Vol. 358 No. 8
andMr. D. Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware of the widespread hardship cused by the recent reduction in the sheep headage payments; if he will sanction an immediate increase in payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
11.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will reconsider his decision to reduce the ewe subsidy by £1 per head because of its effect on small farmers in the west of Ireland.
12.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will immediately restore the £1 per head sheep headage payments for disadvantaged areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, together.
The reason sheep headage rates for 1985 have been reduced by £1 per ewe is to provide funds to enable the off-farm income limit under the disadvantaged areas scheme to be raised from £3,500 to £6,400 per annum. Many small and progressive farmers in the west who supplement their farm income with seasonal earnings from forestry, county council work etc., and were previously excluded from the schemes, will now benefit. The Exchequer funds available would not otherwise enable this desirable improvement to be made.
Would the Minister not agree that the reason for the reduction was a saving of money? Would he not confirm that 50 per cent of the allocation is funded from Brussels in any case?
No, the reason for this was combined pressure from small farmers everywhere and from the Opposition in this House on several occasions last year vis-à-vis off-farm income. The subject was on the Order Paper on several occasions. At that stage I believe it was open to a certain type of farmer.
Sheep farmers will not actually be losing money since increased ewe premium payments are likely to be announced very shortly.
We had to fight hard for that too.
Would the Minister confirm that he has simply restored the position that existed until two years ago when they reduced the income ceiling limit and that now, instead of the Exchequer paying, he is asking full-time farmers to pay?
There was a big difference in the payment of the ewe premium scheme in 1979-80 as compared with now — 75p to £15. Sheep farmers are much better off.
There was no limit to the headage grants. The Minister cannot get away with it. Let him ask the sheep farmers in his own county.
They are relatively happy.
13.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the criteria used by him in deciding the qualification for advanced payments of ewe premiums for 1984-85; the amount of money made available for this scheme; the total amount of money paid out to date; the reasons for the delay in making payments; the reasons all applicants have not been paid; and if he will make a statement on the operation of this scheme.
The EC allows us to make advance payments under the 1984-85 ewe premium scheme but only to applicants in the disadvantaged areas. As advance payments had to be made before ewe numbers could be verified at inspections and as the definition of eligible animals had been changed under the 1984-85 scheme, it was necessary to guard against the danger of overpaying applicants who exaggerated their ewe numbers. The ewe numbers claimed this year, therefore, were checked against the estimated numbers of similar ewes on which premium was paid in 1983-84 and advance payments were made on the lower figure.
A large number of this year's applicants had no ewes in 1983-84 and the ewe numbers quoted in these cases could only be verified by inspection of flocks. By the time all these inspections would be completed, the current marketing year would have elapsed and the balance of premium would have become due for payment. In the circumstances, my Department have decided to exercise the option to pay the full premium in these cases instead of advance payments.
The level of advance was fixed in February by the EC and most payments were made here by the end of March. Some £3.9 million in advance payments to over 18,000 applicants in the disadvantaged areas has been paid so far out of EC funds. The balance of the premium will be paid in these cases and the full premium in another 15,000 cases when the EC determine the precise amount of the full premium for the 1984-85 marketing year now ending.
The Minister's reply might sound well and look good on paper but could he tell us why the detailed criteria under which these payments were made were not made known to farmers in disadvantaged areas? Will he confirm that only applicants who were on the master file in 1984 were considered for payment, that any new applicant in 1985 was not considered unless he was on that file in 1984? Will he further confirm that in respect of people who were on the file in 1984 and applied again in 1985, 50 per cent of the lower number were taken, irrespective of whether that number was lowest in 1984 or 1985? Could he tell us what it costs to administer this gimmicky scheme?
The national sheep organisations certainly would not agree that it is a finicky scheme or whatever term the Deputy used to describe it.
Not the scheme itself but the method of payment.
I agreed with the representations made to me that some prior payment should be issued in the winter period or very early spring to pay sheep farmers for peak feeding. To my knowledge this is the first time the Department have paid without prior inspection. I stand open to contradiction but I am not aware of schemes where money has been paid without prior inspection. Obviously we had to establish some type of criteria. Because of the increasing numbers of farmers who are keeping sheep for the first time, it has not been possible to take them on board on this occasion. It is reasonable to assume, given the implications of the scheme, that they will be paid in full at the end of August or early September.
The Minister has referred to the exaggerated numbers that farmers were giving. He did not refer to the fact that farmers were told they would not be considered unless they had ten or more. Could he give an indication of the cost of administering this advance payment? Will he admit to the House that farmers received no sheep payment whatever in 1984? A scheme for 1984 was paid in 1985. Can he accept that this was a contribution to meeting the costs of sheep farmers over the winter period?
An option was given by the Commission to member states as to whether or not to pay the first instalment. I am not aware whether other EC countries have followed our lead but I believe it was the proper thing to do due to cases of hardship. Sheep farmers were given a first instalment to allow them to overcome costs at a hungry time of the year. Most sheep farmers have accepted that it was a reasonable thing to do. Because there were no pre-inspections, I am sure the cost was very small. However, it is a separate question and I have not the precise answer.
I accept that. The Minister stated that the figures were exaggerated at one end of the scale. Can he say why it was not made known to farmers that there was a minimum number of ten and a ceiling of some other number?
There is no upper ceiling.
Anybody over 200 is out.
No, the ewe premium is open-ended.
In the assessment for payment, anybody over 200 was not considered. They will be paid later.
I do not want the House to get the impression that they will not be paid. Of course they will be paid. When we negotiated the scheme last year there was extreme pressure by some countries on the whole system and structure of this payment. We were pressed very hard to accept payment on the basis of a lambing percentage and the Minister and I went to extreme lengths not to accept this system. In the lowlands most ewes would have one lamb each but on the hills the lambing percentage might be only 60 per cent. For that reason we had to establish different criteria and the delay to which the Deputy refers was in the best interests of the sheep industry.
