Vol. 344 No. 3
asked the Minister for Agriculture in view of the fact that farm development has almost ceased creating much unemployment in drainage and building firms, if he will immediately reintroduce the farm modernisation scheme in its entirety; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
14.
andMr. Kitt asked the Minister for Agriculture if the farm modernisation scheme will be restored immediately; and when applications will be accepted for development schemes.
15.
andMr. H. Byrne asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will, in view of the Taoiseach's recent statement in Wexford on the present state of the agricultural industry, reintroduce the farm modernisation scheme immediately and create an environment in farming where confidence will be restored and where the nations' biggest industry can play its fullest role in the economy and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, together.
While grant aid for farm buildings and fixed equipment has been suspended pending a review of the farm modernisation scheme there has been no change in the availability of grant aid for land improvement works. Grants continue to be available for land improvement under the farm modernisation scheme and, in the western region, under the western drainage scheme and the programme for western development. The latter programme also provides grant aid for farm buildings and fixed equipment for certain farmers in the west who undertake farm improvement plans oriented towards cattle and sheep production.
It is my intention to introduce a revised system of grant aid under the farm modernisation scheme at the earliest possible date, probably in the late autumn.
As indicated by the Taoiseach in his recent statement, the aim of the revised scheme will be to ensure that the returns from investments undertaken in the future are such as to justify the outlay.
An announcement regarding the acceptance of applications will be made in due course.
(Limerick West): Is the Minister aware that even if the farm modernisation scheme is reintroduced the emphasis will be on the bigger farmer and on farms with the greatest production? In other words, it will be geared to production.
That is not correct. I did not state that nor is the intention such. The question——
(Limerick West): I am asking about the reply.
I am giving the reply. The scheme will not be loaded in favour of bigger farmers any more than it ever was.
(Limerick West): Will the Minister of State repeat just what he said?
There is no way that the grants in question will be orientated towards the bigger farmer as opposed to the smaller farmer.
Is the Minister suggesting that moneys spent by farmers under the farm modernisation scheme have been mis-spent? That is the implication of his answer. Would he agree that the Government are discriminating against at least 40 per cent of farmers who have not as yet applied under the farm modernisation scheme?
The total number of farmers eligible under the farm modernisation scheme since its inception in the early seventies has been disappointing because of the criteria attached to the scheme. I have always believed that the criteria for entry to the scheme have not been helpful. Money spent under the scheme has been well spent but the Deputy is aware that all schemes must be reviewed with a view to spending in the best way with the scarce resources available.
If and when the farm modernisation scheme is restored, will the red tape be removed from the administration and, if so, how will this be done?
All aspects of this scheme are being examined and if there is an easier and more streamlined way of administering it we would hope to implement it at the end of the year.
In view of the disastrous results of the abrupt termination of this scheme, does the Minister intend to show any sympathy for individual farmers who went ahead with work in good faith, having received verbal approval under the scheme from farm development officers and having applied to the local office prior to 9 February?
Unless prior written approval was given on or before 9 February 1983 grant aid will not be available.
Would the Minister agree that his intention to reintroduce the scheme in November is another tactic to slow down the whole machinery of development? He will agree that very little building can take place during the winter months. Would he also agree that our efforts are being weakened in Brussels because of the attitude at home towards farm development.
An in-depth review of all matters relating to the farm modernisation scheme is a major undertaking and it cannot be done more quickly. It is a considerable task and it will certainly be October or November before it is finalised.
(Limerick West): Is the Minister aware that the review of the scheme could take place without the suspension of that scheme? Is he aware that many farmers are in severe financial difficulty due to the sudden suspension of the scheme because they had buildings under construction which had to be completed and they now find themselves without any grants? Is he prepared to assist them?
Certain cutbacks had to be effected by all Government Departments.
(Limerick West): So it was a cutback. I thought it was a review.
This measure achieved a saving of £10.3 million in the Department of Agriculture. That is why the scheme was terminated or suspended. It is proposed to introduce the new scheme in the autumn. I would have preferred the farm modernisation scheme to have been left as it was until the new scheme was introduced but it was a budgetary decision and nothing else could have been done.
