Tony Killeen
Question:19 Mr. Killeen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number of applications received under the control of farmyard pollution scheme in County Clare; and the number of approvals that have issued. [8758/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Control of Farmyard Pollution Scheme.
Mary Wallace
Question:26 Miss M. Wallace asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will outline on a county by county basis the number of farmers who have applied for and been approved for payments under the control of farmyard pollution grant scheme. [8804/95]
Peadar Clohessy
Question:31 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number and proportion of grant applications under the control of farmyard pollution scheme which are related to participation in the rural environment protection scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8766/95]
Robert Molloy
Question:35 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the present position regarding the rural environmental protection scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8770/95]
Mary Coughlan
Question:41 Miss Coughlan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number of applications under the control of farmyard pollution scheme that have been submitted by farmers in County Donegal; and the number of approvals that have issued. [8820/95]
Tom Moffatt
Question:46 Dr. Moffatt asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number of applications received from County Mayo under the control of farmyard pollution scheme; the numbers accepted for payment; and the numbers put on hold or rejected temporarily until the necessary moneys are allocated to allow all farmers in County Mayo to complete the control of farmyard pollution projects. [8823/95]
Peadar Clohessy
Question:53 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the total amount paid to farmers under the control of farmyard pollution scheme; and the estimated total grant aid outstanding on such applications. [8765/95]
Austin Deasy
Question:74 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the uptake of the rural environment protection scheme; and if he has satisfied himself that he has enough staff to operate the scheme satisfactorily. [8819/95]
Michael Smith
Question:79 Mr. M. Smith asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number of farmers who have applied for and been approved for payments under the REPS scheme on a county by county basis. [8810/95]
Charlie McCreevy
Question:81 Mr. McCreevy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when the terms of reference of, and report from the control of farmyard pollution consultative group being set up by him will be published. [8814/95]
Hugh Byrne
Question:194 Mr. H. Byrne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the categories and number of pending control of farmyard pollution applications that are expected to be passed; the timescale estimated for same; the plans, if any, he has to provide statistical information in tabular form and listed by county; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8613/95]
Hugh Byrne
Question:195 Mr. H. Byrne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number of applications and the number of approvals of rural environment protection scheme applications received to date; the categories and number of pending rural environment protection scheme applications that are expected to be passed; the timescale estimated for same; the plans, if any, he has to provide the statistical information required in tabular form and listed by county; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8614/95]
Hugh Byrne
Question:196 Mr. H. Byrne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will give details of the number of applications received in relation to the rural environment protection scheme; the number of approvals given to date listed in tabular form by county in order that degradation of land can be avoided, that natural heritage areas can be preserved, that provisions of this section of the scheme can be availed of in order to reduce livestock numbers, that longterm set aside of riparian zones can occur, that public access and leisure activities can be developed, that organic farming can be increased, that rearing of animals of local breeds in danger of extinction in relation to the eligible breeds, that the proposed 50 demonstration farms can be established; the total number of hectares applied for and approved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8615/95]
Rory O'Hanlon
Question:202 Dr. O'Hanlon asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the total number of applications for control of farmyard pollution in County Monaghan and County Cavan; the number approved in each county; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8665/95]
Tony Killeen
Question:205 Mr. Killeen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number of applications that have been received in County Clare under the rural environment protection scheme. [8691/95]
Tony Killeen
Question:206 Mr. Killeen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will seek changes in eligibility criteria to facilitate the transfer of dairy cows, which fail milk quality tests, to qualify for suckler premia. [8694/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 19, 26, 31, 35, 41, 46, 53, 74, 79, 81, 194, 195, 196, 202, 205 and 206 together.
Because of the unprecedented demand from farmers for aid under the control of farm pollution — CFP — scheme and in the light of the funding set aside for the scheme under the Structural Funds, my Department was forced to suspend the scheme on 27 April. From that date no further CFP applications will be accepted until further notice. Similarly, formal approval of existing applicants also ceased on that date.
