Vol. 253 No. 6
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will account for the fact that the amount provided in the 1971-72 Estimates for marketing support of beef, mutton and lamb exports is £1,350,000 less than the £3,900,000 actually expended in 1970-71.
33.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will account for the fact that the amount provided in the 1971-72 Estimates for miscellaneous equipment, etc., under subhead D.12 is £25,095 less than that actually expended last year, in view of the fact that the 1970-71 estimate of £90,105 proved to be insufficient to the extent of £23,000.
34.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will account for the fact that the amount provided in the 1971-72 Estimates under subhead C.4 for General Disease Control and Eradication is £22,000 less than that actually expended last year, in view of the fact that the 1970-71 estimate of £43,005 proved to be insufficient to the extent of £33,000.
35.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries why the amount provided in the 1971-72 Estimates under subhead B.11 for Agricultural Organisations, etc. (including grants-in-aid) is £3,000 less than the amount expended in 1969-70.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 31 to 35 together.
These matters are appropriate for debate on the Estimate for my Department and I shall deal with the points raised when the Estimate comes before the House.
Would the Minister not agree that, since the Estimate for Agriculture was taken recently, it will be some time before the next Estimate for Agriculture comes before the House? Therefore would he not consider indicating what services that were provided last year are not being provided this year in order to allow for the reductions that have taken place under the headings mentioned?
There is no substance or basis for the inferences the Deputy appears to be making. It is for the House to order its business. From now on we shall be dealing with financial business and the Estimate for Agriculture will be coming before the House. The Deputy can then go into all these matters in as much detail as he wishes and that will be the appropriate time to do so.
In view of the——
Question No. 36.
——unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment unless I am allowed to ask one or two supplementaries.
The Deputy may, but he may make no threats as to what he will do if he is not allowed supplementaries.
The Minister took the five questions together but gave no answer.
That is not a matter for the Chair.
May I draw your attention to the fact, Sir, that I sought your permission to deal with these questions together and that I got such permission.
This is only a nominal matter. The fact is that the Minister simply threw out all the questions.
He did not answer them at all. Would the Minister indicate, at least in relation to Question No. 32, which refers to a matter on which I particularly wanted information, how there could be a reduction of £1.3 million in the amount provided under the Estimate while, at the same time, his colleague announced in the Budget statement that there will be an increase of £1.4 million in the amount expended by the Exchequer in relation to beef, mutton and lamb marketing support?
The Estimates do not take account of increases arising out of the new level of supports applicable from 29th of March.
Another change within a week.
I said applicable from 29th March.
Order.
Is it not the case that those increases were announced prior to the publication of the Book of Estimates and that the Book could have been adjusted to include those increases?
Question No. 36.
I do not think this would have been possible because of the advanced state of publication at that time.