I am calling Deputy Hugh Byrne and then Deputy Joe McCartin before we pass on to the next question.
There were four questions taken together.
That is a bit of an exaggeration. There were three taken together.
Would the Minister accept that reviewing the scheme while it is abolished is absolutely stupid because it is like taking a football team off the field to decide whether to put on a substitute? Several small building firms have gone to the wall because no development is taking place on farms. Would the Minister agree that drainage has slowed down, irrespective of what he said in his reply?
The Deputy seems to have answered his own question in relation to drainage by stating that it has slowed down.
Can the Minister confirm that?
No.
The Minister should not be interrupted when answering.
He is not answering.
I have no intention of agreeing with everything the Deputy has to say. On the figures available to me, there is a great deal of drainage going on.
It has slowed down.
Drainage is well ahead of target under the five-year programme.
What about farm building?
Regarding the Deputy's point about taking the team off the field——
The sooner the better they are taken off the field.
——it is important to have to have an in-depth look at the scheme and if in the months before the introduction of the scheme a better way can be devised of channelling money to farmers it will be a blessing in disguise. It is important to have a thorough review of the scheme.
What about buildings?
Would the Minister agree that the costs of administering the building and drainage schemes are extremely high? Will the study of the farm modernisation scheme include a cost-benefit analysis of what has been achieved by these investments, in view of the fact that we did not have any increase in agriculture production arising from either land drainage or farm buildings investment during the past six or seven years or, as some would say, ten years?
Of course there is a review of the various costs of the scheme and it will be proved that great efforts have been made to reduce costs, particularly during the past three or four years.
In view of the Taoiseach's statement two weeks ago and his late conversion regarding the state of Irish farming, will the Minister stand up and fight on behalf of those people? They have been sold out by the Government. Fianna Fáil never sold out the farmers to the workers. It is a national scandal, and all this talk by the Minister and his colleagues is a lot of waffle.
The Deputy is out of order. I am moving on to the next question.
What about the Taoiseach's statement last week? I would like to get an answer to that question.
I would like the Deputy to resume his seat.
We are getting only a lot of waffle from the Minister and his colleagues. I insist on getting a reply to my question.
Will the Minister answer Question No. 16?
I insist on an answer.
16.
(Limerick West) and Mr. Kirk asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will, in view of the potential for increased pig fattening capacity, consider restoring immediately the scheme of grants under the farm modernisation scheme for pig houses.
It is my intention to introduce a revised system of grant-aid under the farm modernisation scheme later in the year, probably in late autumn, with the emphasis on basic livestock housing. I do not propose to introduce aid for pig housing in advance of the introduction of the revised scheme.
(Limerick West): Can the Minister give an assurance that aid will be available for pig housing under the reintroduced farm modernisation scheme?
I cannot say, but in so far as the in-depth survey is concerned we are looking at the question of pig housing.
Will the Minister be compelled to make grants available for pig housing under the EEC directive?
I am not aware of that. I will find out and be in contact with the Deputy about it.
In view of the budget speech and the fact that the Minister for Finance said he was taking £10.3 million out because of the suspension of the scheme, can the Minister say what has become of that fund? It was said at the time that the lime subsidy, etc., would be paid out of the Exchequer. It was stated that this had been done by agreement with the EEC. What has happened to that money?
It is the saving that has been effected that is important.
You are only codding the farmers.
The Minister made a statement that there would be a saving of £10.3 million. Does the Minister agree with me that he and the Department, and his colleagues in the Government, should investigate the whole position? Is is not a disgrace that the Government have treated the farmers in this way, particularly small farmers? What does the Minister mean by a saving?
It was saving to the State.
It was a sell-out of the farmers. The Minister was wrong when he spoke about a saving.
I saved the Exchequer £10 million.
17.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware of the fall off in demand for the ACOT advisory services; if he will accept that the recent imposition of charges in relation to visits in connection with the farm modernisation scheme was the cause of this fall off; and if he will now clear up the matter in the interest of agriculture.
