Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 5 Nov 1985

Vol. 361 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Weather Crisis for Farmers: Motion.

(Limerick West): I move:

"That Dáil Éireann, recognising the magnitude of the crisis faced by many Irish farmers as a result of the poor summer weather, calls on the Government to:

(1) make available, as a matter of urgency, financial aid to those most seriously affected as identified by ACOT and those crop farmers who need to buy seed for next year:

(2) immediately re-assess means under the Smallholders Unemployment Assistance Scheme in the light of the effects of the disaster;

(3) increase headage payments to the maximum allowed;

(4) speed up the payment of headage grants;

(5) extend headage grants to newly designated areas this year, not next;

(6) provide low fixed-interest loans through the European Investment Bank; and

(7) encourage the banks and the ACC to help farmers bridge their present difficulties."

In moving this motion, I want to emphasise once again to this House, as I have done so many times in the past, the importance of agriculture to our economy. Indeed, we all realise that it is the real wealth of this country, a native industry using our natural resources, utilising mainly Irish inputs and employing nearly half of our working population, either directly or indirectly. Also, agriculture is one of our greatest export earners, with as much as one-third of all our exports coming from that industry.

We have only scratched the surface of the potential of this great industry. With proper managment and leadership from Government it is capable of producing more, processing more, exporting more and, indeed, employing more. Yet, incredibly the Government seem intent on depressing that industry. They have taken away one subsidy after another. They have scrapped development programmes and supports and have cut back on investment in research and education. In little more than two years of Government, they have withdrawn an incredible £200 million from agriculture. I say these things at this stage to highlight the magnitude of the problems facing not alone our farming community but also the whole economy.

The recent Indian summer may have dulled the memory of the extremely bad weather conditions of June, July and August last, but for many farmers the memory of that period is very real and in some cases it is a living nightmare. Crops were ruined, hay went uncut, budget plans were totally upset. As a result, our farmers lost something in the region of £211 million. These are figures estimated by the Irish Farmers' Association.

Let me refresh the memory of the House on how bad our summer was. The official weather forecasting service reports states that in many areas it was the coolest, wettest, and dullest summer in recent history. Rainfall was well above normal, with rain falling on as many as 76 of the 92 days. For an industry so dependent on good summer weather, that was nothing short of disastrous. Severe losses were also caused by lightning, hail and high humidity. There are instances of severe losses of livestock due to lightning, while the unusually heavy hail that fell on 27 July last caused damage to grain and horticultural crops in a narrow corridor extending from County Kilkenny to County Louth. The high humidity caused some serious high losses to potato crops, mainly in north Leinster and north County Dublin.

The main result of the inclement weather, however, was in the loss of hay due to the heavy rainfall, this in turn leading to shortage in winter fodder. While most of the larger and more progressive farmers have turned in recent years to silage for winter feed, there is still a large number of farmers, particularly in the west, who adhere to hay making. In the 12 western counties only about 20 per cent of the hay crop was secured and much of that was of very poor quality. The problem was most acute in County Mayo, in Leitrim and in Donegal where weather conditions were particularly bad and where there is still a great dependency on hay as feed and as forage. The lack of adequate fodder has resulted in farmers selling off stock at depressed prices, thus adding to the difficulties. The sharp increase in the number of young cattle offered for sale in livestock marts is a matter for great concern in view of the consequences to the economy in the general running down of our breeding herds.

So far, farmers affected by the weather crisis have received nothing but promises from the Government or the Minister for Agriculture, and many of those promises have not even been kept. The Minister, Deputy Deasy, promised that the Government would match, £ for £, any aid given by the EC, but the EC have offered grain, not cash. The Minister must now, even at this late stage, go back to Brussels and point out that it is money, not grain, that is needed to alleviate the problems affecting the farming community. I ask, what good is grain to a grain farmer who has lost all his crop? How will he find the money to buy seed for this coming year? Is he to be allowed to go out of business and lose his only means of livelihood? It seems that the Minister and the Government were fobbed off by Brussels with the offer of grain, or else they asked for grain on the understanding that they might not have to keep their promise and match the EC aid on a £ for £ basis.