Under the on-farm investment section of the Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry, an allocation of £195 million in Structural Funds was provided for the period 1994-99. Approximately half this amount was earmarked for the control of farm pollution scheme. My analysis of the on-farm investment schemes shows an under-funding of at least £60 million. This was of course legislated for by the previous Government and the shortfall is clearly the cause of the current problem. It was anticipated under the national plan authorised by the previous Government that £245 million would be allocated.
From the launch of the scheme last September until its suspension on 27 April about 18,600 applications were received. This demand was driven by the fact that a CFP scheme had not been in operation since April 1992, the need for some participants in the rural environment protection scheme to have pollution work done under the CFP, the fear that funds would run out and pressures from local authorities and fisheries boards to address pollution problems.
By 27 April about 6,000 of the CFP applications received had been approved to commence work. To make the payments which would flow from these approvals and to make some inroads into the backlog described above requires bringing forward into 1996 some of the moneys previously earmarked for later years. This will need European Commission and Department of Finance approval. I am actively pursuing this matter. I am confident that such approval will be forthcoming.
As well as endeavouring to have Structural Funds brought forward from later years, I will also be making a strong case for additional funding under the review of the Community Support Framework which will be carried out by the Commission in the latter half of next year. If additional funding is secured, it will be possible to reopen the scheme to new applicants.
I am very concerned about the impact the suspension of the scheme will have on my efforts to build a modern, environment-friendly agricultural industry. I am, therefore, anxious to establish procedures which would enable as many as possible of the 12,600 unapproved applications currently on hands to proceed with essential work. To deal with unapproved applications my intention is to grant "conditional approval" to facilitate farmers proceeding with their works on the understanding that payment is guaranteed but will be deferred.
I recently set up a consultative group involving officials of my Department, farm organisations and other interested parties with a view to establishing priority categories for conditional approval. The group reported to me late last night. I am considering the group's recommendations and I expect to be in a position to make a full statement very shortly.
I am very concerned to ensure that the suspension of the scheme will have minimal impact on the participation in rural environmental protection scheme. REPS participants approved on or before 27 April who have applied for grant-aid under CFP will have my highest priority. I will be making stringent efforts with the European Commission in the coming months with a view to relaxing the provision that all pollution control works must be completed within 12 months of entering REPS. Many farmers are already substantially in compliance with the pollution control requirements for REPS and more than 30,000 farmers have been grant-aided for pollution control works under previous schemes.
I am circulating two tables setting out on a county by county basis, the number of applications received and approvals issued under the control of farm pollution scheme and the rural environment protection scheme. More detailed information on REPS applicants is not readily available. The timescale for the payment of REPS applications is of the order of five-six weeks.
The staffing levels for the operation of this scheme are adequate at present but the situation will be kept under review.
Under the CFP the total amount paid to date is £3.7 million. The remaining 12,600 unapproved applications would involve grant commitment of about £100 million.
Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
Control of Farm Pollution — Applications/Approvals — 27 April 1995
|
County |
Applications to date Net |
Approvals to date |
|
Carlow |
137 |
82 |
|
Cavan |
1,048 |
86 |
|
Clare |
1,190 |
245 |
|
Cork |
969 |
340 |
|
Donegal |
930 |
482 |
|
Dublin |
31 |
15 |
|
Galway |
2,630 |
1,056 |
|
Kerry |
658 |
211 |
|
Kildare |
284 |
105 |
|
Kilkenny |
480 |
313 |
|
Laois |
433 |
74 |
|
Leitrim |
771 |
278 |
|
Limerick |
429 |
125 |
|
Longford |
623 |
164 |
|
Louth |
162 |
48 |
|
Mayo |
2,168 |
867 |
|
Meath |
482 |
95 |
|
Monaghan |
690 |
282 |
|
Offaly |
480 |
94 |
|
Roscommon |
987 |
180 |
|
Sligo |
672 |
203 |
|
Tipperary North |
363 |
101 |
|
Tipperary South |
440 |
77 |
|
Waterford |
206 |
97 |
|
Westmeath |
478 |
148 |
|
Wexford |
618 |
196 |
|
Wicklow |
195 |
88 |
|
Total |
18,554 |
6,052 |
Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) 12 May 1995.
