asked the Minister for Agriculture if compensation for tuberculosis and brucellosis will be substantially increased throughout the country to compensate for the enormous losses incurred.

All aspects of our existing bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication schemes, including the level of reactor grants, are currently being reviewed in the context of the EEC proposals for extension of the accelerated disease eradication programmes which were agreed recently in the Council of Ministers.

Is it correct that at a meeting in Portumna on Monday night, the Minister for Agriculture stated that he proposed to increase reactor compensation from £130 to £250?

That is incorrect.

Will the Minister then indicate to the House exactly what he did say in regard to the increase in reactor compensation?

I issued a very full statement yesterday that sets out the position. I might as well read some of the salient points for the benefit of the House. The facts of the matter are that there is a revision of both the grants aspect and the administration of the disease eradication programme as a whole being undertaken at present in conjunction with the EEC. I have had recommendations from the Animal Health Council in regard to this matter. I referred to their recommendations and to the fact that this whole matter is currently under very active review.

Sir, would it be correct to say that questions started before the bells rang?

There was a slight problem in the House which your Whips would appreciate, that because of the fact that agreement had not yet been reached as to what would follow, we wanted to avoid confusion that might arise between Question Time bells and a bell for the division.

I do not wish to delay the House but I have a series of questions down and I do not know if they have been answered.

We are only on Question No. 1, Deputy.

Well, I did not know that.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I was waiting on the bells and when the bells went, I came in here but the question had been answered.

The question is being answered at present and supplementary questions are being taken on it.

Could the Minister repeat his reply for my benefit. I should like to hear his reply.

If the Chair might explain, the Chair is at the mercy of Deputies and their Whips. If, in deference to an agreement that has been worked out and having regard to the confusion that might be caused by a Question Time bell preceding a division bell, the bells were delayed a minute. I think Deputies will have to appreciate that one cannot cater for every individual Deputy in circumstances in which an effort is being made to cater for the wishes of the House. If the Minister is disposed to repeating his reply, I will be happy to call on him.

There is no difficulty. I shall repeat the reply which read as follows:

All aspects of our existing bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication schemes, including the level of reactor grants, are currently being reviewed in the context of the EEC proposals for extension of the accelerated disease eradication programmes which were agreed recently in the Council of Ministers.

Following the Minister's commitment given in Portumna no later than the other night, would he tell the House if he is prepared to honour the commitment of £5 million for disease eradication and reactor compensatory increases?

There is no question of a commitment. There is a question of a very active review that is proceeding at present, which is not particular news because we have already had a discussion at the Council of Ministers in regard to it. As I said in my reply, it is proposed to have an accelerated scheme, stepping up the whole programme of disease eradication. This will have two aspects, first a revision of the grants, and, second, a revision of the whole operation of the programme. I have had recommendations from the Animal Health Council and these are being considered as well in the course of this review. This matter was dealt with fully by me in a statement which I issued yesterday from which I have just quoted some of the salient factors before the Deputy came in. If the Deputy likes, I will read the statement out. It is a short statement and I quote:

The Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Brian Lenihan, T. D., today commented on press reports about increasing the grants for reactors slaughtered under the disease eradication schemes. The Minister said that the existing rates of reactor grants had been fixed in 1978 and he was fully aware of the difficulties being experienced by farmers in certain areas. The rates of grants were currently being reviewed in the context of the extension of our disease acceleration programme for a further two years. He had also received recommendations from the Animal Health Council about the revision of the grants which are very helpful and would be taken into account.

— and they will be taken into account. Then, a final sentence:

He expected that this review of the grants and of the disease eradication programme would be completed very shortly.

Might I ask the Minister if the recommendations he has received from the Animal Health Council are the same ones to which he referred last Monday night?

As far as the recommendations of the Animal Health Council are concerned, they are round about those figures. The Animal Health Council have made these recommendations. There is the accelerated disease eradication programme, of which the Deputy is well aware. All of these matters are being considered in a very active way at present; this is current business.

I asked the Minister if the recommendations he received from the Animal Health Council are the same as the ones to which he referred last Monday night?

I was only referring to the Animal Health Council recommendations. I was not referring to any commitment on my part in this matter; there was no commitment on my part.

Is the Minister saying that the recommendations which he received from the Animal Health Council on Monday night and which, on Monday night, he began by saying he accepted and subsequently denied, are they the recommendations he is now considering?

The Deputy must be well aware, because he was present, that when I spoke on this matter on Monday night I made it quite plain that any increase in this area would have to be in the overall budgetary context and that I would certainly keep under review recommendations from bodies like the Animal Health Council, decisions taken within the Council of Ministers as to what help we could get from the EEC in regard to stepping up the programme. All of these aspects are under very active review at present. That is all I am saying, no more and no less that that.

A Cheann Comhairle——

We have already had six supplementaries on this question.

The Minister is evading the question.

I am not.

Is the Minister not aware that on Monday night last there were 400 to 500 people who clearly understood him to say that he accepted the recommendations of the Animal Health Council? Might I ask him further if he does not remember that his Minister of State, Deputy Cowen, at the end of the meeting went so far as to congratulate the Minister on having given the commitment he gave? Is the Minister not aware, following that, that there is a great deal of expectation that he might now change his mind again, having changed it once on Monday night?

I did not make the statement that the Deputy has just said.

The Minister of State did.

I said that every consideration would be given to them.

The Minister of State joined Senator Ferris in expressing the fact that he was very glad that the Minister had given this commitment. I am asking the Minister if those commitments related to the specific recommendations of the Animal Health Council and if those recommendations are the same ones to which he referred on Monday night?

This is a very serious matter.

Just one last supplementary on that.

I am allowing Deputy O'Keeffe a final supplementary.

Does the Minister for Agriculture realise that his name is now a joke in East Galway as a result of the way he carried on in Portumna last Monday night?

That will be decided next Tuesday.

Deputy O'Keeffe is now entering into the area of argument. Would the Deputy please ask a final supplementary question.

Could the Minister now indicate to the House clearly and unequivocally — if it is possible for him to speak in that manner — what increases he proposes to give by way of payment for reactors?

I have answered that on several occasions, that this whole matter is being examined by me in conjunction with the Animal Health Council——

(Cavan-Monaghan): Under active current consideration.

——in conjunction with the European Commission, with the Council of Ministers. Agreement in principle has been reached within the Council of Ministers to have what they call this accelerated programme for which we can get some help from the Commission. All of these matters are being actively considered at this moment.

So there is no increase in the pipeline.

A Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together.

A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order——

Deputy, if this is not a point of order, I will declare you disorderly and you will be suspended from the House. So it had better be a point of order.

That is a bit unfair.

Deputy, if you are questioning me, I will tell you there has been abuse of this——

I asked to come in on a number of supplementaries——

I am not responsible if a number of the Deputy's colleagues travel the question for him. You are not entitled to a certain number of supplementaries. If I feel the question has been adequately answered I will proceed to the next question. I would prefer if the Deputy would not pursue that now. I am moving to the next question. The Deputy is holding up the business of the House.

The Chair cannot be intimidating again.

I am not satisfied with this situation, and it is not the first time it has happened. I propose to raise the subject matter of the discussion on the Adjournment.

The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.

2.