Despite the much publicised visit of the Taoiseach and the Minister to the worst affected areas, they still have no comprehension of the seriousness of the crisis. It indicates the Taoiseach's attitude that he chose to fly over the Shannon Basin in a helicopter. We all know that the problems are on the ground not in the air. Although it is farmers who are suffering most now, the economic aspects of the disaster will soon be felt throughout the community in employment in processing factories, in co-operatives and in the retail trade. It is no laughing matter, Deputy Farrelly.

I was not laughing about that.

(Limerick West): Blanket solutions will not work because the crisis is so widespread and involves all agricultural sectors. Each farmer and every sector must be treated separately. The ACOT reports on individual farms must be taken into account in drawing up any solutions. Many things can and must be done straight away and they would have been done if Fianna Fáil were in Government.

A Deputy

Hear, hear.

(Limerick West): Things were done by Fianna Fáil in a far less serious situation in 1980. The Government alleviated the problem by bringing in many aids.

The 2 per cent levy.

(Limerick West): We have outlined in the terms of our motion what can and should be done immediately but the response of the Government has been slow, restrictive and ineffective. The food voucher scheme, the so-called grain for rain scheme, was only announced this week. No direct cash aid has been granted and no efforts have been made to halt the sale of livestock at depressed prices.

On 4 September last the agriculture committee of Fianna Fáil met to discuss the crisis and afterwards issued a statement outlining the measures that should be taken to alleviate the problems. We felt it appropriate that the Government should declare an agriculture emergency in view of the economic impact of the crisis on the whole community. It is a measure of the Government's interest and sincerity in matters relating to agriculture that we are seeking today virtually the same package of measures two and a half months later. Although the recent spell of good weather has helped somewhat, there is still a grave winter fodder shortage. There is still a huge problem for grain farmers because of the unharvested crops and low prices for higher moisture and lower quality grain. There is still a serious cash problem, particularly for the western farmers who are being forced to sell off their livestock.

It is significant that the Government failed to respond to the generous offer by the IFA for the continuation of the disease eradication levy for one more year on the condition that the proceeds be used in conjunction with the available EC funds to combat the problems caused by the recent weather crisis. That offer was backed up by the other farm organisation, the ICMSA. I will be very interested to hear the Minister's reasons for turning down this genuine offer of £7 million to the Exchequer. Is it little wonder that the president of the IFA describes this as unprecedented stupidity? For the benefit of the House I will quote from The Irish Press of Saturday, 2 November where the president of the IFA described this as unprecedented stupidity:

By diverting £7m. from the Feed Voucher Scheme allocation of £14m. to equal farmer contributions of£7m. matching EEC aid of £14m. would come, bringing a fund of £28m. for headage payments within the Disadvantaged Areas, the IFA said.

But a spokesman for the Department of Agriculture said that the farmers' offer came too late, and the Department would not allow the implementation of such a fund during the current crisis.

Mr. Rea said that by not pursuing the proposal, the Government has settled for a Brussels contribution of "a meagre £6m.". It is quite clear that we are very close to the whole matter being bungled in an extraordinary manner", said the IFA president.

We know that the money is available in Brussels, first for the increase in the headage grants which does not need Brussels approval. The money is available if the Minister will seek it and avail of this generous offer by the farmers. Indeed, there is also the availability of finance from Brussels for many of the schemes we suggested which would have been implemented had we been in Government. The Minister has the information available. ACOT identified the farms and farmers in each area who have been most badly affected by the weather. They have made reports and recommendations, many of which coincided with the measures we proposed on September 4 and are proposing here tonight.

The one ACOT recommendation acted upon was in relation to silage making, but the grant of only £4 per tonne for first time silage making bears no relation to the cost of constructing a concrete silage pad of any consequence. To avail of a grant farmers already in financial difficulty would have to involve themselves in considerable new expenditure, again as a result of the Minister withdrawing the aid of the farm modernisation scheme. These grants would have been available to put down concrete silage slabs in order to enable these farmers to make silage. We were told there were to be cash payments of up to £500 based on livestock units for farms swamped in the Shannon valley. My colleagues from that area will refer to that. Not one penny of that money has been paid. This is not the way to restore confidence. If that money is an entitlement, it should be paid now.

