Deputy Leonard has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of a private notice question he sought to ask yesterday.
Adjournment Debate. - Farm Development Grand Aid.
I thank you for the opportunity of raising this matter but it is regrettable that we must discuss the issue at this unearthly hour and I apologise for bringing the Minister here so late.
I am concerned regarding the Department having second thoughts about the withdrawal of grant aid for farm development work. The grant aid was withdrawn in 1983 but now the Department have decided to pay for the work but in a restricted way. They have not taken account of many of the hardship cases that followed the withdrawal of the aid. It was in the budget of 1983 that the Minister decided to withdraw grant aid in respect of farm buildings and fixed assets. He decided that that would bring about a saving of £10.3 million but it was the most expensive saving ever because it totally disreputed the farm development service and development in agriculture generally in addition to eroding confidence in the advisory staff.
At that time there was in excess of 14,000 applications for aid. Prior to then there had been a directive from the Department to the effect that from then on written approvals would be required. From the time of the introduction of grants many years ago there had been always good working arrangements and a good relationship between farmers, agricultural advisers and agricultural officers. In those early days the grants were very small but there was the minimum of red tape and the various schemes operated very satisfactorily and in a commonsense way. Unfortunately, the directive relating to the requirement of written approvals damaged greatly those good working arrangements. At that time farmers were spending substantial sums of money on development work and they had had to arrange to borrow those sums. It was at a time also when about 50 per cent of cattle were wintered and when there was a severe loss of profits on the part of those farmers who did not have proper housing for their cattle.
The system which pertained then was that an ACOT adviser would call to the farmer and draw up a farm plan. The plan would relate to the farmer's requirements and to his projections, whether he intended intensifying or increasing production. The adviser would take into account also the amount of money the farmer would have to his credit and the extent of credit which he would be in a position to secure. Subsequently the plan would be dealt with in the ACOT office. For years prior to 1983 when a plan had been approved and when the notification was being sent to the farmer it would be accompanied by a form known as an FM8 which the farmer was required to complete and return to the farm development service. However, the ACOT office discontinued sending out those FM8s and the result was that many farmers, when they got a notice from ACOT setting out their projections for a certain number of years and their proposals to construct various buildings, slurry tanks and so on, believed they could go ahead with the work and this resulted in many people commencing work without having the required written approval.
In many cases farmers believed they had approval from their agricultural advisers and the farm development officers, and these officers would know that the farmer intended to carry out the work. Up to then farmers were going ahead with the work and then applying for approval but the written approval requirement changed that.
I understand that the Department are making available about £2,500,000 for farm development work but the letters that applicants are receiving from the farm development service are similar to the letter that was sent by the Department to the ACOT and the various agricultural offices. This letter states that it was decided recently to process applications for grant aid under the farm modernisation scheme for buildings and fixed assets which had been received from farmers but which had not been approved prior to the suspension of part of the scheme in the budget on 9 February 1983.
An important clause in that letter is the stipulation that an application for grant aid for farm buildings and — or fixed assets on form FM8, dated 9 February 1983 or earlier must have been received by the farm development service not later than 9 January 1983. That means that those whose applications were processed will now receive the grant aid to which they were entitled long before now but those who, through no fault of their own but because of an error in assuming that the farm plan was sufficient approval for them to commence work, will not receive the aid. Even if an application has been in the ACOT office and perhaps only semi-processed or had not been sent to the farm development service, the applicant will not qualify for aid.
It is ridiculous that in the period from 9 February 1983 to 1 January 1984 those farm modernisation grants were not processed or approved and that those people who had not received written approval will not be considered or receive any grant aid. This will inflict hardship on many people. I could list at least a dozen farmers of whom I am aware in that category, farmers who did everything according to the rule book but who, because they had not received written approval, will be discriminated against. Two years after they had borrowed large amounts of money they have not repaid even half of it to their banks and are now dependent on getting approximately one-third of the overall cost of the projects they had undertaken reimbursed by way of grant aid, which it would now appear they will not receive.
