Vol. 467 No. 1
302 Mr. Kenneally asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the reason a townland (details supplied) in County Waterford did not qualify for inclusion in the recent extension of the disadvantaged area scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12741/96]
I have had this matter investigated, and the position is that the townland exceeded both the stocking density limit of 0.99 livestock units per forage hectare, and the income limit of 80 per cent of the national average income. Therefore, it was not possible for the disadvantaged areas appeals panel to recommend its inclusion in the proposal for extension of the disadvantaged areas.
303 Mr. Kenneally asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the reason a townland (details supplied) in County Waterford has not been reclassified as severely disadvantaged; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12742/96]
I have had this matter investigated, and the position is that the townland exceeded the income limit of 60 per cent of the national average income. Therefore, it was not possible for the disadvantaged areas appeals panel to recommend its inclusion in the proposal for reclassification as more severely handicapped.
304 Mr. Kenneally asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the reason a townland (details supplied) in County Waterford did not qualify for the recent extension of the disadvantaged area scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12743/96]
I have had this matter investigated, and the position is that the townland exceeded both the stocking density limit of 0.99 livestock units per forage hectare, and the income limit of 80 per cent of the national average income. Therefore, it was not possible for the disadvantaged areas appeals panel to recommend its inclusion in the proposal for extension of the disadvantaged areas.
