Vol. 363 No. 4
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware that the farming community are completely dissatisfied with his handling of the fodder crisis and, in particular, the manner in which farmers were assessed for benefit; and if he will introduce payment of increased headage grants, suggested by the main farming organisations, which would appear to be the most equitable manner of assisting farmers.
13.
(Limerick West) asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware of the general unrest with regard to the payment and operation of the feed voucher scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
14.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware that the delay in payment to compensate farmers for the loss of hay and fodder is now forcing farmers to sell their stocks at a huge loss; and if he will ensure that there is no further delay with payment.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 13 and 14 together.
Feed vouchers have been issued to some 78,000 farmers in the past ten days or so and they will make a substantial contribution to alleviating the hardship caused by the bad weather conditions of last summer and autumn.
There is no evidence that farmers are being forced to sell cattle because of insufficient fodder. Indeed, cattle slaughterings since the beginning of the year are running well below the levels for the corresponding period in 1985 and this suggests that the feed voucher scheme and the other relief measures undertaken by the Government have been successful in helping farmers to overwinter stock.
The suggested increase in headage payments in the disadvantaged areas would mean providing aid for a substantial number of farmers with little or no fodder problems and would cost some £28 million which, in the current Exchequer situation, it would not be possible to provide.
Is the Minister aware that the scheme has turned out to be farcical in regard to the way in which payments are being made? I am sure that all Deputies have had representations in this regard. Would the Minister regard as acceptable a situation in which a farmer was refused payment, having bought hay, but finds that the full amount of the grant was paid to the farmer who sold the hay? That case has been brought to my attention. It is the result of the scheme the Minister has introduced. Is he honest in saying that the cost of the increased headage grant would be £28 million to the State? Does he not agree with the statement made by the IFA that the Government would only have to spend £7 million on this scheme because the farmers would be contributing £7 million while £14 million would be available from the EC? Would that not have been a far better and much more acceptable scheme?
I do not agree with the Deputy's argument. The Government would have to spend £28 million on such a scheme. In a year's time we would be entitled to recoup half that amount from the EC but the initial outlay would be £28 million. The Deputy asserts that this system of payment would be the most equitable way of assisting farmers. On the contrary, that type of blanket payment would mean paying money to people irrespective of whether they had fodder problems. The scheme I introduced is working very well. Obviously, there will be hiccups and there will be individuals who will have grievances. They may be justified in that but it is difficult to devise a scheme involving 78,000 people that would operate in a totally uniform way. However, if Deputies have evidence of cases in which there apear to be discrepancies they should bring these to my notice so that I might endeavour to resolve the problems involved.
Would the Minister not accept that all farmers were subject to the bad weather conditions of last year and that they all experienced difficulty in providing fodder for their stocks? By what he has said now, is the Minister accepting that the scheme has not operated equitably and would he not reconsider the proposals of the main farming organisation to bring about a scheme that would ensure justice in terms of compensation for farmers?
I accept that the whole country was affected badly by the weather conditions of last year but some people were very well equipped to make silage.
Bad silage.
A considerable number of people, even in the disadvantaged areas, provided for their fodder needs and I have no intention of paying out money to those who have not experienced problems in this matter. I have stated that on numerous occasions and there is no question of my changing my mind.
I wish to refer to a point raised by Deputy Kirk and which I postponed answering when replying to the previous question. The Deputy referred to late applicants, but the scheme was extended by ten days to allow late applicants to apply. That put back accordingly the implementation of the scheme. Also, we delayed the scheme for several weeks because we omitted straw from the equation in the calculation, as Deputy Leonard will recall from an earlier reply to him. At a further date, we omitted from the equation bad quality hay. Those two changes were greatly appreciated and have resulted in the more smooth operation of the scheme. We will consider the situation at the end of the day from the point of view of what money is available and if there are cases of hardship we will examine them, even if the applications were late.
(Limerick West): I am amazed at the Minister. Is he not aware that because of the very bad weather conditions even those farmers who had sophisticated equipment for the harvesting of silage were not able to gain access to their fields? Would the Minister not accept that they are in as much difficulty as is any farmer who did not have that equipment? Is the Minister aware also that officials of his Department, not in all cases but in some cases, are placing more emphasis on quantity than on quality? I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of State, Deputy Hegarty, before Christmas and he promised to give it attention. In terms of animal feed, quality is far more important than quantity.
Regarding the first part of the question, I did not say that merely because of having sophisticated equipment the farmers concerned would be excluded from the scheme. What I said was that the availability of this equipment made it possible for the people concerned to make silage or hay. Any farmer who does not have good quality hay or silage is entitled to apply for inclusion in the scheme. They are not excluded by reason of having good quality equipment.
(Limerick West): It is good to hear that.
I have said that very bad quality hay was excluded from the calculation.
(Limerick West): That is not being carried through.
I am prepared to investigate any case of this kind that the Deputy may bring to my attention.
