asked the Minister for Agriculture in view of the fact that farm development has almost ceased creating much unemployment in drainage and building firms, if he will immediately reintroduce the farm modernisation scheme in its entirety; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

14.

andMr. Kitt asked the Minister for Agriculture if the farm modernisation scheme will be restored immediately; and when applications will be accepted for development schemes.

15.

andMr. H. Byrne asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will, in view of the Taoiseach's recent statement in Wexford on the present state of the agricultural industry, reintroduce the farm modernisation scheme immediately and create an environment in farming where confidence will be restored and where the nations' biggest industry can play its fullest role in the economy and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, together.

While grant aid for farm buildings and fixed equipment has been suspended pending a review of the farm modernisation scheme there has been no change in the availability of grant aid for land improvement works. Grants continue to be available for land improvement under the farm modernisation scheme and, in the western region, under the western drainage scheme and the programme for western development. The latter programme also provides grant aid for farm buildings and fixed equipment for certain farmers in the west who undertake farm improvement plans oriented towards cattle and sheep production.

It is my intention to introduce a revised system of grant aid under the farm modernisation scheme at the earliest possible date, probably in the late autumn.

As indicated by the Taoiseach in his recent statement, the aim of the revised scheme will be to ensure that the returns from investments undertaken in the future are such as to justify the outlay.

An announcement regarding the acceptance of applications will be made in due course.

(Limerick West): Is the Minister aware that even if the farm modernisation scheme is reintroduced the emphasis will be on the bigger farmer and on farms with the greatest production? In other words, it will be geared to production.

That is not correct. I did not state that nor is the intention such. The question——

(Limerick West): I am asking about the reply.

I am giving the reply. The scheme will not be loaded in favour of bigger farmers any more than it ever was.

(Limerick West): Will the Minister of State repeat just what he said?

There is no way that the grants in question will be orientated towards the bigger farmer as opposed to the smaller farmer.

Is the Minister suggesting that moneys spent by farmers under the farm modernisation scheme have been mis-spent? That is the implication of his answer. Would he agree that the Government are discriminating against at least 40 per cent of farmers who have not as yet applied under the farm modernisation scheme?

The total number of farmers eligible under the farm modernisation scheme since its inception in the early seventies has been disappointing because of the criteria attached to the scheme. I have always believed that the criteria for entry to the scheme have not been helpful. Money spent under the scheme has been well spent but the Deputy is aware that all schemes must be reviewed with a view to spending in the best way with the scarce resources available.

If and when the farm modernisation scheme is restored, will the red tape be removed from the administration and, if so, how will this be done?

All aspects of this scheme are being examined and if there is an easier and more streamlined way of administering it we would hope to implement it at the end of the year.

In view of the disastrous results of the abrupt termination of this scheme, does the Minister intend to show any sympathy for individual farmers who went ahead with work in good faith, having received verbal approval under the scheme from farm development officers and having applied to the local office prior to 9 February?

Unless prior written approval was given on or before 9 February 1983 grant aid will not be available.

Would the Minister agree that his intention to reintroduce the scheme in November is another tactic to slow down the whole machinery of development? He will agree that very little building can take place during the winter months. Would he also agree that our efforts are being weakened in Brussels because of the attitude at home towards farm development.

An in-depth review of all matters relating to the farm modernisation scheme is a major undertaking and it cannot be done more quickly. It is a considerable task and it will certainly be October or November before it is finalised.

(Limerick West): Is the Minister aware that the review of the scheme could take place without the suspension of that scheme? Is he aware that many farmers are in severe financial difficulty due to the sudden suspension of the scheme because they had buildings under construction which had to be completed and they now find themselves without any grants? Is he prepared to assist them?

Certain cutbacks had to be effected by all Government Departments.

(Limerick West): So it was a cutback. I thought it was a review.

This measure achieved a saving of £10.3 million in the Department of Agriculture. That is why the scheme was terminated or suspended. It is proposed to introduce the new scheme in the autumn. I would have preferred the farm modernisation scheme to have been left as it was until the new scheme was introduced but it was a budgetary decision and nothing else could have been done.

I am calling Deputy Hugh Byrne and then Deputy Joe McCartin before we pass on to the next question.

There were four questions taken together.

That is a bit of an exaggeration. There were three taken together.

Would the Minister accept that reviewing the scheme while it is abolished is absolutely stupid because it is like taking a football team off the field to decide whether to put on a substitute? Several small building firms have gone to the wall because no development is taking place on farms. Would the Minister agree that drainage has slowed down, irrespective of what he said in his reply?

The Deputy seems to have answered his own question in relation to drainage by stating that it has slowed down.

Can the Minister confirm that?

No.

The Minister should not be interrupted when answering.

He is not answering.

I have no intention of agreeing with everything the Deputy has to say. On the figures available to me, there is a great deal of drainage going on.

It has slowed down.

Drainage is well ahead of target under the five-year programme.

What about farm building?

Regarding the Deputy's point about taking the team off the field——

The sooner the better they are taken off the field.

——it is important to have to have an in-depth look at the scheme and if in the months before the introduction of the scheme a better way can be devised of channelling money to farmers it will be a blessing in disguise. It is important to have a thorough review of the scheme.

What about buildings?

Would the Minister agree that the costs of administering the building and drainage schemes are extremely high? Will the study of the farm modernisation scheme include a cost-benefit analysis of what has been achieved by these investments, in view of the fact that we did not have any increase in agriculture production arising from either land drainage or farm buildings investment during the past six or seven years or, as some would say, ten years?

Of course there is a review of the various costs of the scheme and it will be proved that great efforts have been made to reduce costs, particularly during the past three or four years.

In view of the Taoiseach's statement two weeks ago and his late conversion regarding the state of Irish farming, will the Minister stand up and fight on behalf of those people? They have been sold out by the Government. Fianna Fáil never sold out the farmers to the workers. It is a national scandal, and all this talk by the Minister and his colleagues is a lot of waffle.

The Deputy is out of order. I am moving on to the next question.

What about the Taoiseach's statement last week? I would like to get an answer to that question.

I would like the Deputy to resume his seat.

We are getting only a lot of waffle from the Minister and his colleagues. I insist on getting a reply to my question.

Will the Minister answer Question No. 16?

I insist on an answer.

16.