Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 18 Jul 1963

Vol. 204 No. 9

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Bovine TB: Clear Herd Bonus.

21.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will pay the clear herd bonus of £8 per cow in respect of all reactors sold in accordance with the prescribed regulations, without regard to the number of cows in the herd at the time of the qualifying test.

Herd owners who opted for the £8 bonus, and were participants in the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme before 1st August, 1960, are eligible for bonus in respect of all cow reactors which were removed from the herd under the headage grant arrangement. The eligibility for bonus of those who did not participate in the scheme before that date is limited to the number of cows in the herd at the time of the qualifying test.

Is it true that limitation has been waived in some cases? Furthermore, is it true that where the Minister was threatened with legal proceedings the bonus was paid?

The bonus was, and is, paid in respect of those herd owners who were participants in the scheme before 1st August, 1960, when new regulations were made for those who had not at that time entered the scheme. I have explained the two categories and the way in which each is being treated.

Is it true to state that participants prior to 1st August, 1960, were refused payment of the £8 per cow clear herd bonus on a number of reactors sold as the number of cows they had at the qualifying date was less than the number of reactors sold?

I will read the reply again:

Herd owners who opted for the £8 bonus, and were participants in the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme before 1st August, 1960, are eligible for bonus in respect of all cow reactors which were removed from the herd under the herdage grant arrangement. The eligibility for bonus of those who did not participate in the scheme before that date is limited to the number of cows in the herd at the time of the qualifying test.

Will the Minister agree that in a specific case a man who participated in the scheme prior to 1st August, 1960, disposed of 18 reactors in accordance with the regulation but was paid the £8 bonus on only eight of those reactors because, at the time of the qualifying test, his herd was limited to eight cows? Consequently he lost £64 on the ten others. This man participated before 1st August, 1960.

We have had a court ruling in this case and we have abided by that court ruling. As I have stated, we have paid.

Will the Minister agree it is not a good principle for the Department to adopt that, if a man is to enforce payment, he must get a solicitor to send a letter threatening the Minister with proceedings? Surely the rule should be made general.

It was not a question of threatening us with proceedings. Proceedings actually took place and we secured a court ruling — a district court and a circuit court ruling—on the matter and we abided by that and paid in accordance with the ruling.

I am very doubtful. Possibly if the Minister is in a good mood tomorrow, or the day after, I should like to discuss it with him.

I am always in a good mood.

22.

asked the Minister for Agriculture whether he is aware that a number of farmers who complied with the regulations were refused payment of the clear herd bonus, owing to unavoidable delays on the part of veterinary officers in carrying out the qualifying tests; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

The Clear Herd Bonus was originally payable only where all reactors had been removed from the herd before 30th September, 1962, and the owner had a clear herd test by that date. As a concession, the date for the clear herd test was extended to 30th November, 1962, provided all reactors were removed by 30th September. Subsequently, a further extension of the date for the clear herd test was granted to 31st December, 1962, in cases where this was found to be justified by the circumstances.

It is difficult to understand why all clear herd tests could not have been finished by 31st December last, but, if there are some genuine cases which went beyond that date through no fault of the farmer, I am prepared to consider them sympathetically provided, of course, that all reactors were removed by 30th September, 1962.

Now, could the Deputy have any hesitation in coming to talk to me after the reasonableness of that reply?

Will the Minister agree there was great pressure on veterinary surgeons in some areas owing to the magnitude of the task involved and they were unable to carry out the tests prior to 31st December? What seems to me very peculiar is that in the case of two farmers in the same townland in the Bantry district, who complied with the regulations, sold their reactors before 30th September and had their tests on 7th January, one got back a letter stating that, owing to the fact the test was delayed and not held until 7th January, he would not qualify for the clear herd bonus while the other man got his cheque. The two tests were carried out on the same day in the same townland; one got his cheque and the other got the Minister's regrets. Surely the Minister will revise that decision. I want to say that I am pleased the Minister is going to view all these applications sympathetically.

Barr
Roinn