|
County |
Number of Applications Approved |
Number of Applications Approved |
Amount Paid |
Area of Land farmed(hectares) |
|
£ |
||||
|
Carlow |
73 |
64 |
206,177 |
1,875.0 |
|
Cavan |
234 |
63 |
176,233 |
1,510.2 |
|
Clare |
177 |
94 |
364,103 |
3,626.8 |
|
Cork |
149 |
117 |
418,868 |
4,035.0 |
|
Donegal |
80 |
44 |
176,643 |
1,973.9 |
|
Dublin |
26 |
23 |
76,003 |
757.2 |
|
Galway |
221 |
139 |
474,658 |
4,424.9 |
|
Kerry |
64 |
50 |
195,142 |
1,792.4 |
|
Kildare |
101 |
93 |
318,337 |
3,238.2 |
|
Kilkenny |
142 |
105 |
393,341 |
3,655.4 |
|
Laois |
112 |
95 |
352,009 |
3,333.0 |
|
Leitrim |
60 |
35 |
108,666 |
895.1 |
|
Limerick |
101 |
66 |
243,309 |
2,255.4 |
|
Longford |
66 |
32 |
113,506 |
1,023.6 |
|
Louth |
47 |
44 |
152,640 |
1,424.0 |
|
Mayo |
101 |
73 |
224,255 |
1,941.2 |
|
Meath |
305 |
122 |
363,849 |
3,460.3 |
|
Monaghan |
66 |
64 |
191,703 |
1,632.3 |
|
Offaly |
183 |
143 |
544,700 |
5,158.5 |
|
Roscommon |
98 |
43 |
149,193 |
1,422.9 |
|
Sligo |
25 |
12 |
41,830 |
388.9 |
|
Tipperary |
272 |
238 |
869,928 |
8,654.3 |
|
Waterford |
110 |
89 |
333,130 |
3,595.7 |
|
Westmeath |
147 |
134 |
466,556 |
4,442.3 |
|
Wexford |
221 |
159 |
587,771 |
5,680.6 |
|
Wicklow |
51 |
40 |
137,329 |
1,447.1 |
|
3,232 |
2,181 |
7,679,879 |
73,644.2 |
The Minister has been in office since 15 December 1994. He stated that 18,600 applications have been made since last September — an average of 3,000 per month — 10,000 to 12,000 of which have been made since he came to office. He also stated he is supervising the scheme but that 12,000 people who applied under it will not get any money. That is the Minister's responsibility. Will he agree that although he has overseen the management of this scheme since 15 December last it has become patently obvious to everybody in the Department that money was not available for it? Is it not at the discretion of any Government at any time to provide extra funds for schemes should it so decide? Why is the Minister hiding behind Structural Funds? If he has the political will, he can provide the funds to meet the demands of thousands of farmers who are anxious to obtain grant-aid under this scheme and to qualify for the rural environment protection scheme? As I said in an earlier question, the Minister will put more than £500 million at risk over the next seven or eight years because of the mess he has made since 15 December. He should put his own house in order.
Lest there be any misunderstanding as a result of what Deputy Cowen said, the 12.400 farmers will be paid.
How?
From Land Commission bonds.
There is adequate money to pay them.
From where will the money come?
Let us hear the Minister's reply.
I am happy to take any number of supplementaries on this matter, but I should be permitted to give answers. As I said, 6,000 applications have been approved and 12,400 are on file awaiting approval. Of the total amount provided under the scheme only £3.7 million has been paid. We intend to pay everybody who has applied. The reason I suspended the scheme is that I did not want to do what Deputy Cowen thinks has happened, to invite applications without having money to pay them. We are satisfied we suspended the scheme at a point where those who applied can be paid. The difficulty is that the 6,000 applications approved will draw down all the money earmarked for this year as well as the maximum amount I could get for the next year. The remaining applicants will be paid but it will be in 1997, 1998 or 1999, which is the time frame for the provision of Structural Funds.
