asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries whether the staffs of his Department and of the committees of agriculture are fully briefed on the operation of the farm modernisation scheme.

The answer is yes.

Farmers have come to me and asked what they are to do with their farms. Who will certify them? Could the Minister say if it is the county committee of agriculture, the instructor appointed by him or somebody from the Department? The situation is very vague at the moment.

The original arrangement was that the advisory officers at local level would prepare a programme and decide what category an applicant came into. There is some difficulty about this at the moment, as the Deputy knows. Now if the farmer sends his application form direct to the Department the Department will deal with it.

Therefore, we can take it that the advisory services and the Department are at loggerheads?

No, I would not so describe it. There is a dispute between the advisory services and the Department?

Not alone would I ask the Minister to give the committee and other people concerned about the operation of the farm modernisation scheme details of the scheme, but would he make full details of it available to Members of this House how it operates and who is entitled to benefit under it? Would he, above all, ensure that money is being spent on farm grants? Will the Minister tell this House now whether grants for all classes of farmers are being paid on foot of the farm modernisation scheme or any other scheme?

The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is that I understood every Deputy got a detailed description of the scheme.

No.

Certainly if they did not, I shall see that they do.

May I ask the Minister who is going to certify the applications? Apparently the local advisory services cannot do it because there is some disagreement with the Department. How is the farmer who is interested in the farm modernisation scheme fitted in now?

I answered the Deputy on that. If the application form is sent direct to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries it will be dealt with.

The fact remains that the local advisory officer is no longer the certifying officer.

At the moment that is the position.

Could the Minister let us know what is the present position in the dispute between himself and the Department and the advisory services?

The Deputy probably knows the answer to that already. The advisory services have been looking for several concessions and improvements in their employment conditions. I had discussions with them on the 17th January. I undertook personally to see what could be done for them in the interim period between this and the final reorganisation of the services. I offered them 70 additional promotional opportunities, which they refused to accept. They continued not to co-operate, and there has been correspondence coming and going between the Department and the advisory services. Last Tuesday, I understand, the executive of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture had a meeting with the advisory officers. I asked an assistant secretary of the Department to attend and give the information from our side. There were discussions, and further discussions are taking place next Friday.

Could the Minister let us know whether or not there is any offer at the moment being made to the advisory services or if the offer of 70 additional posts which the Minister made still stands? As well as that, I would like the Minister to let us know whether or not he feels his action in getting directly in touch with the chairman of the County Committees of Agriculture helped in the situation as it is?

The last part of the Deputy's statement is not true. I did not get in touch with the chairman of the General Council of the Committees of Agriculture. I have not spoken to him.

Did the Minister write to the county committees of agriculture?

Of course I wrote to the chairmen individually as part of the process of trying to iron out the problem. They are the responsible people.

The Minister knows that those committees do not want to interfere in this dispute. The Minister also knows that they do not want to send up the forms because that would be regarded as taking sides in the dispute. The Minister is further aware that among farmers there is a psychological dislike for sending all their business details to the Department. This business of getting the farmers to send their forms directly to the Department will not work. I am not saying who is or is not to blame but a settlement should be reached. The Minister should try to settle the dispute.

The trouble is that there are not enough people prepared to stand up and be counted.

Does the Minister's offer still stand?

There are a number of other Deputies anxious to get in. We cannot have a debate on this matter. I appeal to Deputies to assist the Chair in having the business conducted expeditiously.

Has the Minister noticed that on this side of the House there is a great deal of restraint and that in regard to this unfortunate dispute we are not running backwards and forwards endeavouring to exacerbate it as the Minister and his colleagues did on similar occasions in the past?

Hear, Hear.

I do not accept that.

We must have some finality in this matter. The Chair is moving on to the next question.

May I make one last comment?

I hesitate to prevent any Deputy from asking supplementary questions on this matter, but we must have some finality.

A great many farmers are doing some farm building at present, including myself. I do not know whether I can get a grant. Would the Minister please clarify the matter?

I have publicly stated on a number of occasions—and this has been reported in the newspapers— that if anybody has urgent work to be done and if he has an application it should be sent to the Department where it will be attended to.

Did the Minister give that information to the Members of this House?

I am giving it now.

Does the Minister's offer still stand?

I cannot answer the questions of many Deputies at the same time.