It is to be expected that the suspension of grant aid for farm buildings and fixed assets would lead to some reduction in requests for visits by ACOT staff in connection with the farm modernisation scheme. I am satisfied, however, as a result of consultations with ACOT that there has been no fall off in demand for normal advisory visits.
The charge of £20 per visit applies only to farm visits by ACOT and farm development service staff in connection with the farm modernisation scheme. It does not apply to normal advisory visits by ACOT staff.
Does the Minister accept that a limit of 80 miles is imposed on ACOT advisers? They now spend three days per week in their offices when they should be out in the fields.
That is an entirely different question.
As the Deputy is aware, ACOT determine the ground work of their advisers. I accept that in many instances advisers are two, three or four days a week in some offices because of the vast amount of paperwork that has been involved in the scheme during the past few years. That is the position we found ourselves in and in my view that is not a correct position to be in.
I find it very difficult to accept what the Minister is saying. Before his Government came into office those people were spending four days a week out in the fields. This new situation has come to the notice of the Wexford County Committee of Agriculture. Will the Minister guarantee that the £20 charge will not be applied to visits other than those involved with the farm modernisation scheme?
I can readily give that assurance. The assurance is that as far as the £20 fee for farm visits are concerned it will occur only in connection with the farm modernisation scheme. There will be no charge whatsoever for visits outside the scheme and I have been at pains to say that up and down the country.
18.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he considers that two visits to a farm, in connection with land reclamation, is sufficient, particularly, in the light of the fact that up to February 1982 six visits were necessary; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
A minimum of two visits by farm development staff in connection with land reclamation work is required, the first visit to draw up a scheme of work and a final visit to confirm that the work has been completed to specification. In complex cases, more than one visit will be required in preparing a scheme. Further visits may be made at the request of the applicant at appropriate times during the progress of the work to ensure that it is being carried out to specification. It would not be necessary to make six visits in connection with an average scheme of work.
Does the Minister agree that prior to this Government coming into office six visits were necessary, for a very good reason? Does he also agree that it is foolish to suggest that the farm development adviser calls to have a look at the site and then calls out when the work is done and that in the meantime the drain would have been dug, the pipes would have been laid, the gravel would have been laid on top of the pipes and the trench back filled, and does he not think that all of those items of drainage should be seen, each in turn, and that if these are not seen the whole scheme of work, which is grant-aided, would be and could be practically useless?
It depends on where you put responsibility for a scheme. I would hope that there are very few farmers who would want a substandard scheme, irrespective of who was looking at it. Every farmer will know whether the job is being done right, and the Deputy is very well aware of it.
It is important that the land development officer would visit farms in a supervisory capacity. I am surprised at the Minister's answer.
19.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the average cost per scheme for official visits in 1982 under the farm modernisation scheme.
Approximately £130.
20.
(Limerick West) asked the Minister for Agriculture the total cost to farmers for visits under the farm modernisation scheme based on the number of visits in 1982.
The total cost to farmers in respect of visits by officials in connection with the farm modernisation scheme in 1983 is estimated at £1.2 million.
21.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the estimated cost per visit prior to the introduction of fees under the farm modernisation scheme.
Approximately £30.
Will the Minister agree that farmers will now pay entirely for the cost of each visit? Is it the intention of the Government, when they reintroduce the farm modernisation scheme, to make the farmer fund it? That is obvious from the Minister's answer.
I am not in a position to say that because those matters are under review.
Can the Minister guarantee he will make every effort to see that there will be some State aid for farmers when the scheme will be reintroduced?
Of course there will be State aid.
From the Minister's answer today there is no indication of that.
22.
(Limerick West), Mr. H. Byrne and Mr. Kitt asked the Minister for Agriculture the plans he has, if any, to introduce a development loan scheme at fixed interest rates for agriculture.
As the Deputies are aware, the farm modernisation scheme, through which most development aid to agriculture is channelled, is currently under review. One of the matters to be examined is whether aid should be provided through capital grants, interest subsidies or some mixture of the two. It is my intention to introduce a revised scheme at the earliest date, probably in the late autumn.