There is still time to amend this decision which would be the best day's work ever for the development of agriculture. It should be remembered that farmers accepted the word of their ACOT advisers and farm development officers. Indeed, I should like to pay tribute to both those groups who did so much for the development of agriculture. I worked closely with them in a co-operative for many years. They are fine, understanding men who approach the matter in a common sense way. There are very few farmers who would not take their word and who, if they received back a development plan would be inclined to blame a departmental official. After all, a man's word should be his bond. The Minister would be doing a good day's work if he re-examined the position of those people because it would not entail giving people something unofficially — the plan and the work proposals exist for all to see. It is my belief that in practically every county there are hundreds of farmers who will not qualify under the conditions of this circular and there will be many parliamentary questions and representations from public representatives about the matter over the next few weeks.
I am pleased to have an opportunity of saying a few words, courtesy of Deputy J. Leonard, to support him in his attempt to get the Minister to look in a liberal fashion on this new move as far as the farm modernisation scheme is concerned.
I want to do something I have already done in this House, that is, emphasise the strides made as far as the farming community is concerned. Not too long after the war a firm of consultants were brought into this country to assess productivity in manufacturing industry and in agriculture. They were Americans. They said nothing could be done to increase productivity among the farming community.
Since 1973, through the work of Macra na Feirme in educating young farmers and so on, agricultural productivity here has increased by leaps and bounds. The House knows that and the statistics are available. I do not think that this House or various administrations have given sufficient credit to the farming community on that achievement. It is for that reason that these people who had applied for grants under the farm modernisation scheme have been let down badly. They were encouraged to produce more but their efforts were slighted, made little of, by the decision taken and announced on 9 February 1983.
It is against that background I appeal to the Minister to look in a liberal fashion on the new scheme. Deputy J. Leonard referred to the FM8. I know of one particular individual in the Kingscourt area of County Cavan — I will not mention any names — who filled out all his forms and did all that was required of him. He had submitted those forms in 1982 but those forms were received on 10 February, the day after the announcement. Obviously there was a slip up in the office. I do not see why that man should suffer because of pressure of work in the office, pressure on officials. I am only quoting this as an individual instance. It is an example of many of the hardships suffered as a result of this decision.
Deputy J. Leonard made the very important point that the people were undertaking these projects with the general approval of the Minister's officials. I said in this House already and elsewhere that, if those people banded themselves together and took a case to court, the Department of Agriculture, in its role as a corporation sole, could be held responsible for paying these grants, seeing that their officials are agents. I endorse the remarks of Deputy Leonard about those officials who had advised individual farmers to go ahead with these projects. It constituted a very serious inroad into the financial position of small farmers in my county. There are 243 altogether in the country involved in this débacle. While to people in this House borrowing £7,000, £8,000, £9,000 or £10,000 might seem a trivial matter, to many of those small farmers, industrious and ambitious, it was a colossal sum of money to have borrowed for projects which they thought had the approval of the Department of Agriculture and which would earn grants for them. Furthermore, there was the rebate of VAT which was considerable in many such cases and which was not covered either.
I have said — and in think the Minister of State present took the point I made previously as far as the legal position was concerned — that I am sorry those people did not band together, employ a legal team at solicitor and senior counsel level, and push their case in that regard. However, that will not be necessary if the Minister decides now that, for example, the stamp on the original form when it came into his office should count as the relevant date and not the final stamp of reception, say, on 10 February. Obviously something that arrived on 10 February arrived as a result of panic in the office and officials falling down for one reason or another, perhaps through pressure of work. However, I do not think any individual citizen should suffer as a result.
Deputy Leonard mentioned the purpose behind the decision — to save a mere £10.3 million. It is against the background of high productivity achieved by our farmers — it having been said that nobody could make them produce more — and the background of the development of educational facilities that the Minister should consider all of this. He does not have to be over-generous or over-liberal. He should just pay the people who, in good faith and acting in accordance with the advice of his officials, embarked on what for them was a major investment in agriculture in order to increase productivity.
As announced by me on 6 June, applications for grant aid under the farm modernisation scheme for farm buildings and fixed assets, which had been received from eligible farmers but not approved prior to the suspension of part of the scheme in the budget on 9 February 1983, will now be processed. To be eligible for payment the works involved must have been undertaken before the introduction of the revised farm modernisation scheme on 3 January 1984 and must have been completed in accordance with proper specifications.
