asked the Minister for Agriculture if, in view of the fact that the State pays three quarters of the cost of the rescue package for farmers in severe financial difficulties, he is satisfied with the present administration of the scheme whereby the banks determine which farmers receive assistance; if he considers it appropriate that at a time of cutbacks in other areas, farmers with net assets of up to £200,000 should receive assistance from the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Farmers' Rescue Package.
3.
The arrangement whereby the eligibility of applicants for this scheme is assessed by the lending institutions is expeditious and cost effective. This assessment is carried out in accordance with detailed conditions and criteria drawn up in association with my Department. The administration of the scheme by the lending institutions is subject to audit and no State contribution is payable in respect of cases improperly admitted to the scheme. I am satisfied that these arrangements ensure that the benefits of the scheme are applied only to genuine cases of farmers in severe financial difficulty and that the cost to the Exchequer is kept to a minimum.
In view of the large amounts of capital tied up in individual farm units, the maximum net assets limitation of £200,000 is not excessive. As I indicated in reply to a recent question by the Deputy, a sample survey carried out by my Department revealed that only 20 per cent of the participants sampled had net assets between £150,000 and £200,000.
Under the recently announced extension for one year for participants who need the extension to become viable, the share of the cost to be borne by the Exchequer will be reduced to 60 per cent.
I am sure the Minister will agree that, while he gave those figures in a previous question, he said that he was unable to give figures in relation to the 35 per cent about whom we are speaking, who could be made viable but who would need further assistance in order to achieve this. The Minister will recall that he said that 50 per cent would be all right, that 15 per cent would not be be made viable and that 35 per cent could be made viable. The Minister was unable to give me any figures in relation to the 35 per cent. How can anybody with net assets of £200,000 be in financial difficulties? It is impossible to understand how a person with those assets could be in financial difficulties. Does the Minister agree that the farmers who are allegedly in financial difficulties are in that position——
The Deputy is making a speech.
Does the Minister agree that the banks and the farmers themselves are responsible for these financial difficulties?
The Deputy is still making a speech.
Can the Minister explain why the taxpayer should now be paying for this instead of the banks or the farmers?
Is the Deputy advocating State farms?
The Minister should not ask a question of the Deputy.
I am asking the Minister why taxpayers must pay for financial difficulties——
The fact that a person has £200,000 in net assets does not exclude him from being in financial difficulties. It is a common occurrence because of the depression in farming during the late seventies and early eighties. If we can bring them back to viability by a rescue package——
They have management difficulties, not financial difficulties.
——we will do so. We have been doing that for the past three years and the Government have decided to continue it for another year. That move is to be applauded rather than denigrated.
How much has been spent so far on this? What is the estimate of expenditure for the coming year?
The expenditure so far is estimated to have been £30 million of which the Exchequer has borne about £22.5 million. It is being done in a very deserving cause.
There are more deserving causes.
Has the Deputy any idea of how we can get some soft money?