Jim Higgins
Question:8 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the number of applications received to date under the fodder scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23113/98]
Other Questions. - Fodder Scheme.
Jim Higgins
Question:19 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the number of applications received to date under the fodder scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23115/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 19 together.
The fodder scheme will provide financial assistance for all sheep farmers with mountain grazings, suckler cow producers and small dairy farmers with milk quotas of less than 35,000 gallons in the worst affected areas in counties Cavan, Clare, Cork, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Mayo, Roscommon and Sligo.
Sheep and suckler cow farmers will be paid automatically by reference to their 1998 sheep headage and suckler cow application forms. Details of the arrangements for payments to dairy farmers will be announced shortly. Information on the take up of the scheme will be available in due course.
(Mayo): Will the Minister explain the criteria used to determine eligible areas? Were they based on weather, fodder, farm size or global assumptions on the part of Teagasc? Does he realise that the areas excluded, certainly in south Mayo such as Taugheen, Ballindine, Garrymore, Irishtown and so on, are the classic small farm areas? They are vulnerable, desperate and almost suicidal. Does he realise farmers in these areas have been returning from marts week in week out unable to sell their sheep and cattle? They have no fodder and do not have money to buy any. Unless they get this emergency aid now, they will have to dispose of their livestock for nothing — literally give them away or shoot them. The situation is that bad.
Will the Minister reopen the file, examine the criteria used and indicate to Teagasc that he wants the scheme opened on an individual basis to enable those people to apply? Some £300 might be an insignificant amount of money in global terms but to these farmers it is literally life and death.
The fodder difficulties created by the inclement weather during the year were based on a survey conducted by Teagasc. Since the survey was conducted I was asked to introduce a scheme based on it. It was put to me that Teagasc was an independent agency and would have the best people to carry out the survey because it had officials dealing directly with farmers. It produced its study and the scheme was introduced based on it. The areas submitted to the Department are those now applicable under this scheme. There was no question that Teagasc included areas which the Department disregarded.
No matter when or who draws lines, those within the areas which benefit will be satisfied or not terribly satisfied and those outside will be dissatisfied. That happened with the disadvantaged areas scheme and the severely handicapped areas scheme and I am sure it will happen with any further scheme in relation to regionalisation. It is an exceptionally difficult thing to do and all one can do at the end of the day is throw one's hands in the air and say we will have to include the entire country.
In this case we have a limited amount of money only to go towards the scheme. That is the difficulty so we want to try to target it at those most in need. We experienced bad weather and have had schemes in the past, including fodder voucher schemes and so on but at the end of the day the farmer ended up with little enough. At least in this case those who qualify will get the payment directly. Although it is not a large amount, it will help them.
There are agencies and organisations which could help out rather than always looking to the taxpayer to foot the cost of paying compensation. Co-operatives, for example, could organise some fodder.
What about private meat factories?
When travelling throughout the country over recent months I saw a substantial amount of fodder burned in fields. I do not understand why some farming organisations and co-operatives cannot be a little more helpful in organising the transport of some of this fodder to those in the worst affected areas.
Does the Minister accept that in areas such as the Braggan Mountains, Mullyash Mountain, my parish of Aghabog and the lakes around Castleblayney, the round bales are sitting in the fields? Does he accept that the only way to resolve this problem is on an individual basis rather than, as he said, drawing lines on maps?
Will the Minister explain why he accepted £10 million from the Government as being sufficient to deal with this problem? His colleague in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, as a result of "blue flu" and so on, was able to get £91.5 million of taxpayers money. Will he explain why he was prepared to accept £10 million as sufficient to solve this problem at the most difficult time in the history of farming, as stated by his backbenchers and county councillors around the country? That is the crux of this issue.
When Teagasc prepared this report, were officials from the Department of Agriculture and Food present? The Minister said he saw fodder burned into the ground in some parts of the country. Is he sure he did not see those fields when he was looking over the wall at race meetings? The weather does not discriminate — if it rains in Mayo all the land gets wet. When it rains in Cork does it rain on the Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or Labour fellows? This is an outrageous scheme. Will the Minister consider on an individual basis hardship cases not included in this scheme in south Mayo, Cavan and other areas?
Has the Department received an application under the fodder scheme from the most bleak and windswept part of the midlands, the area of County Laois incorporating Swan and Spink, where farmers are suffering particular difficulties because of the bad weather? We cannot understand why we have been discriminated against in County Laois. Teagasc recently made an application to the Department under this scheme which met all the criteria. I ask the Minister to look as favourably as he can on that application in the circumstances.
Will the Minister agree that £300 is totally inadequate to deal with this serious situation? A survey by the IFA in west Limerick revealed that 31 per cent of the silage fields had to be grazed, that only 58 per cent of the fodder required was harvested and only 11 per cent of farmers had less than 30 per cent of their fodder. What good is £300 to those farmers?
Is the Minister aware that the district electoral regions of Kilcoe, Durrus West, Scart, Kealanine, Meelagh, Gortnascreeny, Dunbeacon, Caheragh, Schull, Douce, Ahihill and Glengarriff are left out of that scheme?
The Deputy is reading out the stations.
Was there a giant umbrella over that area which kept the heavy rainfalls off it? When did the Teagasc officials carry out an inspection of the fodder crisis in that area? I would have thought the Minister would have an up to date opinion on it because he often resides in Glengarriff. He knows they were swamped out in the Borlin Valley, Ahihill, Douce and up to the pass at Kemaneigh. They have nothing to feed their sheep. I met sheep farmers coming home from Kenmare fair last Monday and they——
The Deputy is making statements.
——were fit to commit hara kiri because of the price of £3 for a lamb. Does the Minister have his feet in reality? Does he know what is happening in the heart of his constituency in west Cork?
Very good oats are being sold cheaply.
I am amazed that no area in north-west Meath, which is severely disadvantaged, qualifies while all the areas 300 yards over the border qualify. What is the explanation for that?
Will the Minister confirm or deny that on the morning of the ploughing championship £16 million was made available for the fodder scheme, but by the time the decision was given to the Minister to announce, it was reduced to £10 million? Will he confirm that he looked for £16 million as an absolute minimum but could not get it through the Cabinet?
The scheme is based on a survey conducted by Teagasc, which has advisers and instructors on the ground. Teagasc sent that survey with details of the DADs to the Department. In some cases it has sent in recent DADs — I do not know why that could not have been done in the first instance.
It is because it does not have the staff.
It has an adequate amount of staff to do this job.
Nobody saw them.
Officers of the Department of Agriculture and Food were not involved in the survey — it was an independent Teagasc survey.
The amount of money does not meet the full cost of the difficulties created by the weather. However, it is a contribution towards them. Farming organisations and co-ops also have a duty to be helpful in this regard. There is direct Exchequer aid of £10 million, and a further £2.7 million to be paid by the Exchequer which had to be approved as a top-up to the ewe premium.
That was there last year — it is nothing extra.
It certainly was but it had to be found again this year. As the Deputy knows, money that was available for many schemes last year may not be available this year. Last year was a different accounting year.
It is double accounting.
A sum of £6 million is provided under the culled ewe scheme. The total provided is £19 million. There has also been an increase from 60 per cent to 80 per cent of payments brought forward under the various headage and premia schemes, in an effort to be helpful with cash flow. Given the caring attitude of the Government, we will be able to be even more helpful between now and budget day.
The Minister should ask the Minister, Deputy Cowen, for a loan.
What about that giant umbrella?
I heard the Minister had an exciting meeting yesterday.
(Interruptions.)
We must move on to Question No. 9