asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware that farmers are being refused aid under the headage scheme and western package because their income from social welfare exceeds their estimated income from agriculture; and if he will consider changing this particular decision at this time.

Social welfare payments are not taken into account when assessing the income of applicants for headage purposes or for on-farm investment aid under the western package.

Has the Minister of State any proposals to increase the level from the present low figure in the region of £6,400 to a more realistic level to allow them to avail of these grants?

That is a separate question.

No.

Ceist a 3.

(Limerick West): Are there any proposals within that package to review the whole aspect of social welfare with regard to those schemes having regard to this income?

No.

This is a specific general question. That may appear to be a contradiction in terms but it is not. It concerns whether certain things are taken into consideration.

In view of the fact that farmers' income in the one area has been eroded so much over the last few years, could the Minister of State indicate whether the Government have made any proposals to Brussels to ensure that the entire western area will be covered?

That is a separate question.

It is a question. You are becoming very specific.

When I say it is a separate question it is a separate question. Ceist 3.

Can the Minister clarify that?

3.

asked the Minister for Agriculture further to the concession which he granted to herdowners in disadvantaged areas, that is, that cattle disposed of direct to meat factories and sold through marts by herdowners prior to inspection for cattle headage schemes be included in the cattle headage subsidy scheme, if he will extend this concession as well to herdowners in disadvantaged areas who sold their animals direct to registered butchers on presentation of slaughtering certificates from the butcher for the animals concerned.

Departmental officers working at marts and meat factories are in a position to verify particulars of any cattle sold or slaughtered at these premises. It is not possible to apply the same level of control at registered butchers' premises and for this reason I regret that the concession cannot be extended to them.

(Limerick West): Has the Minister any proposals in his Department to alter that situation and to ensure that there would be monitoring at slaughtering houses?

The Deputy will be aware that two years ago I brought forward this proposal to help people with the condition that farmers would not have to hold on to their cattle until the read would take place. This was acknowledged as being a very important factor in helping to offload cattle onto the market without creating a glut in the autumn as they used to have to. This is the second year of this scheme.

One problem in extending the matter further is that we have about 30 meat factories for beef, we have 121 marts, and the Deputy is only too well aware that those are staffed by officers of my Department all the time. That is part of the operation. The trouble is that we have well over 1,000, perhaps 1,200, butchers registered for levy purposes up and down the country and that would place an enormous strain from an inspection point of view. At the moment I cannot accept that the problem warrants that type of programme.

In relation to the position of herd owners in disadvantaged areas, has the Minister made any proposal to Brussels to have extended the mildly handicapped areas and severely handicapped areas, or to have extended the range of areas included in the severely handicapped areas?

That is a separate question.

It relates to——

The Deputy should not argue.

Could I explain?

The areas are only mentioned here in relation to certain schemes.

I am anxious to ascertain the benefits for herd owners in disadvantaged areas. A number of people have been inquiring as to whether they will be affected.

That is clearly another question. Just because the words "disadvantaged areas" happen to appear there, that does not mean that an entire discussion on that subject can be opened up.

I want a clarification from the Minister and I will sit down then.

I am reminding the Deputy that he may put down another question.

On a point of order, I also put down a question which the Chair did not allow on this issue. Will the Chair give me some guidance? Is it the Chair's business to prevent the Minister from answering questions?

It is my business.

While I was over there, I was not in any way protected by the Chair.

Deputy Leyden will withdraw that remark, before we go any further. Deputy Leyden has implied that the Chair is protecting somebody. The Deputy will withdraw that remark.

I was asking what the Standing Order in relation to——

Will the Deputy withdraw that remark and resume his seat?

I hope the Chair will not take offence. I do not regard the Chair as protecting anybody. I will withdraw the remark on the basis that the Chair says——

You will withdraw it without qualification——

Yes, without qualification.

——and I will proceed with the Questions.

I am entitled to know under what Standing Order is the Chair not allowing questions which are relevant to the question on the Order Paper?

When the Deputy gets into this Chair he can look after all of that.

I have no intention of getting into the Chair.

A number of queries arise——

It takes a long time before a Deputy of the House gets into the Chair.

It takes a long time to get into the House at all. Many fellows have been trying for years.

Order, please.

A number of people have been informed that they are being included for these benefits. Is there any authority for these statements? Have the Government made proposals to Brussels either to extend the areas or to change the classification? I will be satisfied with a simple answer.

That is a separate question.

Question No. 4.

I want to ask a supplementary question.

Order, please.

Deputy Wilson may not know that I have ruled a question out as being a separate question. If Deputy Wilson reads the question it will be clear to him why I ruled it out.

A Cheann Comhairle——

The Ceann Comhairle does not know what supplementary I was going to ask.

I think I do. Question No. 4.

The Chair can rule it out if he thinks necessary. In view of the fact that following the most recent arrangements in this regard, West Germany extended the disadvantaged areas over an extensive area, would the Minister say whether what the Taoiseach said in Cavan was factually correct, that the disadvantaged area was to be extended over the whole of counties Cavan and Monaghan?

I was correct——

Order, please.

What the Taoiseach said was factually correct.

Order, please. Deputy Wilson, I was correct and I rule out your question. The headage payments appear here in reference to one scheme. Question No. 4.