I understand that Deputy Cullen will resume and that there are 20 minutes remaining to him and his colleagues.
Private Members' Business. - On Farm Investment Schemes: Motion.
The following motion was moved by Deputy H. Byrne on Tuesday, 23 May 1995:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the mismanagement of the on farm investment schemes, particularly the control of farm pollution scheme, by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and calls on the Government to meet the demand by farmers to make Irish agriculture compatible with the long term sustainable development of our resources.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann supports the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry in his efforts to ensure the effective operation of the on farm investment schemes, particularly the control of farm pollution scheme."
—(Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry).
With the permission of the House, I want to share my time with Deputies O'Leary, Foley, Moffatt and Foxe.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
With no disrespect to the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Durkan, I am disappointed that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry is not present.
The Minister's handling of this issue demonstrates that he is confronted by a problem with which he is unable to deal satisfactorily, that, clearly, the Government is dominated by urban-based parties, in particular by Labour and Democratic Left. It appears to be open to those two parties to find the requisite funds for given projects under their ministerial control, and direct them in a manner favouring urban funding to the detriment of agricultural funding overall. It appears that within the Cabinet, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has failed to secure agreement that agriculture be placed at the top of the Government's agenda. Clearly it is not in terms of its overall objectives or within the overall finances being provided within the terms of general Government fiscal policy.
It was also clear from an independent review of the previous operational programme that control of farm pollution and the development of environmental issues within the context of farming were seen as absolute priorities. The final sentence of that review said: "It indicated, however, that substantial investment was still needed in this area and that more targeting was necessary to attract small farmers into this scheme." I believe that to be a fact, the operational programme also provided for an expected 30,000 farmers' participation in that scheme.
Yesterday evening and in previous references to this, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry asked the Opposition what he could do, accompanied by a wringing of hands, maintaining that he does not have any options. He has options, two of which I will outline. One is that the bulge in terms of funding over the duration of the operational programme between now and 1999 will occur in the years 1996 and 1997; the greatest anticipated expenditure is encapsulated into those two years. Therefore, the Minister will have to bring forward some of that funding over the following 18 months to ensure that this programme is completed within a reasonable timescale to deal with the applications already submitted to his Department. It is within his Departmental Vote to provide the money in consultation with the Minister for Finance to adopt that approach.
Given that the rural environment protection scheme is crucial to the control of farm pollution — 40 per cent of those farmers wanting to draw down funds under the REPS scheme are unable to do so unless they have already implemented the provisions of the control of farm pollution scheme — if the take-up of the REPS scheme appears to be low, I suggest that the Minister divert some of the funds available to the REPS scheme to the control of farm pollution scheme. He must strike a balance between the two, because one is conditional on the other, and he requested suggestions in that regard.
I was shocked and amazed to learn that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has suspended the control of farm pollution scheme on 27 April last and decided that no further applications for the control of farm pollution would be accepted by his Department until further notice. I was also surprised that formal approval of existing applications ceased on that date.
The farmers of my constituency of South Kerry are bitterly disappointed with this decision of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. In County Kerry alone 658 farmers applied to participate in that scheme up to 27 April with only 211 certificates of approval having been issued. Last evening the Minister blamed the Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry, approved by the Commission in December 1994, in respect of which an allocation of £195 million was made available in Structural Funds for the period between 1994 and 1999, stating that 50 per cent only had been earmarked for the control of farm pollution scheme.
I am convinced — I have said on a number of occasions since 27 April — that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has a duty to farmers, particularly to the small to mediumsized farmers, to put a proposal to fund this scheme at the Cabinet table. We know it is all about money. The Minister must always act and be seen to act for the betterment of our farmers and find the requisite funding by some means or other. His predecessors found the necessary funds to resolve major problems within the Department and I call on the present Minister to do likewise. I know that 18,600 applications were received for participation in this scheme up to 27 April, of which 6,000 only had been approved, leaving 12,600 applicants without approval.
In addition, the business community is bitterly disappointed with the Minister's failure to resolve the matter. All Members will be aware that construction activities on farms always provides employment and creates jobs for the suppliers of materials and equipment for that purpose. Thousands of jobs are being lost as a result of the Minister's inaction to put a proposal to the Cabinet and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to provide the requisite funding to enable this scheme to be continued. The control of farm pollution and its attendant job creation should not be suspended until such time as additional funding is made available under the review of the Community Support Framework, which would not be undertaken by the Commission until the latter half of next year. The necessary finance should be obtained by Government at the earliest possible opportunity and the suspension of the scheme rescinded.
Thousands of farmers have made arrangements with lending agencies, with the ACC, their own banks and other financial institutions to back the State grant in its bid to assist in the control of farm pollution. Farmers, and the financial institutions, do not know where they stand. The financial institutions are most concerned, being unable to postpone granting a loan to individual farmers indefinitely, which places additional pressure on those institutions.
There is no point in saying to farmers that all applications received will be approved and that conditional certificates of approval will be issued. That is no use to farmers or their lending agencies, including banks, who support them. There is no point either in the Minister saying that the grants will be paid in 1996, 1997, 1998 or 1999.
It is obvious to many farmers, and I am convinced, that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and Government have very little interest in helping the farming community in their anti-pollution drive recommended by the Minister for the Environment and local authorities. I am now more convinced than ever that agriculture has a very low priority on the agenda of this rainbow Coalition Government.
I welcome the opportunity to support this timely Fianna Fáil motion, which is of vital importance to our agricultural industry as it focuses on an issue of enormous concern throughout rural areas.
The development of agriculture and control of farm pollution at source have received a major setback resulting from the decision of the Minister and his Government. The seriousness of the matter in County Kerry was clearly demonstrated in the figures the Minister gave the House last evening. For example, in County Kerry there were 658 applications for participation in the control of farm pollution scheme, only 211 of which were approved with 64 applications under the REPS scheme, of which 50 only were approved.
It is most disappointing and totally unacceptable that only 8.2 per cent of applications received under the control of farmyard pollution scheme since 1 September have been approved. To compound this position the Minister suspended the scheme, stating that formal approval of existing applications will cease for the time being. I would point out to the Minister the gravity of the problem for the farming community in County Kerry arising from the Minister's untimely decision to suspend the scheme.
