asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will remove a serious anomaly from the regulations governing installation aid to young farmers, an anomaly whereby, in the case where a farmer divides his holding containing an intensive unit between two sons, handing on to one son the intensive unit and a small portion of the holding, the remainder of the holding going to the other son, neither son qualifies for aid because of the method used for apportioning the man work units.

Following a recent amendment in the scheme of installation aid for young farmers the labour requirement for protected intensive horticultural enterprises of the type described by the Deputy is now calculated solely on the basis of the horticultural enterprise. The position of other intensive enterprises is under consideration.

Arising from the Minister's reply and on a general query, as far as I can see that installation aid scheme — important though it undoubtedly is — is virtually breaking down. Would the Minister confirm to the House that, because he has not enough agricultural inspectors to call on the various ACOT offices — it appears there are only four for the entire country — there is a huge logjam throughout the country and that is one of the reasons the scheme is being held up for a year or two years?

The question from Deputy Cotter relates specifically to what are termed "intensive units of production" and not generally. I should like to tell the Deputy that there is no basis for his statement generally even if it does not relate to this question.

That is nonsense.

In respect of split holdings either in horticulture or other intensive enterprises of production we are making very significant progress with the Commission and I hope it will work out to the advantage of the producers concerned.

Would the Minister agree that it is important that this would be proceeded with all possible haste because in counties such as Cavan and Monaghan where there are fairly extensive units of both poultry and mushrooms on reasonably small holdings there should be an incentive for two to remain on the holding? Up to now that was not so, with the result that only one could qualify and only one man could remain on the holding. It is very important that this would be brought in as quickly as possible.

I agree with the Deputy. Because it is my view that for intensive production of any nature — not just horticulture but poultry, pig production or whatever — the same relaxation should occur on the labour unit requirement, I have advanced those discussions with the Commission and I hope that I will soon be able to tell the Deputy and others that we have achieved the result he suggests.