asked the Minister for Agriculture the number of people who took advantage of the farm retirement scheme in 1978; and the proposals, if any, to make the scheme more attractive.

A total of 82 farmers retired under the farmers' retirement scheme in 1978. As I have already announced, I shall be reviewing the entire scheme when certain amendments to Directive 160 proposed by the EEC Commission have been finalised.

Will the Minister accept that the scheme as operated has been very unattractive to farmers and that there is need for considerable amendment?

I agree that experience so far has shown the scheme is not sufficiently attractive for farmers and that some change would have to be made to encourage more farmers to avail of it.

Can the Minister indicate when such changes will take place? He will agree that there is an element of urgency about this.

I hope the Commission will have decided on this inside a few months.

Is it not open to the Minister to do something about the rates of payment even before the Commission reach a conclusion?

This is one of the matters being considered.

The Minister does not have to wait for the EEC.

I agree, but this is one of the things being considered—that increased financial incentives be given to farmers to encourage them to avail of the scheme.

4.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if the percentage by which farm retirement scheme pensions have been increased since they were introduced, is less than the percentage increase in contributory and noncontributory old age pensions: and if so, by how much.

Between the date of the introduction of the farmers' retirement scheme in 1974 and May 1978 the annuities payable under the scheme were increased on three occasions, the aggregate increase amounting to some 66 per cent. In the same period the aggregate increases in old age pension rates, both contributory and noncontributory, ranged between 86 and 89 per cent.

Further increases in old age pension rates were, of course, announced in this year's budget and the levels of annuity payable under the retirement scheme are at present being reviewed. As I said in reply to the previous question the entire scheme will be re-examined in the light of the amendments proposed to Directive 160.

Is it not a very serious matter that the annuities under this scheme, under which the State were party to a contractual arrangement, have not been increased by as much as the ordinary old age pension? Is it not disgraceful that they have dropped to 20 per cent below the old age pension?

I agree it is necessary to increase the annuities, and an undertaking has been given by the Government that they will be increased in line with the Consumer Price Index. This had been accepted by the previous Government and that undertaking has been honoured by the present Government. The matter is being reviewed and we hope the annuities will be increased shortly.

Why did the Government decide to announce in the budget an increase in old age pensions without announcing a concomitant increase in the farmers' pension?

They are two separate schemes. The directive is being considered by the EEC Commission and we hope an announcement will be made in the near future.

Did not the Minister agree that he can increase the pensions without reference to the EEC? Does he agree such an increase is a budgetary matter requiring Finance approval, and should he not be prepared to make the same arrangements for these farmers as for old age pensioners generally?

I have told the Deputy they are two different matters. Increases in old age pensions are granted normally in the budget. The scheme we are now talking about is being looked into. The operation of Directive 160 and its application to this country are being considered by the Commission, and until such time as a decision has been made——

That is not true. The Minister can go ahead with his own arrangements. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

I will communicate with the Deputy.