The vast majority of farmers want to control and eliminate, where possible, farm waste that contributes to pollution. That is sensible from the point of view of farmers as well as environmentally and financially. The scheme is not a handout for farmers; it provides essential assistance towards large-scale expenditure. The majority of farmers cannot develop the essential pollution control facilities without financial support and a large number of farmers may be forced out of farming as a result of pollution problems.
The farming community in Kerry wants to tackle pollution problems. This is necessary to develop our tourism potential. It is essential that farmers who want to invest heavily in on-farm facilities be given financial assistance under this scheme. Apart from the need to develop on-farm facilities, such work generates substantial employment and practically all the input is sourced locally.
I support the motion on farmyard pollution. Farming is still the backbone of our economy. We have a quality agricultural product, produced in the main by natural means, and a green image. Therefore, our farmers can expect premium prices for their product. It is important that we retain our good image of an environmentally friendly agricultural nation. Farmers are willing to play their part in this regard, but doubts arise about the commitment of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. More than 18,000 applications were made under this scheme, 6,000 of which were approved, 3,000 of them in the priority category and a few under section 12 notices. What has happened the remaining 9,000 or more applications? They have been left in limbo. Even some of the priority applications may have to wait until 1997 for payment. The problem of pollution impinges upon the Departments of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, the Environment, Tourism and Trade and Enterprise and Employment. We put down this motion to illustrate the importance of this scheme not alone to the farming community but to other sectors.
The Minister says that to date he has received £100 million under this programme and he estimates that the scheme will require £140 million to £160 million. From where will the remaining money come? The Minister says there is no money left. I suggest that all the money has gone to the left, to Democratic Left, and we know what they think of agriculture — not a lot.
We did not get enough money originally. The amount was reduced by £2 billion. Fianna Fáil was short-changed.
The last Government secured more money from the EU than Fine Gael ever expected. I would have settled for £4 billion but we looked for £8 billion. The present Government would have no money were it not for the fact that Fianna Fáil secured as much as it could. We are still looking for the £8 billion and I presume we can still rely on Padraig Flynn to bring back most of that money. I hope the Government will use it wisely.
I thank my Fianna Fáil friends for sharing their time with me. I was amused yesterday evening to hear Fianna Fáil Deputies compliment one another on highlighting the cessation of this scheme. Perhaps big bodies move slowly, and Fianna Fáil certainly is a big body, but I raised this topic a fortnight ago on the Adjournment Debate. I am therefore surprised to hear Fianna Fáil gloating about it now.
That is why the Deputy is on the team.
I fully support the prevention of pollution at source rather than allowing it to occur and then having the expense of cleaning up and possibly facing litigation. We must bear in mind that 60 per cent to 80 per cent of wells and bore holes are polluted each year. That is a great indictment of us. Let us take fish kills as an indication of the extent of pollution. In 1987, the first year statistics were compiled, there were 122 fish kills whereas in 1994 that figure was reduced to 31. That is a great improvement, but we still have some distance to go. In 1987 the agricultural sector was responsible for 85 of the 122 fish kills while last year it was responsible for only ten fish kills. That is indicative of the approach of farmers to pollution. In the last seven years they have put tremendous effort, hard work and money into eliminating pollution.
Since September 1994, 18,500 people have applied for this scheme. One may wonder why there was such a huge uptake of this scheme when its predecessor was not as successful. There are a few reasons for this. First, the grants available under the previous scheme were smaller and, second, the conditions for entry to this scheme were relaxed, making it possible for non-farmers with land to apply. Those people are entitled to assistance in controlling pollution, but one would question the advisability of that considering it is at the expense of the full-time farmer who has no other source of income.
Part of the problem with the shortage of money stems from the famous meeting in Edinburgh when we were told we would get £8.7 billion. That figure was later reduced to £7.8 billion, then to £7 billion and eventually it was reduced to about £6.3 billion. That was part of the reason for the suspension of the CFP scheme.
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a gabháil do mo chomh-Theachta Tom Foxe agus do mo cháirde i Fhianna Fáil. Farmers have done a great deal to eliminate pollution, as illustrated by the reduction in fish kills. This debate ought to be about the ineptitiude not only of the present Government but previous administrations in dealing with this problem. The Fine Gael-Labour coalition of a few years ago brought a similar abrupt end to a farm modernisation scheme, causing havoc at the time.
That happened in 1986.
Fianna Fáil must take responsibility for drawing up the REPS in isolation from the control of farmyard pollution scheme. That created a dam which has now burst and unfortunately farmers are the losers. People who participated in the REPS do not have a facility to stem pollution. There is a great danger that funding for the REPs scheme is liable to be taken back by the EU unless the Government ensures it is used in conjunction with farm pollution control. The Minister must answer a number of questions tonight. Will he pay interest on the delayed payments after conditional approval has been given? Will he confirm that two years must elapse before the farm pollution scheme and farm improvement programme are resurrected? Is he prepared to increase the organic farming fund of £1 million over five years which is nothing short of derisory?
I wish to share my time with Deputies Connaughton, Theresa Ahearn, Penrose and Eric Byrne.
That is satisfactory and agreed.
If the Deputy had his way he and his red colleague would take all the poor farmers off the land.
Time is precious, let us not erode it.
The operational programme on agriculture, food and forestry originally negotiated by the former Minister, Deputy Walsh, has ensured that this scheme is underfunded to the tune of approximately £60 million.
The Deputy's party is in power now.
The Deputy will recall that under the National Plan £8 billion was trumpeted by the previous Taoiseach as a dowry to get into Government, but that is no longer the case as we in Government know the figure is only £5.8 billion. We know there is only £195 million available under the operational programme rather than the promised £245 million under the National Plan. Deputy Byrne and other Deputies realise that, but the chickens have come to roost for agriculture, particularly for this scheme. A total of 18,600 applications were submitted before 27 April and Deputy Byrne and other Deputies in Fianna Fáil would like farmers to continue to submit applications under the scheme, even though they do not know when they will receive payment to carry out necessary works. The Minister must be congratulated for facing up to this difficult problem sooner rather than later, ensuring that farmers know where they stand if they carry out such works and can be assured of payment for them.
On a point of information, Deputy Hogan was referring to Deputy Byrne of Fianna Fáil rather than to me.
We have not fallen out yet.
Deputy Byrne should not point the finger at me.
Pass the man a shovel.
