asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if the annual growth rate of 1¾ per cent projected in the Third Programme for Economic and Social Development has been attained; and what overall growth he now envisages for the period 1969-72.
43.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Third Programme for Economic and Social Development.
42.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the agricultural commodities which, to date, have not been produced up to the level envisaged in the Third Programme for Economic and Social Development.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 42 and 43 together.
The figure of 1¾ per cent referred to in Question No. 42 is the average annual equivalent of the growth in gross agricultural product aimed at over the full period of the Third Programme 1969-1972. This does not mean that progress was envisaged as a series of regular, uniform steps. Year-to-year fluctuations must be expected in view of the effects on production of such factors as conditions on export markets for agricultural produce, the length of the production cycle and the influence of weather.
The base year for these projections was 1968=100. Nineteen hundred and sixty-eight was a year of quite exceptional growth and the gross agricultural product rose by a remarkable 6 per cent—over three times the annual rate projected in the Third Programme. It is not surprising that, although 1969 was quite a good agricultural year, the average growth rate envisaged in the Third Programme was not attained in view of the exceptionally high base year that was used in the Programme. A further factor was the considerable increase in the volume of materials purchased by farmers in that year, which has the effect of reducing the rate of growth of the gross agricultural product. The position in 1970 was better but detailed figures are not yet available.
The implications for economic policy of the pattern of growth in the period 1969-70 are being considered as part of the current review of the Third Programme which will be published before the Budget.
The Third Programme did not set out specific targets for individual agricultural commodities.
Does the Minister accept that 1970 will be up to 1¾ per cent higher than 1969 and also does he not consider that a plan which does not give some measuring stick against which you can gauge the progress of particular commodities is not really of any great use because there is no way of knowing whether you are really progressing in relation to specific commodities? As agricultural production is made up of specific commodities it is essential that you should have targets for them as well.
With regard to the first part of the Deputy's supplementary, I am not yet able to say, as my original reply states, what the out-turn for 1970 will be.
Has the Minister a rough idea?
The Deputy will be aware that there will be certain adverse factors such as the particularly dry summer that affected milk production.
We can hardly hear the Minister.
There is something wrong with the amplification.
Does the Minister still expect to have an overall growth rate of 7 per cent by the end of the Third Programme?
As my reply states, it was not at any time envisaged that these would be in regular annual steps.
Does the Minister expect to get the overall 7 per cent over the whole period?
I am not yet in a position to say that.
The Minister does not know whether the programme is valid. He is going back on the Third Programme.
We have not yet completed the assessment of the out-turn for 1970.