Brian Cowen
Ceist:16 Mr. Cowen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the proposals, if any, he has made or agreed to in relation to reform of headage payments. [23533/96]
Priority Questions. - Headage Payments.
A formal commitment to have compensatory headage payments independently evaluated was entered into by my Department as part of the negotiations in 1994 on Structural Funds leading up to the approval of the Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry. The Commission's attitude was that the funds allocated to this measure represented too high a percentage, 62 per cent, of the overall allocation to the structural improvement and rural development element of the operational programme.
The consultants who carried out the evaluation came up with many recommendations. Following consultation with the farm bodies on the consultants' report, I have made a number of proposals to the European Commission to provide for amendments to the headage schemes in 1997 and following years. These would involve some limits on the overall level of payment, adjustments to a small number of grant rates and a better targeting of payments to meet the overall aim of the disadvantaged areas scheme. Discussions on these proposals with the Commission are ongoing. I will announce the details as soon as Commission agreement has been obtained.
Once again, I am looking for a simple answer. I asked the Minister what proposals, if any, he has made or agreed to in relation to reform of headage payments. As a Member of this House, I am entitled to know what proposals he has sent to Brussels for changes in headage payments. This is the third time we have tabled this question. When tabled by Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív it was evaded. This is supposed to be an open and transparent Government. I and the many thousands interested in this question want to know what proposals the Minister has submitted to the Commission to have the terms changed. That is a simple question. Let us have the answer.
No agreement has been reached with the Commission.
I did not ask the Minister that.
It is not the practice while negotiations are taking place to give a minute by minute or hour by hour assessment.
The Minister has done so before in the case of the beef regime.
Let me outline the background. Because of the cost of the extension of less severely disadvantaged areas, the reclassification of areas from less to more severely disadvantaged areas, the third tier and the sheep deal in 1995, cuts of £14 million have to be made in existing headage payments. The consultants in their report — the Kearney report — recommended a series of changes. My policy is to adopt a minimalist approach to cuts and changes.
Which ones did the Minister pick?
I have rejected the recommendation that an off-farm income limit be imposed. Without going into detail, the matters under discussion and not agreed to include the payment of a contributory pension after a certain date to target moneys at active younger farmers and placing a ceiling on compensatory payments made to an individual farmer to target the scheme at low income farmers who are always close to the Deputy's heart.
If not the Minister's.
The farm organisations put forward different proposals. We are negotiating on a combination of them. On the question of breeds of cows and in-calf heifers, there is an anomaly between the national scheme and the beef cow scheme. The definition of beef cow includes a cow belonging to a meat or dairy breed. Farmers in advantaged areas can only receive payments in respect of beef breeds. The question of extending this to disadvantaged areas is the third issue under review.
I must take Question No. 17 now.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
Let me explain the position to the Deputy. There are five priority questions——
Four.
——for which we are allowed 20 minutes under Standing Orders. I may take Questions Nos. 18 and 19 in the time allowed for the category of ordinary questions. I may not take Question No. 17 in that category. If I do not take it now, it falls. I am not about to allow that to happen.
On a point of order, Question No. 28 is in my name. How can I get the answers I need in view of the fact the Minister did not take two related questions?
I am advised that priority questions and ordinary questions cannot be grouped. The answer to Questions Nos. 24, 28, 73 and 74 is the same.