asked the Minister for Agriculture the reasons the ewe premium grant was not paid in many parts of County Galway because of alleged poor quality ewes; and if limestone in the area is a contributory factor.

There are no parts of County Galway excluded from participation in the ewe premium scheme because of poor quality ewes in those areas. Under the 1983-84 scheme, the rejection rate for County Galway, at 2.7 per cent was, in fact, lower than the national average of 3.4 per cent. Comparable figures for the 1984-85 ewe premium scheme are not available as inspections are still in progress.

While it is commonly believed that grazing on limestone land can contribute to wear in ewe's teeth, conclusive evidence is lacking. In any event, age, conformation, poor udders and foot defects are the main factors in the rejection of ewes.

Is the Minister aware that farmers in County Galway, and other areas, have been told by inspectors from the Department that premiums will not be paid because of what is known as "broken mouth" problem in ewes? Is the Minister aware that the head of the EC Commission, and the Minister for Agriculture, told the IFA sheep committee delegation that premiums would be paid for all ewes provided they were pregnant or had lambs at foot? I am sure the Minister is aware that that was referred to in an article in last week's issue of The Farmers Journal.

I can only give the House the factual position about the criteria laid down for the payment of the ewe premium which in my view are very sensible. The House is aware that the EC are footing the bill and it is their view that ewes must be of a standard that are likely to have lambs and stand up to winter conditions. It is only reasonable in sheep husbandry that any farmer who wants to get the optimum return from his flock should want his ewes to have reasonable teeth, good udders and so on. Those things have been part and parcel of good sheep husbandry for years.

The position is so bad in some parts of north Galway that farmers came to the conclusion that is had something to do with the limestone in the ground. The Minister has ruled that out and I accept his view. Will the Minister tell the House who gave the instructions? Was it the Department or the EC who gave the instructions that rejection should be the order of the day for farmers seeking a premium for their ewes or was it because, as was reported in The Farmers Journal, that the ewes had “broken mouth” that they were turned down?

I have been listening to complaints about broken mouth in sheep for a long time and the matter is raised annually at our reviews with farming organisations. It has always been a bone of contention. I am sure the Deputy would not wish me to waste the time of the House by going into great detail as to what constitutes a good mouth or a bad mouth.

The Chair would not welcome that.

I should like to tell the Deputy that under the new scheme some categories of sheep that were eligible for the grant before are not eligible now. I am referring to ewes that did not have a lamb in 1985 and were not visibly in lamb. That is one of the reasons why the numbers may seem to be a little higher but it does not have anything to do with the "broken mouth" issue.

If I supply the Minister with the names of Galway farmers who are having difficulties — he probably knows some of them — will he ascertain why 10 per cent of some of the flocks have been turned down and why in one case only three ewes in 15 on a very small farm were passed? Will the Minister investigate those cases?

I certainly will. I will get the information for the Deputy if he supplies me with the names.