asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware that the farming community are completely dissatisfied with his handling of the fodder crisis and, in particular, the manner in which farmers were assessed for benefit; and if he will introduce payment of increased headage grants, suggested by the main farming organisations, which would appear to be the most equitable manner of assisting farmers.

13.

(Limerick West) asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware of the general unrest with regard to the payment and operation of the feed voucher scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

14.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware that the delay in payment to compensate farmers for the loss of hay and fodder is now forcing farmers to sell their stocks at a huge loss; and if he will ensure that there is no further delay with payment.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 13 and 14 together.

Feed vouchers have been issued to some 78,000 farmers in the past ten days or so and they will make a substantial contribution to alleviating the hardship caused by the bad weather conditions of last summer and autumn.

There is no evidence that farmers are being forced to sell cattle because of insufficient fodder. Indeed, cattle slaughterings since the beginning of the year are running well below the levels for the corresponding period in 1985 and this suggests that the feed voucher scheme and the other relief measures undertaken by the Government have been successful in helping farmers to overwinter stock.

The suggested increase in headage payments in the disadvantaged areas would mean providing aid for a substantial number of farmers with little or no fodder problems and would cost some £28 million which, in the current Exchequer situation, it would not be possible to provide.

Is the Minister aware that the scheme has turned out to be farcical in regard to the way in which payments are being made? I am sure that all Deputies have had representations in this regard. Would the Minister regard as acceptable a situation in which a farmer was refused payment, having bought hay, but finds that the full amount of the grant was paid to the farmer who sold the hay? That case has been brought to my attention. It is the result of the scheme the Minister has introduced. Is he honest in saying that the cost of the increased headage grant would be £28 million to the State? Does he not agree with the statement made by the IFA that the Government would only have to spend £7 million on this scheme because the farmers would be contributing £7 million while £14 million would be available from the EC? Would that not have been a far better and much more acceptable scheme?

I do not agree with the Deputy's argument. The Government would have to spend £28 million on such a scheme. In a year's time we would be entitled to recoup half that amount from the EC but the initial outlay would be £28 million. The Deputy asserts that this system of payment would be the most equitable way of assisting farmers. On the contrary, that type of blanket payment would mean paying money to people irrespective of whether they had fodder problems. The scheme I introduced is working very well. Obviously, there will be hiccups and there will be individuals who will have grievances. They may be justified in that but it is difficult to devise a scheme involving 78,000 people that would operate in a totally uniform way. However, if Deputies have evidence of cases in which there apear to be discrepancies they should bring these to my notice so that I might endeavour to resolve the problems involved.

Would the Minister not accept that all farmers were subject to the bad weather conditions of last year and that they all experienced difficulty in providing fodder for their stocks? By what he has said now, is the Minister accepting that the scheme has not operated equitably and would he not reconsider the proposals of the main farming organisation to bring about a scheme that would ensure justice in terms of compensation for farmers?

I accept that the whole country was affected badly by the weather conditions of last year but some people were very well equipped to make silage.

Bad silage.

A considerable number of people, even in the disadvantaged areas, provided for their fodder needs and I have no intention of paying out money to those who have not experienced problems in this matter. I have stated that on numerous occasions and there is no question of my changing my mind.

I wish to refer to a point raised by Deputy Kirk and which I postponed answering when replying to the previous question. The Deputy referred to late applicants, but the scheme was extended by ten days to allow late applicants to apply. That put back accordingly the implementation of the scheme. Also, we delayed the scheme for several weeks because we omitted straw from the equation in the calculation, as Deputy Leonard will recall from an earlier reply to him. At a further date, we omitted from the equation bad quality hay. Those two changes were greatly appreciated and have resulted in the more smooth operation of the scheme. We will consider the situation at the end of the day from the point of view of what money is available and if there are cases of hardship we will examine them, even if the applications were late.

(Limerick West): I am amazed at the Minister. Is he not aware that because of the very bad weather conditions even those farmers who had sophisticated equipment for the harvesting of silage were not able to gain access to their fields? Would the Minister not accept that they are in as much difficulty as is any farmer who did not have that equipment? Is the Minister aware also that officials of his Department, not in all cases but in some cases, are placing more emphasis on quantity than on quality? I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of State, Deputy Hegarty, before Christmas and he promised to give it attention. In terms of animal feed, quality is far more important than quantity.

Regarding the first part of the question, I did not say that merely because of having sophisticated equipment the farmers concerned would be excluded from the scheme. What I said was that the availability of this equipment made it possible for the people concerned to make silage or hay. Any farmer who does not have good quality hay or silage is entitled to apply for inclusion in the scheme. They are not excluded by reason of having good quality equipment.

(Limerick West): It is good to hear that.

I have said that very bad quality hay was excluded from the calculation.

(Limerick West): That is not being carried through.

I am prepared to investigate any case of this kind that the Deputy may bring to my attention.