Vol. 435 No. 1
6 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the procedures that have to be carried out by District Veterinary Offices prior to sending applications for beef slaughter premia to his Department's headquarters for payment; the proportion of the applications forwarded to date that have been paid; the proportion of all applications to date in 1993 that have been paid; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
It is not the practice to reveal internal office procedures that have to be carried out by district livestock offices prior to sending applications for the deseasonalisation slaughter premium scheme or other schemes for payment as such disclosures would have serious implications for control of the schemes.
To date 46 per cent of all applications received under the scheme have been paid representing close to 60 per cent of those forwarded to headquarters. A further 1,250 cases are expected to be paid later this week.
Up to 25 per cent of applications under the scheme are rejected when submitted to computer validation check, largely due to invalid tag numbers. I would, therefore, exhort farmers to take great care in completing applications under this and other premium and headage schemes as this facilitates processing and ensures that EC requirements are met.
I have to ask the Minister how his response to this question squares with the Tánaiste's commitment to open Government yesterday. I know the Minister does not believe the Tánaiste any more than I do——
The Minister is responsible for his own affairs primarily.
The Minister has told us that it is not the practice to reveal internal procedures but that is not the reason. The reason is that it might prove embarrassing for both him and his Department. Can the Minister tell me why in one county last week 100 per cent of all applications received had been forwarded to his Department for payment while in another county not that far away only 10 per cent of the applications received had been forwarded for payment? Can the Minister explain the difference? What is the reason farmers in some counties are experiencing delays of this kind before the matter can be considered?
So much for transparency.
This scheme was negotiated exclusively for Ireland and agreed to by the European Commission. It has proved to be a great success.
For every county?
It is my intention to ensure that all compensatory payments to which farmers are entitled are made as expeditiously as possible. Many new schemes were put into operation this year. I should say that departmental officials in Agriculture House and in offices throughout the country are working themselves to the bone to ensure that the best possible service is provided to farmers. There is an error rate of 25 per cent in respect of all applications forwarded to the Department and this is not in the farmers' interests. For instance, incorrect tag numbers have been given as farmers looked at the blue cards instead of quoting the number on the animal's ear. In addition, female animals have been included in applications made under a male animals' scheme. Farmers should be more careful. The position is that 16,332 applications have been received and of these 13,077 have been forwarded for payment. I expect that every eligible applicant will be paid within the next few weeks.
Would the Minister agree that it is vain to plead in his own defence that a number of new schemes have been put into operation since he went along with the nonsensical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy? Will the Minister answer the question I put to him? Why is it that in some counties there appears to be no difficulty in forwarding expeditiously applications for payment to his Department while in other counties there are long delays? Last week in one county only 10 per cent of applications received had been forwarded to his Department. Can the Minister explain the difference and indicate the reason the huge number of farmers disadvantaged in this way?
There is an element of repetition which is a luxury we cannot afford at this time.
I would like to see repetition in the answers.
It is a luxury we cannot afford, especially on priority questions.
We cannot afford nepotism.
I disagree with the Deputy when he says that the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy was nonsensical. We have a large number of schemes. Some departmental officials have more schemes to deal with than others because of the type of forming engaged in.
It is the Minister's job to look after farmers.
It is my job and I take responsibility for that. It is my intention to ensure that all eligible applicants receive their payments as soon as possible. Farmers are entitled to these compensatory payments. I want to see they get them on time and that farmers, who are the beneficiaries of large amounts of money, co-operate by being a little more helpful in filling up application forms accurately.
Why one county rather than another?
The Deputy knows the rules in regard to Question Time. Only the Member who tables questions may ask supplementary questions.
If the Minister would answer, I would not have to ask questions.
I will hear a reply to Question No. 7 in the name of Deputy Tom Foxe, if it is responded to immediately.
