MICHAEL WALSH,
Sir, - I refer to an article by John McManus (Business Opinion February 4th). The Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development totally rejects the assertions made by Mr McManus which seem to be based on an extrapolation of inaccurate information.
The following are some of the facts:
The December 2001 livestock survey conducted by the CSO comprised returns from 15,500 farms and not 30,000 as stated in the article;
A comparison between CSO data for ewes and the number of ewes submitted for the Ewe Premium Scheme is not a valid comparison. A ewe for premium purposes is defined in EU regulations as a female sheep which has lambed at least once or any other female sheep which will be at least one year old by the end of the retention period. Farmers apply for the premium in December, the retention period normally ends in the following April and hogget ewes born in the previous spring are therefore eligible for the premium. The CSO survey categorised ewes as being (a) over two years and (b) under two years but it excludes animals intended for breeding which are too young. Such sheep are included in the "other" category together with culled ewes and culled rams. Therefore hogget ewes which are eligible for ewe premium on the basis that they will be one year old at the end of retention are not included as ewes in the CSO survey;
The number of sheep available for premium purposes in 2000 would be reflected in the 1999 CSO December figures and not in the 2000 figures used by Mr McManus;
The number of ewes accepted for the 2000 ewe premium scheme was 4,487,400. The figure for ewes meeting the CSO definition from the December 1999 survey is 4,182,800. The apparent difference is 304,600, but the number of sheep categorised as "other" in the CSO survey is 1,096,600. Hogget ewes are included in the "other" category and only 28 per cent of that figure would be required to make up the difference. It is most unlikely that 72 per cent of the sheep categorised as "other" are culled ewes and culled rams.
The number of farmers on the Cooley Peninsula who applied for ewe premium in 2001 was 257 and difficulties have been identified in regard to a number of the applications. The Department is satisfied, following extensive checks and controls including a 100 per cent check of applicants within 10km of the Border, that the situation in Cooley was unique and was not replicated elsewhere. These checks also focused on other particular risk categories, including all producers who moved sheep to slaughter during the Ewe Premium retention period under movement permitting arrangements in place due to the Foot and Mouth crisis.
The level of checks and controls carried out in Ireland has always exceeded that required under EU law. Cases selected for inspection are chosen using risk criteria and up to 70 per cent of these inspections are unannounced. Penalties as laid down in EU regulations are imposed in any case of non-compliance.
The allegation that there is widespread low-level fraud in the sheep industry and that the Department was aware of the problem but apparently turned a blind eye is contrary to the facts. - Yours, etc.,
MICHAEL WALSH,
Press Officer,
Department of Agriculture,
Food and Rural Devlopment,
Kildare House,
Dublin 2.
The figures used in the article and the conclusions drawn were put to the Department on the Friday before publication. The Department's comments were then incorporated in the article. - John McManus.