The cash flow problems affecting farmers cannot be left on the long finger. But apparently the Government intend to do that. In September we advocated an increase in low interest credit as a means to improve cash flow without the need to sell off stock. Even at this late stage we ask the Government to do this. We have asked them to extend headage grants to the newly designated disadvantaged areas and that payments be brought forward to this year instead of next year. These are all schemes that can be implemented with very little Exchequer funding.

Crop farmers who want to buy seed for next year must be given immediate cash aid to ease their current difficulties which will be extended beyond next year. Farmers whose crops and fodder have been destroyed need low interest loans. This can be done through the European Investment Bank, and the loans could be related to the average cost of production per acre. The banks and the ACC have a role to play to help farmers to overcome their difficulties.

However, without Government leadership such schemes will not get off the ground and the financial difficulties of farmers will grow even worse because of a piling up of interest payments at penal rates. There is a practical, humane way in which the Government can alleviate farmers' difficulties, particularly in the west. There should be a smallholders' assistance scheme. We all know that the CAP encourages such schemes because of their enormous social value in maintaining farmers' families on the land, but our own Department of Social Welfare, and that concerned socialist, Deputy Barry Desmond, have seen fit in recent years to reduce the effectiveness of that scheme by introducing a petty means test. It is because of the insecurity of farmers' livelihood as demonstrated by this summer's disaster that the farmers' dole was introduced. It should never have been tampered with and I hope Deputy Desmond will stop his bureaucratic tampering in the light of the weather conditions this year.

The Government cannot be proud of their overall reaction in this matter. Despite their much publicised helicopter trips over the Shannon Basin they seem to be totally unaware of the unfortunate farmers' problems. The recent spell of good weather was a welcome break for the Government because it helped to take people's minds away from the disastrous summer. Though the good weather recently has improved matters to some extent, most of the summer's problems are as great now as ever. Farmers are frustrated at the lack of leadership, at the restricted nature of the relief schemes and the delaying tactics being employed. They want cash aid now, not promises or application forms.

Looking ahead, there will always be the possibility that such disasters will recur, so we must look at the lessons learned this year. First of all there has been over-reliance on hay as winter feed, particularly by small farmers in the west. Advice and assistance must be given to encourage collective silage and fodder production schemes. A great deal remains to be done on drainage, particularly in the Shannon Basin. An EC fund is available for this work which must be proceeded with vigorously.

Even with the noises made by the Minister of State, Deputy Connaughton, in the past two or three years with regard to development in the western counties through the western drainage scheme, we see very little action — we hear noises but see no work on the ground. Last week the Minister for the Environment announced a welcome move on improvement grants, something which we have been advocating for many years. We should have had the same spirit of encouragement to provide winter housing for stock, particularly in the west where cattle are left out of doors during winter with consequent damage to spring grazing. I hope the Minister will improve on this scheme in future. Cheap housing is available and with a grant scheme farmers would be able to avail of it.

Those are some of the problems, and we have suggested ways to alleviate them. Farmers must have their confidence restored immediately, not later. They look to the Government for leadership, particularly to the Minister for Agriculture. I hope they are not seeking that leadership in vain, but the Government's efforts to date do not offer room for optimism. The amendment by the Government confirms my doubts that the farmers will get the leadership they require if their confidence is to be restored.

Mr. Cowen

In the short time available to me I will deal with the Government's amendment:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann expresses its support for the wide range of measures which the Government has taken to alleviate the difficulties encountered by many Irish farmers as a result of the bad weather during the summer months."

Our spokesman has set out clearly the positive steps the Minister should take. I know of the widespread measures necessary in Offaly which illustrate the major problems of Irish farmers. The Government knew of these problems as long ago as September. We have the special scheme for the Shannon Valley farmers and the grain voucher scheme. What do they mean? There has been inexcusable delay in implementing those schemes and their restrictive nature ensures that at least one-third of the farmers in my county, in the Shannon Valley area, will not be eligible. There is the fact that the scheme and its benefits are in no way related to the losses being incurred by farmers in the Shannon Valley and the other areas so badly affected. Rather there are available the petty, insulting amounts under these schemes — a maximum of £500 under the Shannon Valley scheme and £400 under the grain voucher scheme.

