asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will indicate the necessary qualifications that would enable a herdowner to avail himself of the hardship fund in the case of the the disease eradication programme; the number of applications received to date; the number of animals concerned; and when the fund will be implemented.

The conditions of qualification for payments under the hardship fund were advertised in detail by my Department in the national daily newspapers on 16th March, 1977. The fund is being administered through the Department's district veterinary offices and special applications by herdowners for assistance from the fund are not necessary. The number of animals involved can only be determined progressively as the examination of herd records proceeds. The first payments from the fund will be made very shortly.

Would the Minister tell the House the exact percentage because there is a misunderstanding, I believe, between the Department and the Health Advisory Council about this fund? Would the Minister say that in the case of 50 per cent going down, and a man had 40 cows, the first two have to be disregarded; but if he has 23 down does he get paid on 21 cows, disregarding two, since this is over 50 per cent of his herd? I should like the Minister to clarify that.

I cannot add anything to what appears in the advertisement indicating the conditions under which the hardship fund should be administered. It clearly states that, acting on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on Animal Health and Disease Eradication, the Minister for Agriculture has decided that payments from the fund will be made where the number of qualifying reactors removed from the herd exceeds (a) 5 per cent of the herd in the case of TB reactors; (b) 20 per cent of the herd in the case of brucellosis reactors and (c) 20 per cent of the herd where there are both TB and brucellosis reactors.

That is how I understand it, but there is a misinterpretation by departmental officials. Some of them who attended a meeting said that it would be only the cattle that were over the 50 per cent that would be paid for. I am just taking the 50 per cent and leaving out the five and 20. I want the Minister to assure the House that is not so.

My reading of this is the same as the Deputy's.

Departmental officials have interpreted it differently.

I am quite surprised at the interpretation the Deputy mentions.

The Minister first introduced this scheme and made the money available for this hardship fund in December, 1976. It is a long time, especially for applicants who had their herds completely cleared due to incidence of disease, to have to wait to replace their cattle. Is the delay of four months not overlong when he told us that the scheme would shortly be operating?

They have got the normal payments up to the present. The only thing they are waiting for is additional money from the hardship fund, if they are hardship cases. We have to go back to the records since we introduced the new system of payments. We have been paying since some date in August. I cannot give the Deputy the exact date. We have to go back through the herdowners' records to see whether during that period any of them qualified for the hardship fund. It takes time.

Arising out of the Minister's reply——

This must be a final supplementary. I want to deal with other questions also.

Would the Minister agree that the payments made were mostly in respect of in-calf animals? The normal payments are completely inadequate for anyone to replace stock.

This is leading to argument.

I will be replying to that type of question later on.