The background to this is the decision taken in the 1983 budget to suspend grants for farm buildings and fixed assets pending a review of the farm modernisation scheme. That decision was implemented by withholding the issue of approvals in cases where farmers had made application to the farm development service for items of investment in buildings and fixed assets on their farm plans.
The review of the scheme was carried out during 1983 and a revised scheme was introduced with effect from 3 January 1984. This revised scheme concentrated the limited resources available on providing aid for investment on high priority items such as livestock housing and storage for agricultural produce. It also confined grant aid to the "development" and "other high" categories and it also provided aid in the form of an interest subsidy for "commercial" farmers. Those applicants who had been affected by the suspension of aid were then free to reapply under the revised scheme, provided that they remained eligible for the items in question and I understand that a large number did so and have in fact, been paid grants.
How many?
Off hand, I do not know, but I will find out for the Deputy. To facilitate development farmers who have a limited time in which to carry out investment under their plans, it was arranged that time would be added on up to a limit of 11 months to enable them to carry out works included in their plans.
In response to repeated representations on behalf of farmers who had made application to the FDS prior to 9 February 1983 and who undertook building work before the revised scheme was introduced in February 1984, I undertook to seek the necessary funds and I am glad to say that I finally succeeded in getting the agreement of the Government to processing those applications which had been received up to 9 February 1983.
The local offices of the FDS are at present processing the applications. This will take some months as it involves identifying those who come within the terms of the decision, that is that application was made to the FDS not later than 9 February 1983 in respect of investment on the applicant's farm plan and that the work was undertaken before the revised scheme was reintroduced on 3 January 1984 and completed to specification. An inspection will need to be carried out in each such case.
This will take some time and until the necessary investigations have been carried out, it will not be possible to establish how many farmers are involved nor how much money will be paid in grants. I can assure Deputies that the work of processing the applications will be pushed ahead vigorously and it is my intention that all grants due will be paid without avoidable delay.
Deputy Leonard now proposes that the decision be extended to include cases where applicants had certain developments on their farm plans but had not made application to the farm development service. I do not see how I could accede to this request. I understand what the Deputies are getting at but, I would make it clear that on the morning after the Government's decision of 9 February 1983 there was not a single farmer who was unaware that there was not a grant form from that morning on unless he had already applied to the FDS for it. There is no point in telling me that people did not know because the Deputies opposite made sure that everybody knew even without any other information service being made available. I do not accept that some farmers genuinely believed that a grant was available after 9 February of that year and that they went ahead and built on that basis.
That is not the point I am making.
When the grants are paid the Minister will find that a number of people who will not qualify had worked in advance of written approval.
What the Deputy is saying is that there were a number of applicants who had applied to the advisory service——
Yes.
——but whose claims had not gone to the FDS. This is a matter over which I have no direct control. That is the business of ACOT. If there was fudged thinking in the ACOT office that has nothing to do with the Department of Agriculture.
I am not saying that it was done in the ACOT office. I am saying that ACOT sent the farm plan approval back to the farmers and they took it as approval of the works to be carried out.
As a person who drew grants over the years I could never countenance a situation where a farmer expects to get a grant for a building, through the Department of Agriculture, without the Department official being on the scene to discuss matters with him. In any system it would be very important for a Departmental official to be in on the ground. If either of the Deputies has specific instances I will take them up. Deputy Wilson mentioned a farmer from Kingscourt and 10 February. I would like to have a look at that file. I am most sympathetic to farmers and over the past two years I have always said that I did not want to close that stable door because a lot of people were genuinely caught. I am making a genuine effort to try to cut down on red tape between ACOT and the FDS. It is proving more difficult than I had anticipated but I will be able to eliminate some of the red tape. If either Deputy has a problem, like for instance the Kingscourt farmer, I will have a look at it to see what I can do.
When does the Minister say than an application has been formally received?
It would have to be in the office on 9 February.
In Dublin?
No, in the local FDS office.
The Dáil adjourned at 12.30 a.m. on Thursday, 4 July 1985, until 10.30 a.m.