Would the Minister be prepared to examine carefully the position in regard to late applications because, despite the scheme having been well advertised, some people for one reason or another were late in applying? Some applied in the first instance to their ACOT office instead of to the farm development service. Can the Minister inform us how much money has been paid to date under the feed voucher scheme and also under the Shannon Valley scheme?
The last part of that query comes up in a further question. In regard to late applications, I do not want to raise hopes unduly. If there is money left over and if I see that there is some severe hardship involved, I will certainly give it every consideration. I hope as a result of my saying this that we will not have a massive volume of new applications which could not possibly be financed. I will be looking at the situation.
Following a recent visit to west Cavan to examine the fodder situation, has the Minister decided to extend the scheme from Dowra to the Shannon Pot as he was originally requested to do?
No, I have not decided to extend it. I visited that locality as a result of points raised by the Deputy some months ago. I found that the flooding was not static, as in the Shannon Basin. The problem was flash flooding which disappeared in a matter of days or hours. I undertook to look at the basic problem which created the flooding, that is the clearing of the banks of the river and the river bed itself.
There is no aid for farmers.
I have been in communication with certain agencies to see if a scheme can be devised to eliminate the possibility of flooding. I am not extending the aid scheme from the Shannon Basin into that area.
That is the Shannon Basin.
Yes, the overall Shannon Basin. Let us appreciate the point that we went and saw the problems at first hand.
I am interested in this scheme because I represent a constituency through which the great North road runs. My constituents have been in touch with me on numerous occasions about the virtual convoy of hay going north during the autumn. On behalf of my constituents who are paying for this scheme through taxation, I would ask in what way does the Minister define eligibility for the fodder scheme? To what extent, if any, can the people who exported the hay be excluded from or benefit from this scheme?
I would not call it exporting. It is going from the Twenty-six Counties into the Six Counties. It is a moot point but it is not exporting. I thought the Deputy was going to complain about flooding in his Dublin North-West constituency by literature from other Members of the Dáil. The Deputy is very strong in his own right in that area. The Deputy might have constituents who qualify for this scheme.
I doubt it very much.
The grounds for qualification are as follows: anybody who has in excess of 60 livestock units, that is 60 fully grown cattle, or 300 fully grown sheep or a combination of both——
We have horses in Finglas South. Would they qualify?
If the Deputy is prepared to catch them and feed them I will consider it. The other qualifications stipulation is that the farmer must have less than 75 per cent of his feed requirements.
What about a case where it has been exported?
Again I say that it is not exporting. It is transporting from one part of the country to the other.
The Central Statistics Office would regard it as exporting.
I can understand that Deputy De Rossa has difficulty in identifying hay. Most of what he saw was actually straw. It was taken out of the calculation at the request of Deputy John Francis Conlon, Deputy Leonard and others three months ago. Very little hay went across the Border.
The Minister stated that he would be prepared to accept late applications.
I said I was prepared to have a look at that.
Would the Minister accept appeals from people who feel they have not been treated fairly in the allocation of the grant under the feed scheme?
If Deputies feel there are people who have been unfairly treated I would ask them to let me know.
There are probably very few people in each county who have failed to apply. Would it not be better to have a small discretionary fund administered to ACOT or the FMS? By the time the Minister deals with all the applications, the feed will be of very little use to those who have suffered hardship. They need the feed much earlier.
All eligible people have already been paid. We will now look to see if there is anything left in the kitty and I will then consider those people I have been asked about. I was asked about the Shannon scheme in a supplementary question. I want to point out that I answered a question on this topic before Christmas and the statistics given were not correct. The question was from Deputy Leyden, who has a further question down today. I pointed out the correct statistics in a subsequent letter to him. Regarding Deputy Naughten's question, we are giving voucher aid to people in the Shannon Valley area as well as the Shannon Valley money. The can qualify for both schemes.
I am moving to the next question.
I did not get in on this question at all.
I heard your sweet voice earlier on.
In view of the fact that the Minister has confirmed in the case of farmers who bought in fodder that it was not included in the scheme, some farmers who have done this now find that their herds are locked up because of disease. Does the Minister not consider that these farmers are in great difficulty? Would he consider giving them vouchers or even doubling the vouchers in very difficult cases?
This is the subject of another question which we will not reach. The answer is no, I cannot do it. It is too great a risk.
What is the amount of the subsidy paid on the subsidised grain available to farmers?
We are getting it at a 25 per cent reduction from the EC.
I would ask the Minister's officials to examine this matter urgently since I understand that the 25 per cent subsidy is not being passed on to farmers.
I have advised people through notices in the press to see that they get the best possible deal so that the merchants do not get the benefit.
As I understand it, some of the merchants are getting it.
It would be helpful if this could be reported so that we could identify such people who are abusing the system.
Can the Minister tell us exactly the net cost of this scheme to the Government? How can a farmer with eight head of cattle be rejected?
I should like the Deputy to bring specific cases to my notice.
I have already brought this one.
The net cost to the Exchequer would be approximately £13,250,000.
Thirteen and a quarter million £s net cost to the Exchequer and £14 million going abegging in Europe.