A number of questions must be answered tonight. Why have 18,000 farmers indicated their desire to build slatted cattle houses to control farmyard pollution? Why have only approximately 6,500 been given certificates of approval to build those slatted houses and thereby draw down a 60 per cent grant? Why have the other 12,000 applicants not received certificates of approval? The simple answer is that there is no money in the scheme and that is tragic.
There is money for everyone else.
When the ground work was done on the planning of the Structural Funds for the period 1994-99 somebody made an alarming mistake. We know that decision was not arrived at in a day, a week or a year. The former Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh, must have known that the likely draw down on a control of pollution scheme for 60 per cent grants would be great by any standards. The REPS scheme was in place when the previous Government introduced a control of pollution scheme shortly before it left office. Details of the REPS scheme were known at that time and should have been considered in conjunction with this scheme. Nobody need tell me that the REPS scheme was thought up afterwards. The two schemes operate in tandem and the previous Government knew that.
That is the background to the scheme and no amount of bickering or whinging from the Opposition will change the reasons grant aid had to be suspended. A Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry who allows worthless certificates of approval to be issued to farmers and then cons and bankrupts them when they claim back their money, should not be in this House. That is why the present Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry had to intervene. We inherited the problem, we did not create it and I put forward a number of proposals to resolve it. It is in the national interest that the 12,000 or 13,000 farmers concerned who are in limbo be helped. There is no point in the Opposition saying that £30 million to £60 million can be found in one fell swoop next week and that everybody can proceed with their works. Deputy Hugh Byrne knows that sort of talk is nonsense. There must be another approach.
Deputy De Rossa got £210 million. The Deputy should ask his red colleague how he secured that money.
Deputy Byrne will have an opportunity to reply to this debate later.
We will have to consider the capital allowances for new buildings and I believe many farmers could fund such works through taxation. There has been a major upward swing in the graph in the cost of buildings. Some people are raking in the money as a result of the increase in the price of sheds, concrete and other materials. I hope this debate will introduce some reality. Farmers are paying £2,000 to £3,000 more for a slatted house than last year. Why has that been allowed to happen? This point may not go down well with the technical people, but the type of ironwork that must go into the foundations of some of the small slatted houses reminds me of the bunkers used by the Germans during the war. We want good durable farm buildings, but I wonder if we have gone overboard regarding specifications.
There are many other points I wish to make, but I do not want to impinge on my colleagues time. Having regard to the other subheads and the 1996 review, we will have to ensure more money from Brussels for that scheme. I am sure all farmers will be looked after at the end of the day.
The end of the day may be closer than the Deputy thinks.
That is still not going to improve matters for the Deputy.
If one did not know the facts behind this motion, from listening to the contributions of the Opposition speakers one would think that in this instance the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, had a choice and made his decision without a reason to do so. That is not the case. One would also believe that the Minister caused the suspension of the scheme. They and I know that is not the case. Listening to those contributions, one would be led to believe that the Minister did not have the interest of Irish agriculture at heart, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Opposition should accept that the Minister has shown tremendous character and courage in facing the harsh reality of having to tell farmers that there is not sufficient funding for the scheme to approve the thousands of applications submitted to farm development offices.
The Minister was not the cause of the problem. It resulted from a shortage of funding because of inadequate negotiations carried out by the former Government. The Minister inherited that problem and has confronted it. Seldom have we had a Minister who has shown such interest in agriculture, who looks upon farmers as human beings, who launched a charter of rights for farmers, ensures that farmers get their premiums on time and seeks to provide dignified facilities to farmers when they need help or information. I believe this is a short term setback for this scheme because I trust the capability and determination of the Minister to secure additional funding through renegotiation. I have no doubt that the Opposition parties will have to bite back their words when the Minister returns home following further negotiations having secured additional funding for this scheme.
We are all dissatisfied, none of us takes joy in the difficult decision the Minister was forced to take, but I do not consider it a final decision. He had to make a courageous decision and he took the correct course of action. He did not cod the farmers or mislead them into believing that because their application forms had been submitted they would be approved. He told them the truth and this is a welcome change in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. I am confident this will only be a short term setback.
The kiss of death for the Minister.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate and I do so as one who recognises the central role of agriculture in our economy. Like my colleague, Deputy Foxe, who is also a former agricultural consultant, in the mid-1980s I advised farmers in the midlands that it was paramount, for the sake of their holdings and the many lakes and inland waterways in the area, that they should pursue plans that would assist in the control and elimination of farm pollution. It was a great source of satisfaction to me that many farmers embarked on such plans and, with the assistance of Teagasc, the local authority and the fishery board, significant progress was achieved. I applaud the efforts of farmers who responded positively to the measures proposed in that regard.
Apart from the environmental and aesthetic features which such pollution control measures played during that period and which were pivotal to overall farm management activity, as a person who worked in this area, I have no doubt that the availability of capital allowances in the form of a significant element of depreciation played a central role in allowing many farmers fund necessary pollution control facilities. Money which would otherwise have been used on tax payments and so on was reinvested to fund such works. The 50 per cent relief that was available until April 1993 for investment in grant approved pollution control facilities has been whittled down to approximately 15 per cent. As sufficient funds are not available to meet the number of applications under the control of farmyard pollution scheme, that matter could be examined with a view to obtaining additional funding.
I welcomed the introduction of this scheme last September as it focused particularly on the needs of small farmers and was in line with the recommendations of the independent evaluation of the previous scheme. The current scheme aims to control farm pollution by providing grant-aid for various activities such as farm holdings, farmyards and storage facilties for fodder and agricultural wastes, including silage effluent, slurry, waste water, roof run-off and dairy washing and disposal equipment. Subject to an overall investment ceiling of £22,500 grants of up to 60 per cent were available to farmers with small and medium-sized holdings, in other words, to farmers producing up to 32,000 gallons of milk per annum or with less than 80 livestock units. The former Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry should have realised the attractiveness of the scheme to farmers, it was a victim of its own success. He made a major error is not recognising that. Enterprises of 80 livestock units or less were also grant-aided in respect of farm roadways, water supplies to fields, shelters, screening beds for farmers participating in the farm improvement programme for the control of farmyard pollution and the REPS.
