Vol. 494 No. 4
77 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will give details of the recently announced fodder and sheep headage schemes; the way in which the distribution of the fund will be administered; and if applications will be accepted from individual farmers, irrespective of the sector of agriculture they are in, who can prove that they have a serious fodder shortage on their farm. [18697/98]
Last week, it was announced that the Government had agreed to make £10 million available to deal with winter fodder difficulties. In addition, the Minister announced he had sought European Commission approval to continue the sheep headage top-up, equivalent to £2.75 million.
The sheep headage top-up will be paid on the basis of the normal sheep headage applications already on hand in the Department. Details of the allocation of the £10 million fund are being finalised at present. It is intended that the measure will be geared towards certain farms in the areas identified as worse affected by the weather and mountain sheep farmers. Particular attention will be paid to ensuring that the administrative arrangement will facilitate early payment to individual farmers.
Now that farmers, the farming organisations and everybody else have had an opportunity to look at the package, we can only say the fodder scheme is a bit like a lucky bag — one never knows what will come out of it, but one can be sure it will be valueless. What is needed is a doubling of the sheep premium. That would cost £14 or £15 million, but hill sheep farmers will get very little of the £2.7 million. This is the first time ever that a Minister has been unable to say in respect of a package being put together how many or which farmers will benefit. Obviously there was huge Government panic to have something ready for the ploughing championship.
Am I to take it that this help, limited though it is, will be confined to farmers in the designated wetland areas, or will farmers everywhere who have suffered because of the weather on wet land, wherever they are, be able to apply? They have the same problem — wet land is wet land wherever it is. Where do the Government and the Department stand on this?
I do not consider that £10 million is small money on top of the other measures being taken. It was the unusual weather in June and July this year, particularly the lack of sunshine, that caused many of our problems. Although August was an improvement, recent bad weather has again escalated the problem. The Deputy will be aware of the Teagasc report on the areas in question and the Minister recognises the need for this. I would remind the Deputy of the additional measures being taken to help farmers in the current crisis. They include speeding up direct payments to farmers; increasing suckler cow and beef premium payments from 60 per cent to 80 per cent which will release an additional £45 million in November and December; more rapid payment under the rural environment protection scheme; the payment of outstanding top-ups of £6 million to certain beef producers in early October; the Teagasc advisory service to advise farmers how they can best feed their animals, which is totally free to farmers; the promotion of live exports; and the reopening of the Libyan trade. The reason for the Minister's absence today is that he is in Tehran trying to open the Iranian trade. There is also the substantial 5p per pound increase which it was stated would not be passed on to farmers. Additional measures have been taken to improve the position of farmers. The Deputy will accept that it is unusual that we should have to take these steps because of the weather. However, it is being done and it is being geared towards the most needy farmers, particularly those mentioned in the Teagasc report which includes those in wetland areas.
Regarding the Minister's talk about bringing forward premia that already exist, if cattle were selling at £100 a head more that premium would still be paid, so it is not extra. As to how worthless this £10 million is, the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, put it in context when he said that the family income supplement, costing £50 million, would include farmers. This shows that to solve the problem would cost more than £50 million, but all the Minister has come up with is £10 million. The Cabinet should look again at this issue because there is a revolt around the country about what is being done.
