asked the Minister for Agriculture whether the Exchequer would incur a loss as a result of paying cattle headage grants to all part-time farmers.

5.

asked the Minister for Agriculture the money the Irish economy would gain if his Department were to pay the full amount of headage grants permissible under the relevant EEC Directive; the amount of the resulting demand on the Exchequer; and the money he estimates would be payable to the Exchequer in the form of income tax and VAT.

6.

asked the Minister for Agriculture the maximum cattle and sheep headage payments per livestock unit permitted under EEC regulations; and if he has any plans for making payments at the full amount allowable to Irish farmers.

7.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will consider removing the income anomaly on off-farm employment so that farmers can qualify for headage grants both for cattle and sheep; the number of people who do not qualify because of the restriction; the number of cattle and sheep; and the estimated saving to the Exchequer.

It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.

If headage grants at existing rates were paid to all part-time farmers in the disadvantaged areas, about 11,000 farmers who were disqualified from payment of grants on some 125,000 cattle and 50,000 sheep since the limit on off-farm income was introduced in 1979 would be brought back into the schemes. The abolition of the off-farm income limit would involve an extra cost to the Exchequer in the first year of £4.5 million and would mean that less resources would be available to those most in need, that is, full-time farmers and those with low off-farm earnings. In these circumstances, I do not propose to remove the limit.

The maximum cattle and sheep headage payment per livestock unit permitted by the EEC under the disadvantaged areas schemes is 97 European currency units equivalent to some £67 per head on adult cattle and £10 per head on sheep. To increase the current rates here to the permitted maximum would involve extra expenditure by the Exchequer of about £38 million in the first year and this also could not be justified in present circumstances.

Any questions in regard to income tax and VAT payable by farmers in the disadvantaged areas are a matter for the Minister for Finance.

My question referred to the loss he expected arising out of paying headage to part-time farmers and I was thinking that perhaps, with the introduction of income tax on all farmers, since half the headage is paid by the EEC and half by our own Government, then if farmers fall within the tax net the Government would be getting back almost all of its contribution.

Would the Deputy ask a question?

I only want the Minister to understand why I asked the question. I want the Minister to indicate if he can do a calculation on this in view of the changed situation with regard to income tax and if he could consider there might be only a small loss in bringing these farmers back into the headage scheme.

First of all, it would not be safe to assume that the Exchequer would get a return in taxation of certain moneys paid into the disadvantaged areas for the simple reason that no matter what the tax rate might be, unfortunately it is most unlikely that many farmers in these areas will ever have a taxable income. It would be much better for them and the State if they had. For that reason it is difficult to assume one would get a great deal of money. It is something in which I have an interest and I shall certainly be looking at some of the figures involved but, because of the low income of the farming community in the west, there would not be a taxable income at the moment.

One of the attractions of this scheme is the fact that 50 per cent of the cost incurred is paid by the EEC and it would not be economic to use this scheme to increase the national herd by the extinction of the scheme at the full rate.

It would be hard to argue with Deputy Walsh's assumption. We are in fact getting reimbursed from Europe on a £ for £ basis. This system has been in operation for a number of years and the problem is that we have to take note of the budgetary situation here. As well as that you have the problem that a number of areas which should be included in severely handicapped areas are not in at all. An in-depth look is being taken at the situation but for a variety of reasons it has not been possible over a number of years to increase the headage payments.

Would the Minister not agree that it did not make sense in this budget year to restrict the qualifying limits for cattle headage grants and at the same time any person with another form of employment had to pay tax from zero? There was no £20 allowance. Do the two things make sense in the confines of the budget itself?

The problem was that within the confines of the budgetary measures, there was not enough money to go around. The Government wanted to ensure that full-time small farmers and people with very low off-farm incomes got the money.

They got it every other year.

Yes, but it was important that they continued to get it.

They did not get anything extra.

It could be argued that they did not get anything less, and that was very important.

I was talking about part-time farmers. Unless these people with sizeable farms have very big families, they will automatically be in the tax net. Therefore the money paid to them through headage grants will be given back to the Government leaving the country and the farmers better off.

This idea has been floating around for some time. I will have the matter investigated.

Will the headage grants ever be given again to the people who do off-farm work? Some people on unemployment get more than the limit for an off-farm worker. Any small farmer doing off-farm work at present will not get this headage grant. These grants should be given to small farmers in the disadvantaged areas so that people working but earning very small wages will qualify.

All these matters will be reviewed in great detail before the budget, and I am taking note of the various arguments made.

I am calling Questions Nos. 8 and 9.

What happened to Question Nos. 6 and 7?

Questions Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 were taken together.

That is desperate.

I answered Questions Nos. 4 to 7 together.

The record will show that Questions Nos. 4 to 7 were taken together. If Deputies wish to ask further supplementaries, I will allow them.

On a point of order, that is not the way Question Time should be conducted. I came into this House to listen to the replies to my questions. The Minister should have said he was taking these questions together.

I can assure the Deputy——

You are paying too much attention to that side of the House.

Deputy O'Keeffe will withdraw that remark.

What did I say?

You alleged that the Chair is not impartial, that he is paying too much attention to the Government side of the House. He will please withdraw that remark.

All right. Deputy Spring got plenty of latitude yesterday morning when the planning Bill was being discussed.

Does any Deputy wish to ask supplementaries on Questions Nos. 4 to 7?

On the question of the income level for off-farm workers, is account taken of the size of the family?

No. The limit is £3,500 off-farm income.

Would the Minister have a look at this because there are large families in the northern part of my county and the father might be forced to work. This might make him ineligible for these grants because his income could be above the £3,500 limit. Would the Minister look at this question with a view to relating it to the size of the family?

We are talking about off-farm income and that could not be related to the size of the family. I will be taking a closer look at the end of this year at all these matters.

That anomaly does not exist in the North of Ireland. There is a lot of talk about standardisation but why not have the same incentives for farmers in the south as they have in the north?

Our farmers get benefits the northern farmers do not get.

The Government are always talking about reform.

Because of the disincentive created in the budget, will the Minister agree that production levels will fall? What does he intend to do about that situation?

I cannot agree that production levels will fall because of this, nor can I see a relationship between production and off-farm income.

If the Minister cannot see the difference we might as well pack up.

I am having a look at the entire scheme.

The Minister will be doing an awful lot of looking.

The average weekly income of a wage earner is approximately £100. Would the Minister agree that an unemployed married man with a wife and three children would receive a similar figure? Would he also agree that the limit of £3,500 off-farm income on the payment of the headage grant is a loss of revenue to the Exchequer by way of EEC funding and a further loss to agriculture by way of investment in the agricultural industry?

Like many other Deputies, I would like to see the limit very much higher, but that cannot be done for several reasons. I have to take issue with the Deputy when he said a married man with a wife and three children would be entitled to nearly £100 unemployment assistance. I doubt if it would be that high.

It would be close to it.

Within our present resources this is the only way to ensure that the small farmer working full-time on the land and people with very low off-farm incomes will benefit.

8.