I am not surprised at the unprecedented demand from farmers for grant-aid under the control of farmyard pollution scheme. Structural funding for the 1994-99 period was insufficient. As a qualified agricultural economist I believe the total amount required under the farm investment section would be approximately £270 million. I was a back bench member of the previous Government, but I accept it was at best naive and at worst inept in its calculations of the likely funding required to finance investment under the programme. The former Minister should have heeded warning signals when the national plan allowed for an allocation of £245 million, but only £195 million was provided. He should have realised a shortfall of approximaely £60 million would cause major problems. This was apparent in 1994 and does not come as a surprise now. One does not need to be a graduate in economics or accountancy to realise that the funding was insufficient.
There is no benefit to be gained from apportioning blame, but if blame is to be apportioned it should rest with the previous Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry who should have realised this scheme would be attractive to farmers and anticipated the likely uptake. He failed miserably to secure adequate funding and it fell short by approximately £60 million.
When the scheme was suspended on 27 April 1995 a total of 18,600 applications had been received. I have no doubt that such a level of demand was generated by the fact that many of the participants in the REPS require pollution control works to be carried out under this scheme and were under pressure in this regard from local authorities, fishery boards and so on.
Why did the Minister wait unit 27 April to suspend the scheme?
The previous CFP scheme was suspended in April 1992. A total of 9,000 farmers can proceed with pollution control works, 6,000 have been granted full approval and 3,000 conditional approval. I understand further conditional approval will be given to farmers on a monthly basis in order of receipt prior to 31 December 1994. As only 50 per cent of applications received to date will be facilitated under the scheme, we should bring forward funding under the Structural Funds to ensure the necessary finance is available. It is obvious that a case for addiitonal funding under the review of the Community Support Framework to be carried out by the Commission next year should secure the support of the Commission. The system which applied to the previous scheme, whereby the total allocation was made available for utilisation by the Department, was more desirable than the annual allocations in vogue under the current scheme. The Minister should endeavour to obtain that concession also.
Approximately 180 applications have been received from farmers in County Westmeath under the REPS, a large number of whom must have pollution control works carried out within 12 months. An application under REPS which would involve pollution control works could not proceed. The suspension of the control of farmyard pollution schemes will impact on farmers applying for the REPS. The position is that farmers get their first year's payment due on the REPS at an early stage but they do not get their second payment until all pollution control works have been carried out within the 12 months' guideline. I urge the Minister to pursue with the Commission the issue of the relaxation of the 12 months' time stipulation in regard to carrying out works.
I hope that the promised review of the scheme in September will result in positive news for farmers who have to carry out necessary environmental and modernisation works. I am also conscious of the substantial level of investment in farms which has a positive knock-on effect for employment, particularly in rural areas. In County Westmeath, approximately 500 applications have been received up to the date of the suspension of the scheme, with approximately 48 obtaining full approval.
I wish to return to the point I made in relation to the restoration of capital allowances of 50 per cent of the cost for grant approved pollution control facilities. This would help to soften the blow of the suspension of the current scheme and facilitate the continuity of investment by releasing funds to farmers to help finance necessary on-farm investment measures which are vital for a modern, environmentally friendly, agricultural industry.
As an urban TD, I believe there are two matters at issue here. The first concerns the operation of the control of farmyard pollution scheme which depends on the vagaries of European Union funding. Our Fianna Fáil colleagues in the House know all about EU funding and its vagaries given that they mislaid over £2 billion of it on their way from Edinburgh via Brussels, to Dublin.
Deputy Byrne knows a lot about vagaries and financial extractions. He made his own money.
The other more important issue is the way the EU funds are allocated at national and European level. I want to say to the restless Fianna Fáil Deputies on my left that I endorse the principle behind the control of farmyard pollution scheme. There is no doubt that its recent suspension caused severe problems for farmers wishing to avail of the REPS. In this regard, I welcome the Minister's announcement on 17 May that applications from farmers who had already received the first year's REPS payment will be processed. The two schemes are clearly linked and to fund one without funding the other would simply amount to throwing good money after bad.
The motion put down by the Fianna Fáil Deputies deplores the mismanagement of the on-farm investment schemes. Undoubtedly, there has been mismanagement but, as is the case with other European funding it orginated with the previous Administration. A total of £195 million of Structural Funds was allocated to the on-farm investment section of the Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry for the period 1994-99. Approximately half that amount was earmarked for the CFPS. However, under the national plan, the total amount allocated to on-farm investment schemes would have been approximately £245 million but that was before the plan was subjected to radical surgery in the wake of the shrinking billions, which Fianna Fáil lost from the swag bag to which I referred earlier.
May we have a copy of the Deputy's speech?
In the event, there was a shortfall of at least £60 million and it is hardly surprising that it impacted on the CFPS. I congratulate Minister Yates on the efforts he has made on behalf of farmers and the Government in resolving this problem.
Strange bedfellows.
This is the first time they were in favour of farmers.
However, the CFPS and the REPS are only two of a mind boggling array of schemes, grants and perks which to date have benefited a few large ranchers to the exclusion of many small and part-time farmers. Mad CAP disease and its various symptoms are costing us dearly.
Mad what?
Farmers now receive approximately one-third of their income from various EU grants and perks and the proportion is steadily increasing.
What is the Deputy talking about? Somebody wrote the script for him and he cannot even read it. What is mad CAP?
The Deputy, without interruption.
This year it is estimated that over £700 million of European taxpayers money will flow into the pockets of Irish farmers and that figure is set to rise next year. Farmers claimed an average of £3,292 in respect of the silly setaside scheme last year. Some of Fianna Fáil's friends, the ranchers, received lottery style payouts amounting to in excess of £70,000 for allowing land to remain unused.
The Russian ranchers were funding the Deputy's party for years.
We are all familiar with the similar payouts received in respect of headage payments. These schemes militate in favour of the large farmer. Set-aside and headage payments work on a simple principle — the more you have the more you get. PAYE workers watched in bemusement while farmers got more grants and paid fewer taxes than the rest of the population. In 1989, the average farmer's tax bill was 27.7 per cent of that of a PAYE worker. In 1993, it was just 21.6 per cent and the proportion is declining. Between 1989 and 1993 the average tax bill of a PAYE worker increased by £63 per week. The average tax bill of a farmer——
What has this to do with the topic under discussion?
——increased by a mere £3 per week.
That was because his income was declining.