In terms of extra funding, the money for the total scheme, as is the case with all schemes, is signed off by Dublin and Brussels. As Deputies are aware, the previous Government had considerable difficulties as it had less money than it thought. The shortfall in the CFP scheme was £30 million and the shortfall on the entire on-farm investment was £60 million. I regret as much as anyone that the previous Government was not able to secure adequate funding.
Is the Minister in Government or Opposition?
It is a simple question.
I have tried to bring some order to a chaotic situation. The chaos has resulted in the Government having to tailor the scheme. This matter will be debated in the Seanad tomorrow. Because I received the report only last night I cannot give definitive answers. My intention is to start issuing conditional approvals for the 12,400 applicants whereby they will be allowed go ahead with their work on a deferred basis of payment. That will adequately deal with the position, which is clearly most unsatisfactory.
Is the Minister seriously suggesting that if he is in a position to find the money within the national resources the Commission will preclude him from putting more money into the scheme? There is great demand from Irish farmers to deal with this issue and great interest by the Commission in the control of farmyard pollution scheme. Therefore, the Minister should not put out the idea that he is confined by the level of funding available. Is the Minister telling me that if he had the political will to get the money from national resources — he had no problem increasing the funding by more than 12 per cent in the first three months of his tenure — the Commission will preclude him from providing more Irish money to grant-aid the thousands of farmers who applied under the scheme? That would not happen.
Is the Minister seriously suggesting that farmers can take his word that they will be paid some time, in the same way as exporters were told they could export their cattle some time? People cannot start work without grant approval, and the Minister knows that. Is it not the case that out of the total applications received, conditional grant approval applies to only 220 farmers who have been paid the first instalment of the rural environment protection scheme, 100 farmers who have county council section 12 notices and 3,000 farmers who had lodged their applications prior to 31 December? Is it, therefore, the case that a third of the approvals will be conditional and that the other 9,000 can wait and, as it were, live to eat grass another day because neither the Minister nor his Government has the political ability to come up with the categories and priorities for money for this scheme? Thousands of farmers are waiting for the Minister to stop delaying and to provide the money.
I am happy to clarify the position regarding Brussels.
The Minister is not clarifying anything.
Regarding extra money, there are only two vehicles. The money has been signed off between Brussels and Dublin for the period 1994 to 1999.
I am talking about Irish taxpayers' money.
The only way to secure extra money is to switch money allocated to, say, the Departments of the Marine and Education and capital spending to this scheme.
How much taxpayers' money is the Minister spending in his Department? Hundreds of millions of pounds.
Let us hear the Minister's reply.
The total amount of money is non-negotiable. The only way in which Brussels can provide more money is in the context of the mid-term review in late 1996 if Spain, Portugal and Greece do not draw down their moneys. I do not want people to be under an illusion that I have merely to take a plane to Brussels to get more money.
The Minister is being mischievous.
I am not.
Will the Minister answer "yes" or "no" to whether he will use Irish taxpayers' money — not European money as he has secured that — for the unprecedented level of demand for payment under this scheme?
The Deputy has made his point. Let us hear the Minister without further interruption.
To bring forward money——
"No" is the answer to my question.
If the Deputy wishes to give the answers as well as ask the questions I cannot help him.
Has the Minister used Irish taxpayers' money?
I am happy to give the answers, but if the Deputy wants to give them he can do so.
Adequate scope has been given to putting the question, please let us hear the answer. A variety of questions have been asked and let us hear the Minister without further interruption. I want to facilitate other Deputies on this group of questions.
My only anxiety is to ensure that people will not be misled.
A total of 18,600 people are waiting for his answer.
The position on funding is clear. A sum of £5.8 million has been signed off between Dublin and Brussels. If Spain, Portugal or Greece do not draw down their moneys, there is a prospect of securing extra funds at the mid-term review, but that will not be known until the end of next year. I would not hold out too many hopes on that, but I will press the case as best I can. As regards the lateral movement of money, I do not know what suggestions the Deputy has, but I believe it would give rise to some difficulty. Regarding conditional approvals, I am intrigued by the figures the Deputy gave of the 220 cases under REPs and so on. The Deputy seems to be better informed about what is happening in my Department than I am as I was only able to extract that information at lunchtime. I do not know who is informing the Deputy——
Is it accurate?
