asked the Minister for Agriculture the number of cow reactors which qualified for hardship fund grants under the scheme announced by him in October 1978.

The total number of reactors under the bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication schemes for which payments were made from the hardship fund between October 1978 and 20 April 1979 was 10,699. Separate statistics are not kept showing the numbers of cows and of other cattle which qualify for payment from the scheme.

What is the total number of cow reactors qualified?

I have just said that separate statistics are not available. I have given the Deputy the total of cows and others.

My question relates to cow reactors. It is almost impossible for a cow reactor to qualify for the hardship fund grant having regard to the restrictive measures imposed in the scheme. The question was specifically one dealing with cow reactors and it has not been answered.

I have repeated that separate statistics are not kept. The Deputy may be confusing the ordinary compensation paid, which in the case of cows is considerably greater than that paid for other cattle. I made changes there more than a year ago almost doubling these payments made for cows. That situation is compensation for cow reactors excluded. As for the hardship scheme, that is administered under recommendations made by the Animal Health Commission who represent all interested parties in the livestock trade. It is their recommendation that the Department of Agriculture are acting upon.

The Minister's answer does not deal with my question, which relates to a specific category of cattle, that is cow reactors. I am aware of the ordinary compensation rates paid. My question relates to the hardship fund and to the number of cows who qualify for grants under that fund. It is impossible for farmers to get any benefits from the hardship fund in respect of cow reactors, and the way the Minister has answered my question——

Order, please.

The real point of the hardship fund escapes the Deputy and it is that the relative compensation is paid under another heading, that is, the cow reactor headage payments. In the case of hardship the type of animal being considered is not relevant. What is relevant is the degree of hardship imposed on a farmer. In this case we are talking about farmers not about livestock.

Is the weight of the animal taken into consideration?

That is taken into consideration in the payment of compensation since I changed the rules.

What is the maximum weight that will qualify under the hardship fund?

All young cattle have a special high rate of compensation. I changed the rules myself. Prior to that there had been an arrangement under which a person with a number of reactors in his herd was subjected to undue expense because of the almost worthless carcass of a young beast.

Question No. 24.

24.

asked the Minister for Agriculture in view of the restrictive nature of the present hardship fund scheme for reactor cattle, if the scheme will be open to all cattle irrespective of weight.

The answer is no. The categories of reactors which qualify for aid from the fund are those recommended to me by the Advisory Council on Animal Health and Disease Eradication, which is representative of all the interests concerned.

Would the Minister indicate the ceiling on weights of cattle that will qualify?

In this case it is a question of the determination of the intensity of the breakdown in the herd. Again, it is a question of the whole herd, more or less irrespective of what the herd consists of. If there is a particular degree of infection in that herd the question of the payment of a grant from the hardship fund will be considered. I agree it would be better if the hardship fund was of greater size but there is a strain on the resources. With the backlog of disease eradication work we inherited when we came into office it is necessary for us to deploy all our resources in the best way possible in conformity with the recommendations of the animal health committee.

Would the Minister not agree that the intensity of degree of infection in a herd is one factor only? The second factor—the one with which I find fault—is the weight factor. Would the Minister inform the House the maximum weight that will qualify for monies from the hardship fund?

I see it is necessary to repeat that it is the degree of hardship on the heard owner that is the question to be determined——

That is only one factor.

To be sure it is a factor; it is the only relevant factor that there is; what other factor could be relevant? We are talking about hardship——

The weight of the animal is the second factor.

The animals do not suffer hardship because they have been slaughtered. The Deputy should not be ridiculous.

Would the Minister not agree that the weight is so restrictive that cow reactors do not qualify, or very few of them; that most cattle do not qualify because of the restrictions imposed by the Minister?

That is simply not so.

We are getting into argument now. I am calling Question No. 25.