Like other schemes, farm subsidies are paid for by the taxpayer and some taxpayers, such as the PAYE sector, pay a great deal more than others.
The EU budget is finite. Unless Europe's politicians bite the bullet and undertake a fundamental reform of the CAP, curbing some of its more absurd aspects, there will be a decreasing amount of money to pay for the necessary schemes such as the REPS and the CFPS, in addition to other vital spending.
It is interesting to note that a discussion document was prepared for the European Commission last year which identified many of the problems inherent in the Common Agricultural Policy. It recommended a review of the policy which would effectively return control of a large part of agricultural policy making to national governments. The report was extremely controversial, as Members are aware, and did not agree with all its recommendations, but its authors had the courage to identify the problem and suggest solutions. At a time when record levels of unemployment and exclusion are being experienced throughout Europe, there is a clear need to divert increased funding to depressed urban and industrial centres to reverse industrial decline and create employment. I particularly welcome the URBAN programme, which was promoted by Democratic Left's MEP, Des Geraghty, in the European Parliament——
The former MEP.
——as an urban equivalent of the successful Leader programme.
The pressures on the EU budget are constantly increasing and are likely to increase further as the enlargement process continues. Unless we control the amount being eaten by the CAP and ensure that agricultural funding is targeted at the areas of greatest need, we will be unable to focus resources on the need to reverse urban and industrial decline. The control of farmyard pollution scheme and associated environmental programmes are vital if we are to protect our greatest resource — a clean environment and a green brand image for our agricultural produce. They form an essential part of the work provided for under the Structural Funds and should not be confused with the Common Agricultural Policy and its madhatter excesses.
Europe's governments must take a hard look at the totality of the CAP and they will be forced to make some difficult decisions during the coming decade.
Deputy Byrne is trying to stop money coming into the country. God help Ireland.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Killeen, O'Cuív and Noel Treacy.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I wish to add my voice to that of various Members who have expressed great anger and apprehension about the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry's decision to suspend the control of farmyard pollution grant scheme. The decision to suspend this scheme comes in the wake of the decision to discontinue grant aid under the farm improvement programme. The control of farmyard pollution grant scheme and the farm improvement programme were a tremendous source of support to the farming sector in implementing investment programmes on individual farms. Given the cost of putting slurry handling facilities in place, the grant aid available under the scheme was absolutely essential to help fund that investment on the farm. I do not disagree with the Department's technical specifications required to avail of grant aid but this has added very considerably to the cost of constructing the slurry tanks and farm buildings. I do not know whether it would be possible to modify the specifications in the wake of the decision that has been taken and I am sure this would have to be raised with the respective planning authorities.
The unit cost of constructing slurry handling facilities on small and medium sized farms is much higher than on larger holdings, with economies of scale being relevant. The cubic metre cost of larger tanks decreases with the size of the structure involved, consequently the Minister's decision has much more serious implications for small and medium sized farmers. Taken in conjunction with the lower repayment capacity on small and medium sized farms, it effectively compounds the plight of our smaller producers. The Minister should take due cognisance of that in attempts to establish priorities under the scheme. The various FDS offices have submitted applications to the Department but the Minister in replying to a recent supplementary question effectively ruled out the possibility of considering applications from those who have not met the deadline.
Another issue I wish to raise with the Minister of State, who is representing the Minister, is the implications for the implementation of the dairy hygiene regulations if individual farmers are not in a position to meet deadlines because of the non-availabilty of grant aid and the huge capital costs involved.
It bears repeating in the context of this debate that there are two areas in the agricultural industry where capital investment is urgently needed, slurry storage and handling facilities and handling and storage facilities for the potato industry. I know from my experience there is tremendous interest in that scheme but I am not sure that the grants provision under the OPRD is sufficient to meet it. It would be a great pity if the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry effectively allowed investment decisions to stagnate in those two areas because of problems with the availability of grant aid. There is an urgent ongoing need for investment in those two areas. It may be necessary in the short term to prioritise but it is important to take account of the areas that need most urgent attention and ensure that the categories that have not the capacity to raise the finance are able to do so as soon as possible. I repeat the point I made in regard to the deadline for the implementation of the dairy hygiene regulations and ask the Minister to deal with it. Will there be changes in the dairy hygiene regulations to cater for individual farmers who may not be able to meet the deadline?
Caithfear a admháil gur bhuille tubaisteach do fheirmeoirí a raibh suim acu sa scéim agus i ndul chun cinn i gcúrsaí caomhnú na timpeallachta gur cuireadh deireadh leis an scéim chun truailliú ó fheirmeacha a chosc. Is léir freisin nach dtuigeann an tAire táhacht na scéime agus gur bheag suime atá aige i bhfadhbanna na bhfeirmeoirí bochta atá i mbun oibre ag feabhsú a gcuid feirmeacha.
I am concerned at the impact on the environment in County Clare of the suspension of the control of farmyard pollution scheme. An examination of the number of approvals compared with the number of applications received in the county is very revealing and clearly requires an explanation and remedial action. For example, there is a 20 per cent approval rate in County Clare as against the national average of 33 per cent. In some counties there is an approval rate of 50 per cent but in Clare only 245 of 1,190 applications have been approved. The Minister must address the imbalance in the rate of approval. Why should farmers in County Clare suffer because the level of staffing is lower than that in other countries or because of other constraints on staff? The Minister must ensure an even level of approvals so that no area becomes a black spot. I believe that can be done if the Minister has the will to address it.
The position in County Clare on 12 May under the rural environment protection scheme was not as bad, with 94 out of 177 applications approved, 55 per cent compared to the national average of 68 per cent. Because of the interdependency between the control of farmyard pollution scheme and the rural environmental protection scheme it is vital that a system be devised to complete and streamline approvals in the areas where they overlap.
The figures for the dairy hygiene scheme mentioned by Deputy Kirk are far more worrying as only 12 out of 264 applicants in County Clare have been approved, less than 5 per cent compared with the national average of 26 per cent, more than five times the rate of approval in County Clare. This scheme has not been suspended. The works required under it are not in any real sense optional and many more farmers will find that they will be required to avail of the scheme. The applicants under the schemes must not be starved of funds as their counterparts for grant aid under the CFP scheme have been. In setting out a strategy for payment to farmers who have applied under the control of farmyard pollution scheme but have not yet been approved for grant aid, the Minister shows no understanding of the financial reality for most farmers, particularly in the western counties, who cannot possibly carry the extra burden of borrowings if payments under the scheme are to be deferred as he outlined on Question Time last week. My understanding is that the average maximum grant would be of the order of £13,500 but the cost of housing and allied development would run to between £30,000 and £40,000 and sometimes more. There is no possibility of small farmers being able to fund the balance while carrying the level of grant aid in borrowings for as long as three or four years.
