asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if, in regard to recent EEC directive No. 159 on farm modernisation, he is aware of the uneasiness of the farmers in the transitional group as to their future; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Farm Modernisation Scheme.
43.
The farm modernisation scheme, which is designed to give effect to the EEC Directive 159/72, provides for generous levels of aid to farmers in the transitional group. These aids, which will continue to operate at least until 1977, will enable many transitional farmers to build up their resources and to attain the status of development farmers. There is no reason to assume that appropriate measures of assistance for such farmers will not be continued after 1977. Large numbers of them will, of course, also qualify for special aids under the scheme for mountain and less-favoured areas which will be introduced in due course to give effect to the EEC directive relating to such areas.
The reason I am seeking a debate on this matter is that experts, writing in a well-known journal in regard to this directive, have stated that the subvention being given to transitional farmers is merely for the purpose of keeping them at their present rate of production. If that is so, how can any of those farmers hope to become developing farmers? I am entitled to three supplementaries on my question and I would ask the Chair to be kind enough to allow me avail of the opportunity of asking them.
The Chair has been very kind to the Deputy but he must appreciate that supplementary questions must be brief and relevant.
I am asking very important questions.
I have not seen any report such as that described by the Deputy in any journal or public paper.
I cannot quote here at Question Time but I assure the Minister that the report appeared in a very important journal. This subvention does not apply to farmers who are more than 55 years years of age but for those who are less than that age the subvention is to apply for a period of five years so as to keep them at their present rate of production. Therefore, about 70 per cent of the farmers of Ireland would be put out of business.
The Deputy may not continue along those lines.
The Deputy is confusing two schemes—that referred to in Directive 159 and the retirement scheme.
Are we to have a debate on this matter?
I hope the Deputy appreciates that I have given him every latitude.
I am not receiving replies.
The Chair has no control over replies. The Deputy may raise the matter on another occasion.
I can give the Deputy the level of the grants.
Are we to have a debate here on the issue?
Not at Question Time.
Can the Minister tell us what grants under the farm modernisation scheme would be available to the transitional farmers?
The grant for a transitional farmer in respect of land improvement is a 50 per cent capital grant or 9 per cent subsidy during a period of 15 years. On fixed assets there is a 30 per cent capital grant or 5 per cent interest during a 15-year period and for keeping accounts there is a grant of £210 for a 4-year period.
I assume that what are meant by fixed assets here are new buildings.
Yes.
Therefore, am I correct in assuming that the only grants available to transitional farmers of which I understand there are many thousands will be for land reclamation and new buildings?
What else has the Deputy in mind?
Is the Minister satisfied that these farmers will benefit or will better themselves in any way as a result of being in this very limited category for grants?
This is all that has ever been available.
The small farmer has been sold down the river.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies are not helping the Chair.
Would it be correct to say that in so far as these grants are concerned 65 per cent of the farming community will not benefit at all?
The Deputy is entirely wrong in what he is saying. This is another effort to paint a completely wrong picture of the situation. Anyone listening to the Deputies opposite would think that their party made no effort to put this country into the EEC.
We were united on the issue but the Labour Party members of the Government were against membership.
(Interruptions.)
I am calling Question No. 44.
44.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the estimated cost to the Exchequer of the farm modernisation scheme for 1974.
Grant expenditure on farm buildings, land reclamation and other farm investment schemes which are now embodied in the farm modernisation scheme has been running at about £12 million annually. The cost to the Exchequer of discharging existing commitments under the individual grant schemes and new commitments under the farm modernisation scheme is expected to be of much the same order of magnitude in 1974.
Can the Minister tell us how much this scheme would cost if the transitional farmers of which there are 150,000 would be eligible for all the aids for which the other categories qualified?
I could not give that answer because we would not know how many farmers would apply for the grants.
What average percentage increase would the Minister consider might be necessary to finance this scheme if the 150,000 transitional farmers were eligible to avail of it?
That is a separate question.
Is it the opinion of the Deputy that I fixed these grants?
I asked a straight question. The Minister is displaying his ignorance. He has sold out the small farmers.
What percentage of the total sum available will be made up from home sources and what percentage will be grant-aided from EEC funds?
Approximately 25 per cent will come from the EEC.
Therefore, we are putting up 75 per cent of the cost. In those circumstances should we not be using their money so as to benefit the small farmers rather than to take dictation from Brussels?
I did not negotiate the terms of the treaty of accession.
If we are paying 75 per cent of the cost we should have a say in how the money is spent.
45.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries when full detailed information with regard to the new farm modernisation scheme, designed to implement the EEC directive on the modernisation of farms, will be available.
Detailed information about the farm modernisation scheme is contained in an explanatory leaflet drawn up for the guidance of farmers which is available from the offices of county committees of agriculture and from the local and headquarter offices of my Department.
Will the Minister arrange to have those leaflets made available at the local co-operative stores?
I am sure that could be arranged.
Can the Minister say when, under this scheme, payments will be made to the participants?
Payments will be made to participants in the same way as they have always been made in respect of any grant-aided scheme.
If large amounts of money are involved, who will pay the interest charges where delays in payments are experienced? While I am on my feet I may as well air a few other supplementaries.
It is not appropriate to ask questions in omnibus form.
The Deputy's question is hypothetical. He is assuming that there will be long delays in payment and that, therefore, there will be interest charges involved.
Can the Minister give us an assurance that if there are substantial interest charges, he would consider helping those people who would have to bear the burden of any such charges?
That is a separate question.
I do not recall any such assurance being given by the Fianna Fáil regime.
The Minister is in Government and I am asking for an assurance from him on this matter.
I have given the Deputy every latitude on most of his questions but he seems to abuse this privilege all the time.
It is not my intention to do that. Can the Minister enlighten us as to what training is necessary or what training courses, if any, have been given to the CAO's or their staffs in the different counties in order to get this scheme off the ground?
Are these not separate questions?
It is a separate question. However, I would inform the Deputy that no such training is needed because the CAO's and their staffs have had all the training they need in this regard as they have been operating similar schemes.
I should hate to see another FEOGA type disaster.
46.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if the terms under which the farm modernisation scheme will operate have been agreed upon with the agricultural instructors' association; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
47.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the number of additional agricultural instructors that will be required to carry out the farm modernisation scheme.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 46 and 47 together.
Firstly, I should point out that instructors are employed by committees of agriculture and that I have written to each Chairman to ask his committee to operate the farm modernisation scheme.
The scheme has been the subject of discussions with the Irish Agricultural Advisers' Organisation and various other bodies concerned with its operation. The IAAO have expressed dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the operational arrangements, particularly the requirement that classification of applicants and the farm development plans drawn up for them, must have the approval of my Department. Since the bulk of the expenditure under the scheme falls on the Exchequer and since responsibility rests with my Department, this arrangement is the only acceptable one.
It is not possible to say at this stage to what extent the existing corps of instructors will be able to cope with the work arising under the scheme or what numbers of extra staff may ultimately be required. The matter will be kept under review.
The Minister already notified the various committees of agriculture that the scheme should be in operation on 1st February. Would he please state why arrangements were not made with the agricultural instructors' association long before now so that the scheme could be put into operation on the date fixed?
Is the Deputy a member of a county committee of agriculture?
Yes, and I can show the Minister the notice I received.
I would ask the Deputy to use his influence where it should be used.
That is a very smart reply from the Minister. I have used my influence but my county committee have told me they have no say in the matter, that it was the Department who would settle with the instructors' association. Can the Minister state what is the present position? Are we near an agreement?
No.
The Minister should have done something long before now.
We did it in time.
The Deputy is raising a different matter now.