(Limerick West): The Minister has not answered the question. The question is whether the scheme sill be funded at fixed interest rates in respect of agriculture. Is the Minister aware that because long-term planning is necessary for agricultural development, long-term finance must be available at fixed interest rates? Can the Minister tell the House that this will be available?
As the Deputy is aware, the European Investment Bank made a loan available through the ACC at fixed interest rates. This has been fully committed by the ACC. In answer to the first part of the question, it is important that farmers should have access to loans at the lowest possible interest rates.
(Limerick West): I asked about fixed interest rates.
At a fixed interest rate. I accept that in the sense that, given the Exchequer problems, this will be looked at and one would hope that in the future some such scheme could be organised.
When the Minister is deciding on capital grants or interest subsidy grants, or both, will he take into consideration the fact that small buildings rather than large buildings should get preference if at all possible. We are all aware of the huge debts farmers incurred in putting up huge buildings. Many of our farmers today could do with a smaller type of building, or shelter belt, or whatever you like to call it.
I will take note of the Deputy's comments.
Would the Minister consider supporting the banks and the ACC in getting foreign currency loans similar to those which were obtained in 1980 under the productive investment scheme. This was a good type of loan for the development of agriculture.
As I said——
Answer the question.
——the loan which came through the European Investment Bank is fully committed by the ACC.
I want an answer to my question.
It is an on-going process to keep this monitored and to know the future financial needs of the farmers vis-á-vis this type of loan.
Farmers are being evicted because of high interest rates.
Ceist 23.
23.
asked the Minister for Agriculture (a) the total amount of money paid to Ireland from the EEC under the farm modernisation scheme for the year ended 31 December 1982; (b) the estimate of the loss of EEC moneys due to the suspension of the farm modernisation schemes for the year ending 31 December 1983; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Reimbursement from the EEC in respect of expenditure under the farm modernisation scheme in the year ended 31 December 1982 has not yet been received. It is estimated at £7.2 million.
The modifications to the scheme which were announced in the budget will result in a reduction of some £2.7 million in reimbursement from the EEC next year.
Is the Minister aware of the serious damage being done to the morale of the farming community because of the termination of that scheme, and the serious damage being done to the credibility of farm development officers whose word is no longer believed because they gave commitments to farmers that the work would qualify for grant aid? In view of this substantial loss of EEC moneys to the economy will he reconsider the position of that scheme?
As I have said, written approval has been necessary over the years. If the approval was not written on the day in question in February, a grant could be paid.
If the Minister is introducing these modernisation grants in November, what confidence can any farmer have in the Minister? If he wants to do a bookkeeping exercise next February or March, those farmers will be sold down the glen by the Minister, his Taoiseach and by the Minister for Finance. It is disgraceful.
Is it the intention of the Government to grant-aid people who had the work completed prior to 9 February and who were awaiting a visit from an officer of the farm development service?
I did not hear the first part of the question. Does it refer to the written approval?
Where approval was given orally by the farm development service, and where the work was carried out properly?
Unless the approval was given in writing it cannot be grant-aided.
Does the Minister agree that, since it is not the farmers' fault, it is the fault of his Department? Therefore the grant aid should be paid as promised because the farmer lived up to his part of the bargain.
That seems to be argument.
It is not a different question.
It was one of the conditions of the farm modernisation scheme over the years that a farmer had to have written approval from the FDS office in order to qualify for a grant.
24.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the amount of grant aid paid to farmers under the farm modernisation scheme for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 under the following headings:—(a) land reclamation; (b) farm buildings; and (c) purchase of equipment.
The information requested is set out in a tabular statement which I propose to circulate in the Official Report.