The figures are accurate.
So everybody will not be paid, only the 3,000 who have received conditional approval will be paid?
Let me explain the position. The Deputy's figures are accurate, but the context in which he has put them is inaccurate. Those are the number of cases under REPs——
The Deputy is contextually inaccurate.
The Minister has been caught out.
I am trying to explain the position to the Deputy so that he will not be misled on this. I am being as helpful as I can.
The Minister is not succeeding very well.
I do not want the Deputy to make a fool of himself because there is a danger he will. There are priority categories such as people who have been approved under REPs and are in receipt of payments whom I am anxious to facilitate. I am also anxious to deal with regional inequalities, where applications submitted last September in one county have not been approved because of a shortage of staff while those submitted up to last February in another country in which there is adequate staff have been approved. I hope to make an announcement in the Seanad tomorrow night on this matter. The Deputy's party has tabled a motion on it. I do not want any further delay on this matter.
I have tried to consult farming groups so that everyone concerned can have a fair and reasonable input to this matter. The 6,000 whose applications have been approved can go ahead and draw money in the normal way, another tranche of urgent cases will be given conditional approval fairly quickly and the rest will be given conditional approval fairly quickly after that. I will deal with the small group of 3,500 as a matter of urgency and give them conditional approval. It is important for farmers who borrow money to carry out capital works to know when they will be paid and the earliest that will happen is 1997. I did not negotiate this round of funding.
No, but the Minister oversaw the mismanagement of the scheme.
I did not set out the matrices, I have been trying to restore some order to them. The bottom line is that more money will be spent this year and next year than ever before as regards FIB and CFP and, given the appalling situation I inherited, I should be commended for trying to restore order to it as quickly as possible.
You will have to forgive me for smiling, but having observed the Minister's response to questions he appears to be confident that the live trade will resume, that he will get more money for REPs, and that he will be able to resume the CFP and consider more applications. I do not know of any bank that will respond to the Minister's vote of confidence. It is ridiculous for the Minister to suggest that farmers should be asked to put in place expensive slatted sheds and so on and wait for his Department to pay for them. As the Minister does not appear to be able to see the wood for the trees, does he accept that farmyard pollution has had a detrimental effect on the environment and, if so, why did he abandon a scheme which, I am sure he agrees, was making a significant impact on our environment? Has the Minister caved in to the more demanding and aggressive Cabinet members who seem to be able to find money at the drop of a hat? The Minister appears to be an abject failure in that respect.
I cannot help it if I exude confidence. That is probably because I understand the position.
It is all the Minister has going for him at present. Confidence does not pay the bills.
The Deputy asked a fair question why I, to use his word, "abandoned" or, to use mine, "suspended" the scheme. I did so because there was not enough money to meet the unending requirements under the scheme. I suspended that scheme with a heavy heart but a clear head and I look forward to making a detailed announcement on the proposition that those who have necessitous works will be facilitated and that an orderly time structure will be set in place. It is necessary to secure the approval of the Commission and the Department of Finance for bringing forward moneys from 1998, 1999——
When?
——I hope to have that matter dealt with in a matter of weeks. I will be making a detailed statement tomorrow.
Everything will be dealt with tomorrow, REPs cases, the CFP.
Let us talk about what has happened already, the new animal welfare regulations, a charter of rights——
Deputy Byrne, please desist. I want to facilitate the six other Deputies offering, some of whom tabled questions. If this level of interruption continues I will proceed to the next question. I ask for brevity in questioning so that I can facilitate all colleagues.
The Minister is using boot boy tactics. Did he get a response?
I am trying to be helpful. I would say using boot boy tactics with slippers.
Let us hear the response or I will proceed to the next question.
I am happy to proceed to the next question.
I call Deputy Killeen who has tabled a number of these questions, let us hear him without interruption from either side of the House.
It is now obvious that the collapse of this scheme is more serious and drastic than anybody had realised prior to today. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will return to Government and seek to get funding to ensure that the excellent work proposed by farmers will be supported by the Government? Will he accept that his much vaunted charter of farmers' rights is of little value when it is not backed up by finances?