What has the Minister for Agriculture done since he was hauled down to the Midlands to see farming families on the verge of collapse? Under the provisions of the Shannon Valley scheme a preliminary survey by ACOT officials in County Offaly established that there were some 300 families affected. We learned this week that only 200 of them will be eligible. That is the type of response we have had from this Minister. I might point out that the ratio of hay to silage as winter fodder in County Offaly is much higher than the national average, over 60 per cent being hay. Under the Shannon Valley scheme there is the further restriction of a farmer having to have 60 livestock units. I must admit that the farm development people are being flexible in relation to that requirement, that there are people being rendered eligible who would not normally be eligible were the 60 livestock units strictly adhered to. That is about the only aspect of that scheme to be welcomed as it affects the farmers I represent.

One-third of the farming families which ACOT reckon are affected in the Shannon Valley in County Offaly — quite apart from the other counties — will not be eligible under this scheme. One must ask what sort of a scheme is being implemented to assist farmers for what was a natural disaster which was declared only after a European came down to the area in a helicopter? If it is established that only one-third of them will be eligible under its provisions what sort of scheme is that which was supposed to address itself to the real problems of people in south-west Offaly? Can any bureaucrat, Minister, or Minister of State, explain to me — if the losses incurred by those families are not to be compensated — what is the point in proposing it as a scheme which is supposed to solve their problems? The greatest insult of all is the £500 maximum. The farm development scheme people are implementing the provisions of the scheme in two stages. First, they must sift through all applications to establish eligibility or otherwise. Approximately 20 per cent of those applications have yet to be sifted through in County Offaly. Then, having ascertained who is eligible, they must investigate each application in order to establish how much each will receive.

What every farmer in County Offaly wants to know is where did the Government get the figure of £500? How can they contend that £500 is sufficient? If they have not got the relevant data in relation to the various farming families eligible under the provisions of the scheme, where did they get the figure of £500? The only assumption one can and is entitled to make is that this Government have just plucked a figure from the air, this representing the amount of money they will give Shannon Valley farmers; that is what they deem to be adequate before receiving data of the individual farming families affected. If that is the price this Government place on the survival of farming families in south and west Offaly I would ask the Minister to return to see those fields when the water has receded, see the black ground remaining and demonstrate how £500 will do anything for such farmers. It should be remembered that the provisions of the scheme are restricted to full time farmers, farmers whose source of income is derived mainly from farming. What about the many part time farmers, those who are endeavouring to supplement their incomes, rear their families by way of seasonal work in Bord na Móna? Will they receive no help under the charade of this scheme? It represents a pathetic response, a national disgrace by way of response to a natural disaster. This scheme is totally unacceptable to the people I represent.

This grain voucher scheme represents the greatest facade, the greatest charade ever implemented. Why do I contend that? Once again the 60 livestock units represents a requirement for eligibility. In addition a farmer must establish less than 75 per cent adequacy of winter fodder supply. Where did the Government get that figure? The ACOT survey in County Offaly established that 1,000 farming families have a major problem with regard to winter fodder, the vast majority of whom will not be eligible under the provisions of the scheme because many will have fewer than the required 60 livestock units. Such is the information I am receiving from the farm development people. I cannot give a precise percentage because the scheme was announced only last Friday. Yet the Minister was down in Offaly in August and September. There was an advertisement in the Sunday newspapers, the application forms to be had from the relevant offices on Monday last. In the first half day there were 50 applications received in the Birr office. Yet the final date for receipt of applications is 20 November. We shall have to go through the whole bureaucratic charade again, sifting through the applications to ascertain how many farmers will be eligible. What will be the maximum benefit they will receive? Four hundred pounds after the worst summer in living memory. It is simply not good enough for any Minister for Agriculture to come into this House and present these two schemes as representing in any way an adequate response to the major problems being faced by farming families. Anybody who tries to defend the Minister is either being totally unreal or endeavouring to defend his own political philosophy. I can tell the Minister that I have a constituent from the Galway side of the Shannon, the far side of Banagher, who has been told that he will receive £200 under the provisions of the scheme. The Minister need not worry about him, he will be sending back the £200 because it represents an insult to him, he would not be bothered taking it——

If he needed it he would take it.