Many farmers depended on qualifying under REPS for extra finance to pay the balance of costs incurred on works carried out under the CFP scheme. Even if approved, they stand to lose both because they are unlikely to be in a position to bear the extra cost. I ask the Minister to introduce a scheme under which the State would finance the cost of the grants in the short term and subsequently recoup it from European funds. That would enable farmers to undertake the works required, the environment would benefit and no one would lose out unduly.
Many farmers did not apply for the scheme and are now worried in case local authorities or the Environmental Protection Agency hold them responsible for polluting water or other resources. Some method must be devised to grant aid these farmers.
Tá mé an-bhuíoch deis a fháil labhairt ar an ábhar seo. Ceann de na rudaí is measa atá ag baint le scéimeanna talmhaíochta ná go gcuirtear tús leo agus ansin sul a mbíonn deireadh leis an scéim cuirtear deireadh le glacadh le hiarratais. Is é an toradh a bheidh leis sin ná an cineál rud a tharla san Aontas Sóibhéideach maidir le cúrsaí bídh. Sé sin go raibh dóthain bídh le fáil ach nuair a chuala daoine go raibh bia ar an margadh chuaigh gach duine ag an ollmhargadh ar fhaitíos go mbeadh sé imithe nuair a thocfaidís ann. Tharla an rud céanna anois maidir le scéimeanna talmhaíochta. De bharr an rud a tharla sa chás seo nuair a fhógrófar scéim talmhaíochta níos mó tuigfidh daoine go gcaithfidh siad dul agus tarraingt an scéim sin ar an bpointe nó go mbeidh an contúirt ann nach mbeidh tada fágtha nuair a thiocfaidh siad san leis an obair a dhéanamh. Ní hé sin bealach ar bith scéim a rith. Ba cheart don Aire dul i gcomhairle leis an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh. Bhí mé ag rá leis níos túisce inniu go mba cheart dó labhairt leis an Aire Proinsias De Rossa maidir le cúrsaí scrúdú maoine ar fheirmeoirí. Ba chóir dó labhairt leis an Aire céanna freisin chun chomhairle a fháil uaidh chun teacht ar airgead nuair a bhíonn sé ag teastáil agus nuair a bhíonn gá leis. Bhí an tAire Leasa Shóisialaigh, agus Dia go deo leis, in ann teacht ar na milliúin punt nuair a bhí gá leis le híocaíocht a dhéanamh. Molaim don Aire Talmhaíochta dul anonn agus labhairt leis an Aire Shóisialaigh, comhairle a ghlacadh uaidh agus teacht aníos leis an airgead le íocaíochtaí a chur ar fáil do na feirmeoirí seo.
Mar a bhíomar ag rá níos tuisce inniu, i gCoiste Dála, tá casadh aisteach sa scéal seo sa chaoi is go mbaineann sé le feirmeoirí slébhe. Ní raibh na feirmeoirí sléibhe in ann cur isteach ar REPS schemes go dtíle gairid mar go raibh éiginnteacht ag baint leo go mór-mhór maidir le scrúdu maoine i dtaobh airgead on REPS. Ar an ábhar sin ní raibh na pleananna tarraingte aníos acu. Ní raibh na pleananna tarraingte aníos acu faoin farmyard pollution ach oiread. Ar an ábhar sin anois ní bheidh siad in ann páirt a ghlacadh sa REPS scheme mar ní bheidh de acmhainn acu anois tabhairt faoi cosaint a dhénamh ar thruailliú feirme. Mar sin, uair amháin eile tá dochar as cuimse déanta don dream is lú de na feirmeoirí, is iad sin na feirmeoirí atá ag maireachtáil ar na cnoic. Caithfidh mé a rá go gcuireann sin as dom go mór.
Mar eolas don Aire i láthair na huaire níl ach 139 duine ceaptha le haghaidh an Scéim REPS i gContae na Gaillimhe. De réir an eolais atá agamsa níl ach fíor bheag díobh sin taobh thiar den Choirb. Ní féidir leo anois a bheith páirteach sa REPS mar ní féidir leo íoc as na costais leis an truailliú a chosaint. Bhí go leor de na feirmeoirí sléibhe a chaithfeadh sheds le haghaidh caorach a choinneáil taobh istigh sa Gheimhreadh, a dtógáil da mbeidís ag baint buntáiste ar bith as an Scéim REPS. Níl sin acu anois. An fáth nach raibh siad istigh ar an scéim ar ndóigh mar go raibh an tAire Talmhaíochta gus an tAire Leasa Shóisialaigh ag caint le chéile agus bhí sé i gceist acu rud éigin a dhéanamh maidir leis an scrúdú maoine ach níor dhein siad riamh é.
Tá fhios agam gur phléamar seo tráthnóna ach is aisteach mar atá rudaí ag casadh sa Teach seo agus tá an ceann seo filleadh go trom ar an Aire. Molaimse dó mar sin dul ar ais go dtí an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh agus dhá rud a iarraidh air — a dheimhniú dó nach dtógfar airgead a íocfar le feirmeoiri as an Scéim REPS, nach dtógfar sin san áireamh nuair a bheidh scrúdú maoine á dhéanamh. Uimhir a dó, comhairle a ghlacadh uaidh maidir le cén bealach chun airgead a fháil le n-íoc as an scéim seo. Más rud é nach bhfaighfear airgead le leanacht leis an scéim seo ar feadh na cúig bliana is dóigh liomsa go mbeidh dochar thar chuimse déanta do thionscal na feirmeoireachta agus muinín feirmeoirí. Ba chóir go mbeidh deontais le fáil nuair a theastaíonn uatha súd an obair a dhéanamh seachas go gcaithfidh gach duine dul an chéad lá agus tarraingt as an deontas.