Seventy-five per cent of the scheme is financed by EU money and 25 per cent by Exchequer money. The question is whether more money can be obtained from Brussels. I would actively pursue a campaign to obtain more resources from the Minister for Finance or from Brussels, but it is essential that I set out the realistic parameters of the case. Many of these schemes were announced with a fanfare by the previous Government as if resources were infinite. In this case the resources approved were much less than adequate.
What about the Minister's expenditure elsewhere?
It is regrettable that the representatives of Fianna Fáil who were invited to the satisfactory launch of the charter did not attend.
It was the first time I was invited anywhere.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister's press office released a statement the same week.
Let us hear the Minister without interruption.
In my speech at the launch of the charter I was explicit about the fact that we were experiencing serious difficulties with the on-farm investment scheme and that the charter would have to take account of the fact that when schemes were not operational the rigorous timetable set out could not and would not apply.
As the Minister suspended the scheme when he realised he could not deal this year or next with 12,000 of the 18,500 applications, how many applications does he anticipate have not been submitted which require the scheme to be suspended? Are 20,000 more people queuing up for the scheme? What is the Department's best estimate of the number of farmers being kept outside the gates in respect of this scheme? As the applications which have been received will not be dealt with until 1997, does it follow that it will be the year 2000 or later before all those who would qualify on the same basis as those the Minister has already paid will receive their money?
In the meantime the REPS scheme will have gone by the wayside.
The position is that 60 per cent of people who qualify under the REPS scheme do not require control of farmyard pollution-related work. A total of 30,000 farmers have availed of these schemes in recent years. There are 18,000 applications in the system at present and several thousand more in the FIP. As it was known some time ago that the scheme was in severe financial difficulties, most of those who wanted to apply have applied.
In that case why did the Minister suspend it?
I wanted to be sure that anyone who applied would have a prospect of getting paid.
It is only a prospect now.
It would be irresponsible of me to continue to receive applications in the knowledge that the existing applications would exhaust the money available. I have acted prudently——
The Minister acted cowardly.
——but it is not something I wanted to do. I do not know what the Opposition suggests I should do.
I will tell the Minister later.
Perhaps the Opposition is suggesting I should not have suspended the scheme, that I should continue to accept applications even though there is no prospect of obtaining sufficient resources to pay the applicants.
I have a constructive proposal for the Minister.
I am not sure what the Opposition is proposing.
The Minister has no influence in Government.
What advice would the Minister offer to farmers who have not submitted an application——
Forget it.
——but who are contemplating investing in control of farmyard pollution facilities on their farms? It is unacceptable for the Minister to say that people knew in advance that the scheme would be suspended and as a result immediately submitted their applications. Many farmers in my constituency were contemplating investment, but have not yet submitted their applications. Is there any prospect of them receiving grant-aid under the control of farmyard pollution scheme?
I would have to be pessimistic in regard to the prospect of further applicants being successful. Whatever else I may do, I will not be disingenuous and pretend matters are other than they are.
It is arbitrary to cut them off as the Minister has done.
I would like to hear the alternatives the Deputy would suggest.
The Minister should get money at the Cabinet table and cop himself on.
It is facile in the extreme for Deputies opposite to say that money can be conjured out of thin air knowing the contortions they engaged in to try to secure the £5.8 billion.
What about the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa?
We know exactly what happened in the Berlaymont Building and the difficulties Fianna Fáil, when in Government, experienced with Mr. Delors.
The Minister should not be looking for an excuse.
We all know the story of the shrinking billions. The difference is that the previous Government said there would be no effects but, regrettably, we are now feeling the effects. I have to bring order into this matter and I am ensuring that the applications approved are paid and that approvals as appropriate are given in accordance with availability of resources.
The Minister has no influence in Government.
To say the least, the Minister is misleading and extremely creative. As he stated the operational programme provides for an expected 30,000 applications under this scheme. He tried to suggest that because he has signed off the scheme with Brussels that his hands are tied. That is not the case. They may be tied in terms of what Brussels will provide for the scheme——
A question, Deputy, please.