Following is the statement:
|
Year |
Grant aid paid under the Farm Modernisation Scheme |
|||
|
Land Improvement |
Farm Buildings & Fixed Assets |
Mobile Equipment |
Total |
|
|
£ |
£m |
£m |
£m |
|
|
1980 |
9.2 |
37.5 |
1.3 |
48.0 |
|
1981 |
8.9 |
30.5 |
1.0 |
40.4 |
|
1982 |
8.3 |
25.4 |
0.4 |
34.1 |
|
Totals |
26.4 |
93.4 |
2.7 |
122.5 |
Can the Minister give us the figures now?
I will circulate them.
Why not tell us now? What is the Minister hiding? He is embarrassed.
I have nothing to hide.
I cannot see why the Minister cannot give the House the answer to the question.
There is a longestablished practice in this House of Ministers answering questions in tabular statements. The Chair has no control over that, and he is sorry he cannot help.
I put down a similar question three weeks ago and I have had no reply yet. The Minister is shying away from it.
I must ask Deputies to allow Question Time to continue.
25.
asked the Minister for Agriculture having regard to the amount of grant aid paid to farmers for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 if he will give an estimate of the investment by farmers in farm buildings during those years for (a) materials and (b) labour.
The investment by farmers on farm buildings and fixed assets in 1980, 1981 and 1982 is estimated at £129 million, £102 million and £85 million respectively. Separate data for investment costs on materials and labour are not available.
26.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the number of farmers in the western counties who had applied to the farm development service for farm investments prior to budget day, which had not been approved on that day.
In the 11 counties wholly within the western region a total of 2,382 applications from farmers for grant aid under the farm modernisation scheme were refused as a result of the suspension of grant aid for farm buildings and fixed assets and the termination of grant aid for mobile equipment. Figures are not available for the parts of west Cork and west Limerick within the western region.
As the Minister has details for other parts of the country can he give me the exact number for County Donegal?
I am afraid I have not got the figure for Donegal. I will see that it is forwarded to the Deputy.
Would the Minister accept that 400 would be a reasonable number? Would he also accept that many people in Donegal commenced work prior to the receipt of written approval? Does he accept that many people in Donegal did this in the past in anticipation of receipt of this grant? Does the Minister also accept that he and his Government have done the farmers of Donegal a great injustice?
I do not think Donegal would have a figure of 400. I will have it checked and sent to the Deputy. As in most other counties, farmers have been in this category. Unless written approval from the FDS office was with the farmer he would not be entitled to grant aid.
What did the Minister mean when he said there was a substitute under the western drainage scheme and the programme for western development?
Some of the applicants in County Donegal and elsewhere in the west would be eligible under the western package for grants at 40 per cent in certain cases and 30 per cent on fixed assets, that is, under the western package programme for farm buildings, and so on.
In view of the size of the farms in Donegal, does the Minister accept that it is impossible to come within the guidelines of a 20 per cent increase in livestock over a number of years? What the Minister is telling us now is cosmetic. Does he accept that?
I do not accept that. No one is more interested in and involved with the wellbeing of small farmers than I am. This western package can be tailored to suit the needs of the west.
The Minister should pay them their grants if he is so concerned about them.
Deputy Byrne is being quite disorderly.
I regret interrupting at this stage but I put down a question and I would like to hear the answer.
So would the Chair. The Chair is doing its utmost to get order.
Is the Minister telling the House that money is available at present in the western drainage scheme fund for the purposes of the western drainage? We have been told differently.
I was speaking about the western package.
I am asking about the western drainage.
I was clear that the question was about the western package.
No.
As the Deputy is aware, the question is divided into two sections. Deputy Gallagher was speaking about the amount of grant aid possible for small farmers in County Donegal to get under the western package. I was not speaking about western drainage.
Would the Minister agree that where ACOT officers have been advising small farmers who have incurred expenditure as a result of that advice in the belief that the scheme was to continue, there is a moral obligation on his Department to pay grants in those cases? There are 200 of them in County Cavan alone. Would he say that when the scheme is revived — the sooner the better — those people will get special treatment?
In so far as the scheme itself is concerned, as I have pointed out here on a number of occasions in the last half hour, unless written approval was given, as was part of the scheme——
That is obscene and immoral.
——for the past 50 years——
This is a disgrace.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.