Tá go leor rudaí go bhféadfainn a rá agus gur mhaith liom a rá ach caithfidh mé mo chuid ama a roinnt. Caithfidh mé seo a rá leat, a Aire. Tá sé de ghradam agus de cháil ort gur tú an chéad Aire riamh nach raibh airgead le fáil le haghaidh aon chineál shed feirme is cuma cé chomh riachtanach is a bheadh sé. Don chéad uair riamh níl aon deontas le fáil le haghaidh shed feirme d'fheirmeoiri na tíre seo. Sin an cháil a thabharfaidh tú leat mar Aire Talmhaíochta.
Since last November we have witnessed some of the worst exercises in hypocrisy by any political group. The events of last week bring this home. We have a leaderless Government in crisis. It is not committed to agriculture. We have an immature Minister for Agriculture who believes that media management of his image and restrictions on the management of agricultural affairs is the way to achieve success in the EU.
The Government appointed 17 Ministers of State, two more than any other Government yet they could not appoint an extra Minister of State to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. That proves its commitment to agriculture.
I do the work of three people.
We have heard the gross hypocrisy of Government backbenchers who blamed the former Minister and Fianna Fáil for the shortage of funding. We published a national development plan which contained a plan for agriculture. When we were preparing the Book of Estimates the Government which was about to come into office roared and raved that we should not do so. We extracted ourselves from Government and, lo and behold, this Government prepared the Book of Estimates. The Minister for Finance did not have the commitment, the Taoiseach did not have the capacity and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry did not have the ability to deliver sufficient resources to underpin a national development plan for agriculture and ensure that one of the most adventurous, important and positive programmes ever put forward, the CFP, would be properly funded in 1995 and beyond. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is one of the most important and biggest spending Departments. The Minister, who as a shadow spokesman on Finance roared and ranted, operated in a parliament which saw some of this party's most influential and resourceful Ministers of Finance serve this country, but could not grasp that within the huge budget he could allocate and prioritise resources to ensure the schemes were funded.
The Minister could allocate resources to ensure that this scheme which is vital to the development of agriculture and its continued progress——
How is the Deputy fixed following the redrawing of the boundaries?
The highest number of applications for this scheme, over 2,630, were from my county. It is obvious that there are big farmers in Wexford as few applications were received from that county. The Minister is only concerned about his constituency. The interests of our primary industry are sadly neglected at a time when it could be developed. We know lamb prices——
I fixed that.
As regards the export of live cattle——
I fixed that too.
When they could not reach agreement in Europe the Minister said he would go home and inflict pain on the farming community. We know the commitments he gave and the response received. If the Minister continues in office for another year agriculture will decline.
Talk to an exporter. I hope Senator Fahey will not be too hard on the Deputy in Galway East.
(Wexford): I wish that the farmers in Wexford were being adequately looked after by the Minister. However, they do not think that this is the case.
The suspension of the control of farm pollution scheme is nothing short of a disgrace and proves beyond doubt that the Government has no interest in the farming community or the wider environment. Reference has been made to 18,000 applications, 6,000 of which have been approved. What will happen to the 12,000 applicants who will be left in limbo?
We are looking after them.
(Wexford): Local authorities are very strict on pollution control. Will a farmer who is summonsed by the local authority be able to tell the county manager that the Minister told him that his application was provisionally approved but he would not get the money until 1997 and he wants the court case deferred until that time? If a farmer borrows money will the Minister underwrite the interest payments until 1997? Given his record in Government, there is very little chance of the Minister doing this. Small farmers will be unable to borrow money to control pollution. Like the Government and the farm organisations, bank managers do not want to know about small farmers.
The Minister must fight at the Cabinet table for increased funding. It is not good enough for him to say that this is the amount Fianna Fáil negotiated. When he was in Opposition Deputy Yates had all the answers to the financial problems of the then Government.
I inherited a mess.
(Wexford): He is in Government now and he must come up with the money. Three weeks ago at a meeting with sheep farmers in Wexford he had all the answers.
He pulled the wool over their eyes.
(Wexford): Sometimes I wonder about the farm organsiations. During my time in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry there were marches and pickets and on one occasion sheep were led into the foyer of Agriculture House. I am amazed at the silence of the farm organisations on this matter. I congratulate the Minister on keeping the IFA under control at national level. Many of the farmers who attended that meeting in Wexford told me that they thought the leadership of the IFA was acting as a PR machine for the Minister. They told me how he met them at 6 a.m. and 7 a.m.——
On the way home.
(Wexford):——and at 10 p.m.
I delivered big time for them.
(Wexford): Meeting farmers early in the morning or late at night does nothing to improve the prices paid to farmers who have been abandoned by the Government and the Minister.
The decision to suspend the control of farm pollution scheme is a disgrace. As recently as two or three weeks ago the Minister launched an ambitious programme for the development of the food industry. The perception is that we have a clean and green environment. Yet the Minister is now telling farmers that the Government is no longer interested in the environment and they will not get any funding to control pollution. The Minister is abandoning farmers who want to invest money in pollution control. He will have to adopt a tough stance at the Cabinet table so that the left wing Ministers do not take all the money out of the kitty. If the Minister does this he will have done a good job for farmers who are very important to the economy. To date the Minister has failed in regard to farm pollution control and he has let down farmers.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Moynihan and Michael Smith.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Minister has defended his inability to secure funding for the control of farm pollution scheme by attacking Fianna Fáil for not doing enough when it was negotiating funding in Brussels for the National Development Plan. I wish to remind him that his party did more to undermine the negotiating position of the then Government than anybody else. It consistently derided the efforts of the then Taoiseach and Ministers who were trying to secure the best possible deal for this country. Having achieved this, they were further derided for adopting a begging bowl attitude——
That was the Progressive Democrats.
The attitude of Fine Gael was that we should not go to Europe looking for money. I find it rich that a Minister who had all the answers in Opposition should start whinging about what Fianna Fáil did in office. His party played no small part in ensuring that we got a reduced allocation from the European Commission. The chickens are now coming home to roost.
I was very interested in the comments made by Deputy Eric Byrne who has an extensive knowledge of agricultural matters coming as he does from Dublin South Central. He said that Fianna Fáil had introduced numerous schemes so as to benefit its rich rancher friends. If Deputy Byrne does some study on rich ranchers he will find that they support Fine Gael, not Fianna Fáil which is supported by small farmers. I am sure the Deputy's constituents in Dublin South Central will be interested to learn that he is supporting a party which supports the big ranchers whom he has so roundly condemned.