It is open to the Minister to seek increased funding from the Government. Does he agree it is also open to him to provide money on the basis that the object of such schemes is to achieve success? It was obvious this scheme would be successful. It is up to the Minister to let Brussells know that this scheme has been successful and that the Irish Government is willing to provide additional funding in the next few years to ensure farmers are not disadvantaged. The Minister need not have cut off the number of applications at 18,000 when the figure anticipated was 30,000. To suggest that further applications will not qualify for the scheme makes a lie of the operational programme which anticipates 30,000 applicants.
Let me try to explain the position in another way. We are given money by Brussels for three broad schemes, on-farm investment — to which this scheme relates — FEOGA which provides grant-aid for the food industry and headage premia. Are Deputies seriously suggesting that I should cut headage payments or grant-aid for the food industry?
I did not suggest that.
That is the reality, there is no other option.
What about other Ministers?
Let us hear the reply.
Europe has signed off in terms of the total amount of money. There is no more money available unless Spain, Portugal or Greece do not draw down their money. That is very unlikely and will become clear only at the end of 1996, the mid point between 1994 and 1999. Let us not pretend or mislead people into thinking——
It is a question of priorities.
——that there is a pot of gold into which I have only to put a ladle and draw out money.
Nobody is suggesting that.
Farmers operate in the real world.
The Minister has no influence in Government.
He is a political lightweight.
(Interruptions.)
We must hear the reply.
I want to make the best of this scheme——
By suspending it?
I agree that bringing forward funds from the latter years of the five year tranche is an imperative. I am confident of securing approval from the Commission and the Department of Finance in that regard, following which I will be able to give appropriate information to 12,500 unapproved applicants so they know where they stand. The farmer will then have the choice about whether to go ahead on a deferred payment basis.
I was astounded to hear the Minister say the demand was unprecedented. In the light of the demand, does he accept that farmers are serious about switching to sustainable farming methods which are less environmentally damaging? Would he learn a lesson from that and recognise that the current investment in change-over to organic farming is insincere and insignificant?
In relation to this particular scheme, will the Minister indicate the timeframe he envisages in regard to farmers being paid?
I hope to make a further statement tomorrow in relation to the immediate administrative aspects of this.
Why can the Minister not tell us today?
Because I received the report only last night and I want to consult with some officials.
The Minister is responsible to this House, not to the Seanad.
I will be quite happy to give every indication of the information as it becomes available.
The Minister has not read it.
A snub to this House.
It is not a snub to this House.
Let us hear the reply, please.
The fundamental problem here is a shortage——
The script is still with Bunny Carr.
I have not availed of that particular service but I do not think it is absolutely necessary. The situation is that there is a shortage of cash but it must be remembered that the part which negotiated for this cash is the one that is now shedding the crocodile tears.
That is not the issue.
I would like to propose some solutions.
I welcome the Minister's statement that he will be making an announcement tomorrow night in the Seanad. I wish to ask a question in relation to south Tipperary. Since Deputy Yates became Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry we have been given three additional staff in the Farm Development Office in Clonmel.
That is where all the money is going to.
Up to that time, regardless of how many applications were received in the office, they could not be processed.
A question please, Deputy.
I want to publicly thank the Minister for that.
It was not abandoned.
In view of the shortage of staff, approvals have not been received in south Tipperary because we did not have the staff to carry out inspections.
The Deputy should ask the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, about it. He might be able to help.
When the Minister is making decisions in relation to constituencies like mine — I understand Deputy Cowen's constituency is in a similar situation and I am surprised he is not speaking on behalf of his constituents——
I am not holding my breath. So much for transparency.
——I ask the Minister to seriously consider extending the date for conditional approval to the end of February. If he does not do that, south Tipperary will have less than 70 approved applicants out of a total of approximately 550.
Hear, hear.
The Minister has, very generously, rectified the staffing problem and if he favourably considers extending the date for conditional approval, it would be the icing on the cake.
I have received strong representations from the Deputy in relation to the agricultural services in south Tipperary. In that regard, I have been pleased not only to provide additional staff but also to give a commitment that the very unsatisfactory office in Tipperary will be replaced by a modern state of the art office.
