asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the amount allocated to each county for forestry in 1984 under the programme for western development.

The overall provision for the forestry element of the western package in the current year, namely £110,000, is not pre-allocated on a county basis. Expenditure by county depends on the level of planting undertaken in each county.

The figure of £110,000 brings the total for three years to less than £250,000 out of an allocation from Brussels of £1.8 million. Will the Minister agree that that represents a hopeless performance by the Department?

That seems to be argument.

I do not accept that it represents a hopeless performance by my Department. I should like to tell the Deputy that the scheme to which he referred, a very generous one carrying an 85 per cent grant level in relation to the small western package, has been very disappointing in that only 10 per cent of the money available has been taken up so far. If the Deputy wishes I can give him the relevant figures. I should like to tell the Deputy that 75 per cent of the area approved for planting in that period was not planted and that was not the fault of the Department. In that I include my predecessor.

In 1981, the first year, £61,000 was taken up, £74,000 in the second year and £110,000 this year and one would have thought that such an expenditure over those three years would have helped to get the scheme off the ground. Is it not time to examine the fact that it did not get off the ground especially when the grant aid for it is so generous? I understand that it is the highest grant aided scheme in any Department, Agriculture or Forestry.

I accept that the take-up level of the scheme has been most disappointing. To add to the grant aid there is also free professional advice available. There are probably many reasons for the lack lustre performance of the scheme, historical and so on, but it was disappointing and I would like if Deputies tried to promulgate the message that the scheme carries a very generous grant level in relation to land which is not being used to its full potential. The scheme is eminently suitable for land use in these areas.

Bearing in mind that the scheme has not been successful is it not time to bring the heads of Departments together and decide whether to abolish it or make a job of it?

The Deputy appears to be blaming the heads of sections in my Department or me. The fact is that people are aware of the scheme. We have put in advertisements, provided personnel for lectures on the scheme where invited; we have published brochures, booklets and so on, and have been in touch with ACOT. You can bring a horse to water but you cannot make him drink and that, unfortunately, is the position in this case, but hopefully it will improve in the future.

I would like to ask about the advertising of this scheme. In my view the Department neglected to advertise this scheme because if it had been properly advertised, more farmers would be inclined to avail of it. Many farmers do not know about the grants available.

We have advertised the scheme in journals, newspapers and so on, and also through statements made by me and my Minister of State, but I accept that we will have to undertake a more intensive advertising campaign to see what the uptake will be.

In view of the disappointing response to the scheme, has the Minister any proposals to review it? Is he aware that probably part of the reason for the poor uptake were the very poor prospects and return for investment in forestry? The Minister will be aware that recent statements by the Minister of State have added to the confusion because many farmers are under the impression that a new improved scheme is about to be launched.

New proposals are being considered at the moment. The Deputy asks if we are reviewing the scheme. In normal circumstances a review of a scheme would imply an improvement of a scheme, but we are talking here about a current level of 85 per cent. I do not think anybody could possible expect us to provide grant aid at a higher level. In relation to the implication in the Deputy's question that the reason for the poor take up might be the fact that farmers must wait a long time for a return on their investment, I do not accept that, because at present many people are interested in purchasing established forests — six, seven or eight year old forests. This is not a long time to wait for a return on an investment when one considers that an 85 per cent grant for forestry development is being made available.

It is desirable that small farmers and people in a position to avail of this scheme be encouraged to invest in this area, but even with the best will in the world the Minister must accept that there is a time lag between investment and first returns. If this situation could be improved, it would encourage farmers to get into this scheme. Has the Minister any plans to help farmers in the early years?

I have no plans. Because of the generosity of the current plan, I do not consider there is a need for it.

Question No. 7.

May I——

We have debated this question long enough.

I would like a final clarification from the Minister on the statement by the Minister of State about the new scheme.

That is a different question. The question I was asked relates to the existing scheme.

This is having a very serious impact on farmers. Will the Minister give some details of what he has in mind?

Is the Deputy trying to say that the Minister of State has one plan and I have another?

The Minister of State——

That is an erroneous statement. We are at one in relation to these plans.