asked the Minister for Agriculture (i) the attitude of the EEC authorities to the suspension of the farm modernisation scheme; (ii) if EEC permission was sought for the suspension of the scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Farm Modernisation Scheme.
12.
The EEC Commission has not communicated to me its position on the modifications to the farm modernisation scheme introduced earlier this year. The modifications were notified to the Commission and a derogation was sought from the requirements of Council directive 72/159/EEC.
Can the Minister tell us on what date these modifications were submitted for derogation to the EEC authorities?
A communiqué was sent to the director general in charge of agriculture in the EEC on the morning after the budget, 10 February.
Can the Minister assure the House that no application was made to the EEC authorities until after the budget and therefore it was a Government decision to suspend these schemes? The money that would be available from the EEC for the Exchequer and agricultural productivity will be completely lost to agriculture. No consultation was held with the EEC authorities prior to this decision being made.
That speech would be more suitable on the Estimate debates.
Seeing that no reply did come with regard to Directive 72/159/EEC, is the Minister sure that there is no objection to what has happened? Would he interpret no reply as indicating disapproval?
Contrary to what has been said in the press about this item, following our communiqué to Brussels on the morning after the budget I understand that on 31 May some points were raised for clarification by Brussels. So far as the information I have to date about this is concerned I can tell the Deputy that the matter has not been taken any further by anybody.
Is the Minister sure that there is not disapproval? Could he state what prompted the inquiry for further clarification? Would that not be an indication to him that the Commission did not like what was done?
If the Commission did not like what was done they should have said so.
Is the Minister aware that 4,644 farmers are very disappointed with what he did because they will be deprived of their grants?
As I have said a number of times in the past two weeks there will not be anything like 4,600 farmers without grants.
Is the Minister contradicting his own figures?
Order. Will the Deputy not get excited or annoyed and we will get on all right.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister attended the recent negotiations on the agricultural prices in Brussels and was there for some days. Could he tell us if during that period he had any discussions with any of the EEC authorities and with the director general vis-á-vis the suspension of the scheme? What is the position in Brussels? Are Brussels fully aware that the scheme has been suspended?
As I have said they were told in the communiqué on 10 February last, so, in answer to the Deputy's question, they know. The visit I paid to Luxembourg on the occasion of the price fixing was not associated at all with that particular grant.
It has not sunk in yet.
Of course it has. As the House is aware I have mentioned on numerous occasions that it is the intention of my Department to reintroduce the farm modernisation grants in the late autumn.
Does that mean that the people who are caught and about whom I spoke already will be paid their grants? That is very important.
If they have written approval for the jobs they are going to do they will get them.
Even if written approval comes next November?
If they have not the jobs started——
(Interruptions.)
Will the Minister restate what he said a while ago that he will not pay the grants unless the work is started.
We cannot have repetition.
Could the Minister tell the House what specific points of clarification did Brussels seek in their communication of 31 May regarding this scheme?
Although the brief does not say so, I understand that they wanted the actual reasons for the particular suspension.
This particular topic has been debated for a long time.
The Minister said that if a number of visits had taken place to the farm by the farm development service when the grants were needed they would sympathetically look at that. Obviously he has gone back on what he has started because he is now stating the grants must have approval. On a point of clarification, will the Minister tell the House what he is going to do about the people who have commenced work?
Last week the Minister and I said that if there was hardship we would look sympathetically at certain cases because of the problems involved. Other than that, as I have said on numerous occasions, it has been part and parcel of the Department's ruling during the years that if a person is to get a grant under the farm modernisation scheme he must have written approval from the farm development service.
I am moving to the next question.
We must not forget that these farmers have been doing the work on the advice of the ACOT people.
The backbenchers in the Minister's party are as annoyed about the matter as we are. It is a disgrace.
As the person who put down the question, may I ask a final supplementary?
I have a certain discretion in the matter. I have been very generous in the time given to this question. I am calling Question No. 13.