asked the Minister for Agriculture the action he proposes to take to ensure that there will be a better take-up in future of funds approved under the EEC FEOGA guidance section.
18.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - EEC FEOGA Funds.
17.
Mr. Leonard
Mr. Leonard
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware of the statement in the March—April 1983 EEC Community Report which stated that not all funds for Ireland were claimed from FEOGA, Guidance Section; and the action he proposes to take to remedy this.
19.
Mr. Leonard
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will state, in view of our poor record in taking up EEC FEOGA grants over the last number of years, especially in the case of the food processing industry, the steps he proposes to take to remedy the situation.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 to 19, inclusive, together. I am assuming that the questions and the article mentioned by the Deputy refer to the FEOGA scheme of grants for projects relating to the processing and marketing of agricultural products under Regulations 17/64 and 355/77. The position is that more than enough applications are received annually to absorb the funds allocated for Irish projects under these regulations.
The funds are allocated to individual firms to carry out investment projects and it is a matter for the firm concerned to claim the money when the work has been completed. It is the practice to encourage firms to submit their claims as rapidly as possible but in many cases investment projects take a number of years to complete. The take-up of funds has, in fact, improved significantly in the last couple of years.
Mr. Leonard
Is the Minister aware that Commissioner Burke said a short time ago that of the 1978 allocation, in 1981 only 34 per cent had been taken up as against 89 per cent for Luxembourg, 87 per cent for the Netherlands and 83.5 per cent for the Federal Republic of Germany? Approvals in 1979 which should now be taken up were down to 19.8 per cent as against 75 per cent for Belgium and France and 96 per cent for Luxembourg. When I sought information regarding the industries which did not take up their allocations, thus denying them to other industries who were unsuccessful, I was unable to obtain that information.
I agree that up to 1980 they were quite slow; but the IDA, who process claims, encourage firms to carry out projects as quickly as possible. Then they claim their grants from Brussels. Our take-up figures under the scheme were fairly low until 1980. It has improved steadily since then with over £8.7 million being claimed in 1982. Better take-up figures are expected in 1983. Basically we take that much longer than other member states to carry out our projects. No doubt the high rate of inflation coupled with high borrowings mean that projects take longer than originally envisaged.
Mr. Leonard
Would the Minister not agree that it is a dog-in-the-manger attitude on the part of firms to fail to take up the grant thereby denying other manufacturing industries who are unsuccessful in their applications for FEOGA aid?
When the Deputy gets to the dog-in-the-manger stage, he is being argumentative.
Mr. Leonard
It is not my intention to be argumentative, but would the Minister not agree that the IDA are sometimes very slow in grant-aiding food processing industries who subsequently turn out to be very successful? One of the conditions is that an industry must qualify first for IDA aid.
I would agree that if somebody requests FEOGA aid but then as a result of carelessness or for some other reason fails to proceed with the project he is acting in a dog-in-the-manger way. But, as I have pointed out, much of the delay is not due entirely to the person looking for the grant because it often happens that he is not in a position to finance the completion of the project.
I will allow a final supplementary from Deputy Walsh.
Has the Minister plans to strengthen the food section of the IDA in respect of grant-aiding purposes for food processing? We seem to be capitulating totally in this matter. In order to qualify for aid an industry must first engage in enormous amounts of paperwork. One must go first to the IIRS, to An Foras Taluntais and to various other agencies. I am asking the Minister to consider the possibility of putting a food expert into the regional offices of the IDA so that somebody in the authority would be aware of the situation instead of the present situation in which we are capitulating in the face of £800 million worth of food imports.
There will be agricultural people on the IDA authority.
I am glad to here that.
As you are aware I put forward a Private Notice Question for your consideration but I understand that you have ruled it out of order.
I considered the advice which I had received in relation to the Deputy's Private Notice Question with a view to deciding whether it met the criteria for a Private Notice Question with particular reference to urgency. I had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it did not meet the required criteria and, consequently, I ruled it out of order.
I know you will not allow me to enter into debate with you on this issue but as someone who reads all the national newspapers you will appreciate——
I will not tolerate a speech on a matter that has been ruled out of order.
Would you not regard it as a matter of major public importance?
Not only is the Deputy questioning the Chair's ruling but he is availing of this performance to make a speech on a matter that I have ruled out of order. If the Deputy thinks for a while he will conclude that he is being totally disorderly.
I propose that on the Adjournment of the Dáil——
Is the Deputy seeking to raise the matter on the Adjournment?
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the question of the jobbery that is operated by the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and in the Department of Defence.
The Deputy is out of order and must resume his seat. He may not elaborate on a matter that has been ruled out of order. He must not turn the House into a farce.
I have endeavoured to raise an urgent national issue.
I am ruling the Deputy out of order and asking him to resume his seat. I will not tolerate his attitude. If he refuses to resume his seat I shall ask him to leave the House.
Surely I am entitled to finish a question as to whether I might be allowed to raise a matter on the Adjournment. In the House yesterday——
The Chair is not prepared to listen to the Deputy talk of something that happened here yesterday.
The Chair is aware of the matter I am trying to raise.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy if he is asking to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Favourably, I hope.
The remaining questions will appear on the Order Paper for Tuesday next, 14 June 1983.