asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will give an estimate of the loss in increased output of produce as a result of the suspension of the farm modernisation scheme.
11.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Farm Modernisation Scheme.
10.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will quantify the loss in agricultural production because of the suspension of the modernisation scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 11 together. It is not expected that the modifications to the farm modernisation scheme announced in the budget will have any significant effect on agricultural production in 1983.
It is my intention to introduce a revised system of grant aid at the earliest possible date which will concentrate scarce resources on the most essential forms of investment thus ensuring the greatest possible increase in productivity.
Am I to take it that there is no mechanism in the Department to monitor the cost-benefit of the money spent on the farm modernisation scheme? The suspension of the scheme has meant the cessation of the development work which was so necessary. Our development is so far behind that of our competitors that we will need to spend money over many years to build up our agricultural infrastructure.
Would the Deputy himself recognise that as a question?
Is the Minister telling us that there is no mechanism in the Department to monitor the cost-benefit of expenditure under the farm modernisation scheme?
No such estimation has been given to me but I will ask if there have been any calculations along the lines requested by the Deputy.
Arising from the reply obviously prepared by a Department official, is the Minister serious in telling us that there is no loss in agricultural production because of the suspension of the farm modernisation scheme? By implication he is telling us that the money spent on the scheme over the years was useless. Will he go back to his officials and ask them to take this matter seriously and not to try to fool us?
Will the Minister take into consideration a small farmer who might lose a grant of about £1,000 which he would have re-invested in fertilisers and so on? It is a direct loss to this nation and the families concerned.
I said that there will not be any significant loss in agricultural production in 1983. I would not be so naive as to say it will not affect production to some degree in future years. We cut the Estimate and we will have to suffer some consequences as a result. I will not tell lies about this. We set out to save £10.5 million as part of our budget strategy and of course there will be some loss in output in years to come as a result.
Agriculture is being killed.
There were cuts in all sectors.
The Chair feels he should say that there seems to be an increase in the undesirable practice of attacking officials who are not here. Even though they are not named, it is still an undesirable practice. Whatever the Minister says in the House is his responsibility and he is answerable for it, not unnamed officials who should not be attacked. It should not be suggested that they are trying to mislead anybody. The Minister must take responsibility.
I would hate to think that the Minister was responsible for that reply.
I take responsibility for anything I say in the House.
Is the Minister aware that many farmers who are in financial difficulty had made projections based on grants being available to them? Those projections will not now be viable.
I appreciate that people will have financial difficulties because they had taken into account grants which will not now be available. We hope that on the re-introduction of the grants we will be able to help those people in some manner.
12.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the total grant-aid cash loss to the 4,644 applicants who became disqualified due to the suspension of the farm modernisation scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The saving to the Exchequer resulting from withholding grant-aid in cases where approval had not issued by 9 February 1983 is estimated at £5.5 million.
Does the Minister feel it is right to penalise people who were trying to improve their holdings by carrying out the instructions of the advisory service? The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture. Deputy Connaughton, said last week that grants for houses were abolished overnight, but that is not true because people were given a couple of months to apply. Would the Minister agree that the suspension of these grants is causing grave hardship to most of the 4,644 farmers who have been disqualified, some of whom are facing eviction? For the sake of £5.5 million, would the Minister not reconsider the whole matter and pay the grants? There will be very little development during the winter months. It is a national scandal that the Minister for Finance should put the Minister for Agriculture in that position.
I waited to see if Deputy Byrne would stop if I did not point out that he was making a long speech which is not in order.
It is a very important industry.
Nobody is disputing it.
I would not like to pass the buck to the Minister for Finance because I had a considerable amount to do with deciding what would be cut. I realise that, unfortunately, people have suffered financial loss and it will cause a certain degree of hardship but it has been decided and I will not retract at this stage. We will bring back the grant in a modified form in the autumn.
The Minister has admitted that there has been a saving to the Exchequer of £5.5 million, which is a loss to agriculture. It is also a saving to the EEC. Has the Minister any proposals for next year to put before the EEC to try to recoup the amount of money saved to them this year?
The payment of money from the EEC is contingent on our putting up 50 per cent and if we have not put up our contribution from the national Exchequer it is foolish to think that the EEC will put it up.