asked the Minister for Agriculture the amount paid under the programme for western development to the 12 western counties for the years 1981 and 1982; and the expected expenditure for 1983.
15.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Western Development.
14.
Mr. Leonard
Mr. Leonard
asked the Minister for Agriculture the amount of money to date (a) contributed by the Government and (b) contributed by the EEC to the programme for western development.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 15 together.
Excluding aid for processing and marketing projects, grants paid under the Programme for Western Development in the years 1981 and 1982 totalled £6.3 million and £17.6 million respectively, of which £3.1 million and £8.7 million are the amounts recoupable from the EEC. For 1983, grants are estimated to be of the order of £19.6 million, with £9.6 million being re-imbursable by the EEC.
Funds allocated by the EEC Commission for projects related to processing and marketing amounted to £6.4 million in 1981 and £6.2 million in 1982. It is anticipated that some £5 million to £6 million will be allocated this year. The corresponding allocation from the Exchequer is about £2 million per year for the three years.
Mr. Leonard
Will the Minister not agree that we are not taking more than 50 per cent of the funds available under the western package? Will he tell us of his plans to ensure that in the next few years we will take up a larger grant than the £30 million which is the current figure?
As the Deputy is aware, this scheme ran into considerable trouble from its introduction because of a staff problem. This problem arose in the first year of the scheme and it is only since the spring of this year that we have been able to get parts of the scheme off the ground. This relates to grants for the orientation of production, the 40 per cent grants for buildings, which is available to farmers in the north-west. Parts of the scheme were very good. The subsidy for electricity and funding for group water schemes were very desirable but the calf to beef scheme did not take off and is unlikely to do so now.
Why?
For a very simple reason, namely, that it is not the type of breeding or rearing programme used by western farmers. They tend to go from the calf to the store and unfortunately for most of us they sell the store to other areas. If we were able to get people to buy calves and to rear them to slaughter we might be able to solve some of the problems referred to by Deputy Leonard but as of now that scheme has not been as satisfactory as it might have been. The land improvement part of the scheme has begun to work well in the past few months. The matter of roadways to farms has caused particular problems, as Deputy Wilson is aware. We have made several changes——
The Minister appears to be making a speech.
I have been asked in the past few weeks to explain the matter. In my view the restriction on entry for applicants at 55 years was prohibitive. I have changed that condition to enable the scheme to come into the same category as the farm modernisation scheme in order to allow more farmers to enter the scheme. I am also considering other areas as well.
Mr. Leonard
The Minister referred to the orientation of production. Last week there was considerable hassle in the House with regard to supplementary questions but it transpired from that that 30 applications were approved for 12 counties of which Monaghan had nine. Will the Minister not agree that that scheme was strangled by the Department not because of the method of production in the western counties but because of the qualification regarding the income of £3,500? The result was that practically nobody qualified to build the necessary sheds. The allocation in respect of processing is a farce. In the past five years under FEOGA aid we have been allocated a sum of more than £40 million for food processing but we have only taken up £13 million. During that time many people in the business were refused grant aid.
Part of the trouble with regard to the western package started the day the scheme was negotiated. We have to accept that certain mistakes were made then. I would have to agree with the Deputy that it is important to make the scheme more relevant and I am looking at this matter. With regard to the processing industry, if grants were available through a western package there would have to be a cost-benefit analysis on the project concerned. It would have to be a properly constituted project before we could get money from any source. One of the reasons some of the projects in the north-west were not grant-aided under the scheme was that they did not fit the criteria for normal development.
Will the Minister state how many calf to beef schemes in the western area have been sanctioned and are going ahead? Will he assure the House that there are no officers in his Department who are trying to kill this scheme on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis?
I gave the figures to the House a fortnight ago with regard to the calf to beef scheme. They are very small. However, there were extra numbers of inquiries this spring for the scheme and, thus, the figures I have would be somewhat distorted. However, they would be very small. The various projects so far as cost-benefit analysis is concerned would have to conform to the same criteria as the IDA apply to any project. I do not know of any bias by any Department in this matter.
There was a meeting in the west and some administrators wanted to write off the west.
In recent days at Question Time the Minister has emphasised the grants available for farm buildings. I am putting forward the case of a development farmer who was obliged to go into the commercial category and whose grants were reduced to 30 per cent. What is the position in relation to a farmer in this case? Will he get the 40 per cent mentioned by the Minister?
It would depend on the date his buildings were finished, but if the Deputy has a specific case in mind I will deal with it afterwards.
Mr. Leonard
On a previous occasion I was told that there were 30 approvals in respect of the scheme but the sizeable amount of money allocated for orientation of production will not be taken up. Will the Minister consult with Brussels to see if this could be taken in under some other heading — for instance, livestock production in the 12 western counties — so that we will not lose over £20 million in the ten-year period?
I am glad to say there is now more publicity about this scheme, because it seemed to be dorment for the last few years. I shall be looking at this with a view to having it changed. The scheme originated in Brussels so it will have to be referred back there.
Could the Minister give any figures in relation to land improvement under the western programme?
That is a separate question. I was speaking about the western package as a whole and, as the Deputy is aware, there are grants available in disadvantaged areas for dry reclamation, land improvement where the western drainage scheme is not in operation or where there is no need for drainage. That is being funded out of this scheme.
I want to get as much information as possible.
Be reasonable, Deputy. We must move on to the next question.
I am being reasonable.
I know the Deputy could spend hours on this question without being unreasonable as far as relevance is concerned, but that is not appropriate at Question Time.