HC Deb 24 October 1994 vol 248 cc416-7W
Mr. Kirkwood

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each of the last five years for which figures are available, and broken down into the constituent counties within the United Kingdom, the number of cases of application for sheep annual premium which have been rejected because the application date was missed by the applicant; and what percentage that number constitutes of the total number of SAP applications made in that county for that year.

Mr. Jack

The number and percentage of sheep premium claims rejected because they arrived after the last date for receipt, in respect of each agriculture department for each of the last five years, are set out in the table. I will write to the hon. Member to provide the breakdown by county.

Claims for Sheep Annual Premium rejected after late submission
1990 Percentage of claims received 1991 Percentage of claims received 1992 Percentage of claims received 1993 Percentage of claims received 1994 Percentage of claims received
England * * * * 40 0.09 190 0.44 61 0.15
Scotland 14 0.08 15 0.09 9 0.05 38 0.22 12 0.07
Wales 1 0.01 7 0.04 3 0.02 10 0.05 18 0.01
Northern Ireland 34 0.26 26 0.02 18 0.13 24 0.18 31 0.25
* No figures are available for 1991 and 1992

Mr. Kirkwood

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider making a case to the European Commission to allow national discretion in a limited number of circumstances to enable sheep annual premium applications to be deemed to be received by the due application date where sheep producers have a bona fide reason for not lodging the necessary application forms on time; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jack

Member states have discretion under the sheep annual premium scheme to accept claims lodged after the final date for receipt where the reasons for late lodgement constitute force majeure, which covers the most exceptional of circumstances. Wider discretion to accept late claims would carry the risk that the retention period, which is a fundamental requirement of the scheme, could not be effectively enforced.