Mr. Cowen

——compared with his problems. Again we have the Coalition heckler. I can tell the Deputy opposite that there may be a good few farmers in County Meath with 60 livestock units but the people whom I represent have not 60 livestock units. They are entitled to remain in farming as much as are the people in the plush plains of County Meath. The Deputy should remember that he has a good few supporters in south and west Offaly who will give him their answer when they next go to the polls. That is my response to that intervention.

In the long term there must be a survey carried out of the Shannon area. Let this Government say they will put up the £400,000 required to match the £400,000 from the EC. If we are not to have a survey of the Shannon then let us swap, acre for acre, the land of the people who are endeavouring to make a full time living there from farming. If one expects Shannon Valley farmers to derive a full time income from farming then either one must do something with the Shannon or one must swap acre for acre for other lands available in the area, and there are other lands available. There are fulltime farmers coming to me and that is what they are saying. "If you are not going to drain it, let it flood for six months but give us somewhere we can make a living". They have a point.

It has been brought to my attention that some townlands have been excluded from the provisions of the Shannon Valley scheme despite the fact that their distinct electoral division has been included. The Minister might explain to me why it is, for example, that townlands like Ballymacoolaghan and Lusmagh, 100 yards from the Shannon, and which he was not far from when he visited that area, have not been included. I can show him five needy farmers there who would even take the paltry sum of £500 as a token of recognition of their difficulties.

I say to the Minister of State, Deputy Connaughton, who was quoted in our local newspaper as saying that it was not the purpose of the scheme fully to compensate farmers affected that that is simply a clear statement of Government policy. If this Government are not prepared fully to compensate farmers who have suffered such exceptional losses as a result of this natural disaster, then I would ask them is it in their interests to leave those people aside? Is it not in the national interest that those people be retained in farming? Is it not also in the national interest to ensure that the sort of requirements they need are met by a responsible Minister for Agriculture? Is it the case that the Minister for Agriculture has put the case to the Government but that there are unsympathetic Government members who will not implement the scheme? Let the Minister tell the truth. He should not pretend that these schemes are adequate. They do not meet farmers' requirements and if a Minister or Government spokesman claim that they do they are telling an untruth.

It is a dereliction of duty on the Minister's part if, having brought European bureaucrats to the west, he responds in this way to a natural disaster. The Minister will receive very little thanks for the paltry sums to be put into the economy in my county.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann expresses its support for the wide range of measures which the Government has taken to alleviate the difficulties encountered by many Irish farmers as a result of the bad weather during the summer months."

I am glad to see those Opposition Members back in town. I was wondering where thay had been for the last six months as I had not heard a squeak from them. There is no doubt that the appalling summer weather this year caused serious problems. It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that every farmer was seriously affected by the weather or that any difficulties in recent months arose solely from this summer. As regards the effects of the weather, the categories of farmers that were badly hit were those dependent on hay for winter feed and some tillage farmers, mainly cereal growers. While there are significant numbers of farmers in these categories, there is also a substantial number in other categories who have not been seriously affected. These would, for example, include many dairy farmers dependent on silage for winter feed, who have seen far more grass on their farms this year than last year — more indeed than in most years. Also other grassland farmers producing drystock and dependent on silage for winter feed have been able to avoid the effects of the bad weather through good management of the exceptionally good growth of grass.

I think it is also well to make the point that this year has been vastly different from 1974 when cattle prices collapsed. There have been some tremors in the beef market but generally prices have remained comparatively stable throughout recent months and there is no evidence at all to suggest that there has been panic selling of stock — in spite of the various forecasts that people would be panicked into selling.

(Limerick West): Where was the Minister for the last six months?