Is it true that the Minister has written to the chairmen of the county committees of agriculture in the different counties and asked them if they are not sending on the applications to the Department to return them to the applicants? If that is so, will the Minister try to get the committees of agriculture to do his job and that of his Department——

This is becoming an argument.

The advice to return the forms to the farmers was given in order to enable the farmers to get the benefits to which they are entitled. When the farmers get the forms back they should send them to the Department where we will look after them.

8.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if, in view of the fact that a 40-acre dairying farm will be classified as a transitional farm under the farm modernisation scheme which will put all 40-acre farmers at a disadvantage, he will make a statement on the matter.

Classification of farms under the scheme is not based on acreage. The example referred to by the Deputy merely illustrates one possible situation on a 40-acre farm. In other situations, for example, with a more intensive level of operation, or a different mix of enterprises, such a farm could well come into the development category. Even in the example referred to the farmer in question could, after a further period of expansion of his existing resources, hope to achieve development status.

It is very clear that the 40-acre farmer has gone.

Not at all.

There is no hope for the small farmer.

This is Question Time.

Could I ask the Minister, apart from the development farmer and the transitional farmer, whether other classes of farmers will be eligible for the grants when and if they are available?

The only other class of farmer is a commercial farmer who is entitled to reduced grants and not the same level of grants. He is the man who is above the comparable income. That is the only other category of farmer, except, perhaps, the hobby farmer, where farming does not provide a significant part of his income. He would not be entitled to grants.

Will the Minister tell us what is going to happen to the small farmer or the transitional farmer when the four-year period is at an end?

When that period is up, as I mentioned before in the House, this whole matter will be reviewed. It will be reviewed, perhaps, one year before the end of the four-year period. It is unthinkable that any category of person should be abandoned. Other countries as well as Ireland are affected.

Question No. 9, please.

9.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries whether a farmer who is over 55 years and who is a transitional farmer will be encouraged to surrender his land when taking the pension.

10.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries whether he is in a position to obtain the names of transitional farmers who are over 55 years from the committees of agriculture.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 10 together.

The choices open to farmers under the EEC directives are at all times voluntary. It will therefore, be entirely a matter for each farmer to decide on the various options available to him. I am not concerned with the names of individual farmers coming into any particular category.

Can the Minister say whether a transitional farmer who retires at the age of 55 and whose land is to be given to the Land Commission can allocate his land to another transitional farmer qualifying for portion of that land?

Yes, if it seemed to bring him to development status. If it makes him a development farmer he will qualify.

Would the Minister say whether a transitional farmer looking for a portion of an estate will be at any disadvantage in competition with the development farmer when the estate is being divided or will he be on an equal footing with him?

If a development farmer is already regarded as a person who can reach the comparable income, the transitional farmer will be regarded as being in greater need in a case like this.

That is not the case.

This is contrary to what is written in.

A question, please.

The Minister's answer was very important. I would like his answer to be the case in reality. It is written in that land given up on lease or sold by people over 55 years of age must be given to development farmers. Therefore, the transitional farmer will not come in while there is a development farmer looking for land, according to my reading.

At present "farmers" should be interpreted as farmers who can be made development farmers.

May I ask the Minister for clarification? This is an important matter and it is not good enough for the Minister to say that he thinks this is the case. If the Minister does not know will he say so, get the information and come back with it?

I know well enough. I did not say "I think".

Is the Minister amending his supplementary reply from "I think" to "I know".

I did not say "I think".

I am calling the next question. The Chair has given a lot of latitude on these important questions.

I am trying to get in.

We have made very little progress today.

The small farmers are not making any progress either.

Does the Minister not realise that the criterion for everything in the EEC is a concept known as "the modern farm"? This being the case, the chances of a development farmer acquiring that type of land is greater than that of any other farmer.

We must pass to the next question.

Some years ago the Taoiseach, Deputy Cosgrave, made a statement with regard to getting rid of the small farmers and said that there was no future for anybody except a farmer with over 200 cows. Do we take it that what we have heard here today is part of that policy? It seems to be coming true. We would like to have the position clarified.

All I can say to Deputy Fahey is that all these schemes were decided before I became a member of the Council of Ministers.

The details were not decided then. The Minister has made a mess of the scheme.

No Fianna Fáil Government would stand over such a scheme.