There is nothing for anybody to do.
(Interruptions.)
Let us hear the reply.
I am particularly pleased that I was able to support her representations in that regard.
There is a touch of the Walter Mitty about this.
I know Deputy Cullen does not like to hear it.
(Interruptions.)
I share the Deputy's concern about those counties which have insufficient staff to process the applications as they were received.
But there are not any applications.
In the administration and the issuing of conditional approvals, I will be seeking as a fundamental principle to ensure regional equality so that those counties, including the one referred to by the Deputy, will not be discriminated against.
Having shown a total absence of any ideas on how to deal with this catastrophe, may I put forward two options to the Minister which will ensure that farmers get money to do this essential work? First, if he has a problem about reallocating Structural Funds, he can make this the top priority in his Department and begin a national scheme to cover that situation. That is one option open to him. Many national on-farm investment schemes were put forward in the past when we were in more difficult financial straits than this. The second option concerns an amendment I put down to the Finance Bill, about which the Minister, Deputy Yates, undertook to speak to the Minister for Finance. I was disappointed to hear that the Minister knew nothing about it and I would like to know if the Minister intends to speak to the Minister for Finance before Report Stage on Thursday next so that the Government might agree to sponsor an amendment for a scheme of accelerated capital allowances, in relation to this specific scheme, with 50 per cent repayments in year 1. In that way, the Minister would get over his problem of not having the money for grant aid and would be sending out a direct signal that, through the tax system, people would be able to get a tax break on this specific investment. They would be able to go ahead and do the work and the money could then be diverted to people with fewer than 80 livestock units who are not in the tax net. There is a number of ways he can get over this hump, which has become an Everest for the Minister.
Will the Minister give consideration to supporting an amendment by the Minister for Finance on Thursday next for an accelerated capital allowances scheme which will allow people to carry out this essential work? Also, will the Minister give consideration to an augmented national control of farmyard pollution scheme based on a memo he would be prepared to bring to Government as a matter of urgency?
I am anxious to give serious consideration to every proposal the Deputy makes.
Address the two questions.
In regard to a national scheme, I do not think it would be possible to secure the level of resources the Deputy has in mind. However, I believe that in the event of availing of resources at the mid-term review, there would be matching resources.
Never mind the mid-term review.
In relation to the issue of the capital allowances, that is something to which I have given thought. I do not believe the 50 per cent front loading would find favour with the Department of Finance but I would think that because this year's scheme is not affected, in so far as 6,000 will be approved and paid, we would be looking at ring fencing it in the context of next year's budget.
Live horse.
However, there is a difficulty with ring fencing the question of capital allowances from other forms of capital development, be it by an industrialist, an hotelier or——
The Department of Finance can do it. Political direction is all that is needed.
Let us hear the Minister.
I would be both sympathetic and supportive of that.
Will the Minister do it?
Let us hear the reply.
I have already said I will consider it.
By Thursday?
I am saying in the context of next year's budget.
I am trying to clarify the matter for the 18,000 farmers who have no money.
Deputy Cowen put his question and he should let the Minister reply.
These touching sentiments from the opposite side of the House——
They are not touching at all.
—— would be far more real if we had heard them from Members who were around the Cabinet table when all these figures were negotiated.
This problem has arisen during the Minister's tenure.
No, it has not. Let us be quite clear about this.
Yes, since January——
Please, Deputy Cowen.
Let us be quite clear about when this problem arose.
The Minister has been in Government since December.
We must be quite clear about this because it is important that the House is not——
(Interruptions.)
I am going on to the next question.
Deputy Cowen will not like to hear this but it is true. My Department originally sought £496 million to cover the four on-farm investment schemes.
So did every Government.
The Department of Finance agreed that they would get £245 million. They were cut by £60 million after the national plan was published because of the incompetence and inability of the previous Government to negotiate the moneys from Brussels——
The Minister has no influence in Government.
The Minister is a sophisticated bluffer.
——which has resulted in a £60 million shortfall, the legacy of which we have now inherited.
Tell that to the farmers.