324/07]

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

An application under the Single Payment Scheme/Disadvantaged Areas Scheme was received from the person named on the 10th April 2007.

As part of the control procedures under EU legislation governing the Single Payment Scheme, the application was selected for and was the subject of a remote satellite eligibility and a cross-compliance inspection.

Arising, from the findings of the satellite inspection, it was necessary to follow up with a ground inspection. This inspection was carried out on 14 November 2007. The results of the inspection are being processed on the Department's system and payment will issue shortly.

Photo of Jim O'KeeffeJim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 369: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the reason for the delay in payment of a forestry roads grant to a person (details supplied) in County Cork; and if she will now arrange for immediate payment. [29359/07]

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

I understand that payment issued in the week ending 16 November and should be with the applicant now. All such projects require a full onsite inspection to ensure that the development carried out accords with the approval given previously. In this case, the length of the road constructed was in excess of the length originally approved for support and, accordingly, the matter required some additional consideration before the appropriate payment could be recommended.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.