Some of the farm income problems this year have come from sources other than the weather. The most obvious is the effect of the super-levy, as 1985-86 is the first year of the full impact of the EC constraints on milk production. In the beef sector problems in relation to intervention and to some external markets have adversely affected prices paid to farmers. The effects of a very reduced period of intervention for full carcases this autumn, the impact of the decline in the value of the dollar on contracts denominated in dollars, and the level of export refunds set by the EC Commission for trade with third countries, have all affected prices paid this year for beef cattle. In the case of sheep our presentation on export markets still leaves us commanding poorer prices than are possible, which in turn is reflected in the returns to producers. These difficulties have been compounded by the prudent price policy that has been followed in Brussels, which has led to a low rate of farm price increases both this year, and indeed in recent years generally.

When by late July there was no let up in the continuous period of bad weather, it was clear that many farmers, particularly those who were dependent on hay, were going to be faced with a very serious fodder problem in the coming winter months. I, therefore, arranged for the launching on 8 August of a winter fodder scheme. One element of this scheme was a nitrogen fertiliser subsidy at the rate of £35 per tonne of high nitrogen fertiliser and this was made available to farmers who purchased the fertiliser between 6 August and 31 August. The only restriction in the scheme was to limit it to farmers with not more than 30 cows or 50 cattle. The closing date for receipt of completed applications was later extended to 18 September to enable a number of farmers who had been deterred by the continuing bad weather to avail of it. Despite gloomy prognostications some 24,000 applications for the subsidy were received and it is estimated that close on £1 million will be paid out in total. Payments will commence this week.

The second national measure was a silage subsidy at the rate of £4 per tonne subject to a maximum of 50 tonnes per farm in respect of silage made before 19 October, later extended to the end of October, on farms where silage had not previously been made. This date has been further extended to 8 November. The response to this scheme has exceeded all expectations with over 24,000 farmers applying for the subsidy so far. The cost of this scheme, originally projected at £1½ million, will now be more than double that figure. The drier weather from mid-September and during October coupled with good growing conditions enabled substantial quantities of silage to be made, and this will have a beneficial effect on the overall fodder position this winter. Many people who had difficulties in relation to fodder should have learned their lesson in 1980 and 1981. Far too many people depend on hay as a source of fodder.

The Minister did away with the farm modernisation scheme and there are no incentives now.

The number of applicants for this scheme introduced in August illustrates that there is a tremendous capacity for a huge number of additional farmers to make silage. It is gratifying to note that the bulk of the applications — over 70 per cent — for the silage subsidy came from the west and the north-west where the weather conditions and fodder shortage were most acute. I hope this shows that farmers in those areas are now convinced of the advantages of silage as compared with hay which is so much at the mercy of weather conditions. While this scheme was written off in some quarters as being of little consequence I now have no doubt at all but that it has contributed very substantially towards reducing the level of the winter fodder deficit.

As a result of the continuous rain during August and earlier, extensive flooding occured in the valley of the river Shannon. This was highlighted in dramatic pictures on our television screens. The floods resulted in many farmers in the area losing all or a substantial part of their winter fodder supplies. In the view of the urgency of the situation and the severe losses incurred, the Government, at my request, agreed to provide a measure of assistance for the flooded area and, accordingly, on 6 September arrangements were announced for the payment to farmers in the Shannon Valley affected by the floods of the sum of £20 per livestock unit up to a maximum of 25 livestock units per farmer, that is, a maximum payment of £500. Payments are confined to people mainly dependent on farming and with not more than 60 livestock units. Deputy Cowen got his facts wrong.

It was a slip of the tongue.

It happened six times.

He kept repeating his mistake which showed he had no knowledge of the proposal.

(Limerick West): Will the Minister tell us when payment is likely to be made?

The Deputy will be glad to know that payments will commence next week.

Does the Deputy want to take the cheques home with him next weekend?

Special arrangements were made for those who suffered crop losses from flooding so that they can obtain payment, subject to the overall maximum of £500. This scheme has attracted about 2,500 applications. A sum of £1 million has been provided for it but it is still too early to quantify the cost.

Some considerable damage to crops was caused by a severe hailstorm on 25 and 26 July, not 27 July as Deputy Noonan stated.

(Limerick West): It was the morning of 27 July.

No, it was the night of 25 July and the morning of 26 July.