The Government in its programme A Government of Renewal, states: “The quality of many of our important lakes and rivers continues to deteriorate because of pollution from agricultural waste. We are committed to tackling all sources of pollution of these important national resources”. In spite of this statement the Minister has decided to suspend the control of farm pollution scheme. The Government's policy on the environment is schizophrenic. The Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry are playing a kind of good cop, bad cop game.
Mind the bad cop.
The Government has no concept of the impact of its policies on the environment. It has put the environment in one little compartment, devoted two or three pages to this issue in the programme for Government and is pursuing policies which are completely anti-environment. The Government seems to be committed to spending billions of pounds on end technology, so to speak, yet it cannot find £60 million to prevent pollution. This means that billions of pounds will be wasted in cleaning up a mess which could be prevented. As a result farmers who are committed to maintaining a clean environment will suffer the consequences of pollution, which the Minister will be responsible for creating. If we have fine weather during the summer there will be further incidents like the ones at Lough Sheelin, Lough Derg and Ballycroy. I ask the Minister to secure the necessary funding to put this scheme back on the rails.
Tá athas orm seans a fháil chun cuplá focal a rá faoi an scéim seo. Unless the control of farm pollution scheme is retained a sum of £250 million in REPS will be lost over the next five years. Farmers will not be able to finance the pollution control measures required under the scheme without grant assistance. The suspension of this scheme will create major problems in rural areas. If this important work is not undertaken the Government will have to accept responsibility for the consequent destruction of the environment.
The annual target for farmers joining the REPS scheme is 9,000. What is the Minister's plan to achieve it? What proportion of funds will the Minister bring forward from 1998 and 1999 to 1997 for the control of farm pollution scheme? From where will the Minister get the funding for the 1998 and 1999 schemes? Is it a coincidence when the present parties are in Government that the farmers are always in trouble with farm grants? Some eight to ten years ago the Government, made up of two of the parties now in Government, introduced a scheme, applications for which were forwarded to farmers and subsequently returned, inspections were carried out but they were never paid. Is it a coincidence that the same is happening again?
I congratulate Deputy Hugh Byrne on his initiative in putting this very important motion before the House. The number of speakers who have contributed is ample testimony to the interest and the need to ensure this scheme is put back on the rails as soon as possible. In the short time available to me I want to open the debate a little further. I see this scheme as an integral part of how we manage our natural environment. I was extremely disappointed to hear contributions from the Government side which tried to isolate the control of farm pollution scheme as if the only beneficiaries are the farming community.
Any person who takes even a cursory glance at the problems affecting our environment will know this scheme is interwoven with fishing interests and the supply of good quality water to our villages, towns and cities. Unless we have an effective means of controlling pollution from all sources including agriculture we are only paying lip service to a true interest in the environment. What would be the point in having an operational programme for fisheries, inland fisheries and the various other schemes now being put in place on foot of an effort by the previous Government to secure Structural Funds for a wide range of activities?
I am extremely disappointed that the Minister, Deputy Yates, would attempt to play politics with this circumstance. I understand there are times when the Minister will be short of money. I know from my experience in Government that emergencies arise and there will not be sufficient funds, as happened in the case of Aer Lingus. We did not envisage the large scale problems that emerged there but once we discovered them we sought to find the resources to help the national airlines to survive. The same could be said about Irish Steel. This year for equality payments £260 million was found——
That was not Structural Funds.
——on foot of a court decision and many people will benefit from it. It was not an anticipated result but it was one for which the Government found the resources. In circumstances where this scheme has been eminently successful why was it suspended? I am surprised at the Minister, Deputy Yates, suggesting he has to suspend the scheme because of its success. It was successful because as we begin to learn more about our natural environment and understand what pollution can do to our lakes, rivers and water supplies, farmers realise they have an obligation to use their own resources first. Because of the expense involved successive Governments know they must help. However, the scheme was underfunded and the scale of the problem was not anticipated.
This is a new era in politics. The Minister with responsibility, instead of trying to solve the problem, decided the best thing to do was to say the problem was caused by the previous Minister. That is ignoring the reality. Due to the success of the scheme the farmers who participated and the Minister know that the reason a farmer would make that investment with his own funds first is because there is a problem and he wants to solve it. We are transferring the problem to the future. Some day we may have the resources to support them but in the meantime lethal effluent is pouring into drains, rivers and lakes destroying fish life, possibly damaging water supplies and taking from the green image and our campaign to present Ireland as a green country, one that protects its natural environment. This enhances the prospect not only for agricultural production and our massive exports to the European continent and beyond but for a whole range of other activities in tourism, fishing and so on. I do not wish to dwell on the details but Members know what I am saying.
In circumstances where Governments find themselves in this difficulty it is usual to get around the table and try to find a solution. I ask the Minister not to be childish by saying somebody else did not provide sufficient funds. Do not try to pass the buck.
The Deputy knows the way the Structural Funds work.
The Minister needs to be at that table asking the other Minister in a green network — which I established and which, I understand, is being followed up by this Government — to integrate the particular Departments intrinscally involved in protecting the environment. The Minister must make a strong case not only in the context of what the scheme does for farming but in the context of its essential character in how Ireland presents itself and protect the natural environment.
We have enacted legislation requiring cleaner technologies, water, air, waste management and so on and imposing significant penalties. That is the way it should be. It makes a mockery of a Legislature if the type of legisaltion is enacted in the knowledge that if a problem arises it will not be overcome. The Minister will try to scramble out of it by pretending someone else could have done something different. Many people struggling to survive will face prosecutions. While Deputy Eric Byrne can laugh at the farming community and can point the finger, people who understand rural Ireland know that more people are leaving agriculture than any other profession or business. If agriculture is as good and as profitable a business to be in why are so many leaving? Those who are struggling most at this time — those frightened by debts, banks, the ACC and rising interest rates — are unable to find the resources to deal with this problem.
The Minister should stop crying about the past and find solutions. I am not interested in his PR machine or in how he silences the farming organisations. I am interested in the natural environment. If the Minister can obtain the resources that other Ministers did and protect the environment, he will have done a service to the farming community.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 47.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mulvihill, John.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
Níl
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick West).
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Callely.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.