The Minister should not quibble about the dates. Let him just give us the facts.

If the Deputy cannot get the dates right, what hope has he of understanding the other complicated figures with which we have to deal?

(Limerick West): The Minister should not talk about getting figures right.

He has not got a good record in that respect.

(Limerick West): The Minister could not get the figures right in respect of milk.

We got what we looked for and that is the important point.

It is a good job the farmers were not depending on the Deputies opposite to negotiate for them.

If Deputies opposite want to know about statistics let them ask some one on this side of the House, especially those of us in the Department of Agriculture. The severe hailstorm to which I referred affected a narrow corridor some five kilometeres wide from the southern part of Kilkenny north-east to the Ardee area of County Louth. When it became clear that severe damage had been caused, my Department informed the EC Commission of our intention to lodge an application for an allocation from the Community's disaster relief fund as soon as details of the damage and loss caused could be ascertained. Following a survey by ACOT, the Commission have since been given details of the losses and requested to regard them as meriting aid from the fund. I must caution the House, however, that the fund amounts to only about £2 million in all to cover disaster situations in the entire Community. It is not intended that the fund would provide for full compensation in the case of a disaster but rather a token of solidarity among member states.

Throughout August and September, I kept in continuous touch with the situation and I visited many parts of the country, particularly in the west, to see for myself the effects of the weather at farm level. For instance, I visited Galway late in July when the weather was not too bad. In fact I was at the races for one day when the going was officially declared to be good. However, the weather deteriorated and when I visited the Claremorris Agricultural Show on 11 August the rains had really set in. On 14 August I visited the agricultural show at Ballina and at that stage the monsoons had set in. On Thursday, 15 August I visited the agricultural show at Clifden, Ballinrobe and at Tullow, County Carlow. That was quite a lot of travelling and I did not have a helicopter.

It was just as well the Minister had a State car. Of course, the taxpayers were paying for all this.

On 21 August I visited the agricultural show at Limerick and I met the people from the IFA in County Limerick on the same day. I also met members of the National Executive of the ICMSA on the same day. At that stage the weather was at its worst. On Monday, 26 August, I visited the flooded Shannon Valley by helicopter. On Tuesday, 27 August, I made a special trip to Brussels to see the Agricultural Commissioner, Mr. Andriesson, to apprise him of the situation. I said we would match any aid we got from the EC, pound for pound and we did that. The contribution from the EC was not huge as some people expected but it was considerably more than the aid given to other countries who were also in difficulties. For instance, the mainland of Britain did not get any extra support from the EC.

Let Britain look after itself.

France, Italy and Greece, all of which countries were badly affected by drought, did not get extra help. However, we got a cash incentive and I am glad that our efforts also assisted Northern Ireland getting extra consideration. I saw the problem at first hand on ten or 12 occasions.

We see it every day at farm level.

I do not have any complaints from County Wexford. The number of cases that came to light in the course of the ACOT survey was exceptionally small. I was in touch with the farming organisations and listened carefully to what they had to say about the situation. In mid-August I had a special meeting with Commissioner Andriesson when I outlined to him the grave fodder situation facing our farmers and I sought EC aid to help to alleviate it. Subsequently, Mr. Legras, Director General for Agriculture, and a colleague visited this country and they saw for themselves at first hand how bad the situation was for so many of our farmers. Arising out of this visit and a further meeting which I had with Commissioner Andriesson, the Commission agreed to provide us with 125,000 tonnes of intervention grain at 25 per cent below the intervention price. In money terms this concession is worth about £4,250,000 and is welcomed as a positive contribution towards meeting the difficulties confronting us.

Throughout the crisis period a number of suggestions were made to me as to how I could help and many of these are included in the Opposition motion before us. One of them was the earlier payment of headage grants. In response I have made special arrangements this year to bring forward payments of headage and premium grants under the various 1985 sheep and cattle schemes. Under these arrangements the following payments will be made between now and the end of 1985: (1) some 20,000 flockowners in the 1985 sheep headage scheme in the disadvantaged areas are now being paid £10 million at the rate of £9.50 per ewe on the first 150 and £6.50 on the next 50 ewes in a flock.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn