Vol. 467 No. 6
6 Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will bring forward payment under the control of farmyard pollution scheme to 1996, to farmers who have been informed that they will not be paid until 1997, particularly in view of the downturn in the agricultural industry as a result of the BSE scare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13672/96]
7 Dr. McDaid asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the funds remaining in respect of the control of farmyard pollution scheme; and the adequacy of these funds to cover the number of remaining applications. [13802/96]
26 Dr. Moffatt asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the plans, if any, he has to reopen the control of farmyard pollution scheme. [13803/96]
29 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the plans, if any, to restore the control of farmyard pollution scheme. [13671/96]
44 Mr. Kenneally asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number of farmers who have dropped out of the control of farmyard pollution scheme since the announcement in the House of Commons in relation to BSE of 20 March 1996. [13801/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 7, 26, 29 and 44 together.
The funding for the OPARDF, under which the control of farm pollution scheme is implemented, was agreed by the previous administration who negotiated the funding for the Structural Funds.
On taking up appointment I was very concerned to discover that the funds available for the operation of this scheme were seriously inadequate. It was necessary as a result to suspend the acceptance of new applications on 27 April 1995. Following negotiations with the Minister for Finance and the European Commission, revised funding arrangements were put in place to meet estimated demand from applicants on hand on 27 April 1995. These new arrangements involved the transfer of additional resources from elsewhere in the Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry, as well as bringing forward substantial funds, already available in the operational programme, to 1996 and 1997 from later years.
The revised funding arrangements enabled my Department to expedite payments to existing approved applicants as investment works were completed and also to issue approvals to outstanding applicants on hands. Subsequent approvals issued to applicants were on the basis that payment would issue in 1997 when further funds became available. It is not possible at this stage to bring forward additional funding to 1996. As regards the BSE scare the Deputy will be aware of the recent package of measures agreed yesterday at the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg, details of which I have already given to the House.
The position on funding is kept under constant review. At this stage, however, no savings are envisaged which would permit the reopening of the scheme. As regards cancellations since 20 March 1996, the position is that over the months April and May 1996 some 82 applications were cancelled. This compares with 122 cancellations over the same period last year.
I emphasise that the revised funding arrangements, now covering the CFP scheme, represent a major improvement on the position which applicants would have had to face had these not been introduced and that, based on best current estimates, there will be adequate funding to meet existing applications over the period to 1999.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply, but he did not deal with the issue. A large number of farmers who have entered into commitments and who will not get their grants until next year will be under severe financial pressure because of the BSE crisis. In reply to an earlier question, the Minister said the extra cow premia was 27 ECUs, while the extra bullock premia was 23 ECUs. For farmers with small herds, like many of those with which I would deal, that will not tide them over until the grants are paid. They will lose a lot more than that because of the potential drop in prices. Why can the Minister not get the funds from the Minister for Finance to pay the farmers who have entered into these commitments this year? How is this relevant to arrangements which existed one or two years ago before the BSE scare? Everything has changed since. Surely the Minister will agree that it is the Government's role to deal with the present, not to talk about the past.
While I appreciate what the Deputy says, those who invested in pollution control did so on the understanding that they would not be paid until 1997. Only for that provision, these people would not have got approval until 1998 or 1999. There are about 170 applicants in that position representing a grant commitment of approximately £1.3 million.
This scheme was underfunded; I am not making a political issue. The original proposal before our national cake was reduced was £180 million and we got £90 million. The funds were not available under the national programme. The original allocation for 1997 was £16 million but we will have to pay out £40 million in that year. All these people will be taken care of then. They will have to wait another year but luckily interest rates are down if they have to borrow money. If they are involved in REPS, they will get payments through it. That is another factor which should be taken into account.
I agree with the Deputy that farmers will be placed under financial pressure because of the BSE scare. We are doing our best to advance payments and the arrangements which the Minister put in place after securing extra money will ensure that the 18,500 applicants will be looked after by the end of the scheme in 1999.
The Minister mentioned a number of figures and he said there were commitments of £40 million for 1997. Is that in respect of work passed, sanctioned and ready for payments?
Some £40 million is available and will be paid. The financial commitment to the 172 people who have received approval and who have completed the job is £1.3 million.
It is extraordinary that the Minister cannot come up with £1.3 million to pay them now. He should consult the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Health on how to get money brought forward because they managed to get £80 million and £60 million, respectively, brought forward. The Minister could solve this problem by getting a small amount of money to pay these people this year. With all the buoyancy about which we hear, surely farmers could be paid now given the crisis?
Although it seems to be a small sum of money, it has already been brought forward from 1999, which has enabled the Minister to allow these people to go ahead. Rather than being paid in 1999, it is better that they are paid in 1997. However, the Deputy's point is worth considering and I will bring it to the Minister's attention.
A large number of applicants were only too glad to be able to go ahead. In addition to the 18,500 qualified and approved applicants, many others would like to be in a position to go ahead. We were most accommodating, although these people may now find themselves in financial difficulty. I will bring the Deputy's point to the Minister's attention and we will look at ways of advancing payment to these people. I am sure the Minister will ensure they are paid, if it is possible.
I am disappointed that this Government seems set to continue its policy of discrimination against the farming community, particularly against small scale farmers who are being deprived of the opportunity to put in place proper on-farm facilities. Will the Minister give a commitment as regards counties like Cavan where less than 50 per cent of applications for the control of farmyard pollution scheme have been approved to date? Those applications were lodged in early 1995. Will he give me a firm commitment that the remainder will receive immediate approval to enable urgent and necessary work to proceed?
Will the Minister say how much money was decommitted last year and this year under the various schemes? Does he intend to reintroduce a modified scheme in 1997?
Will the Minister again consider an amendment we tabled to the last Finance Act, which might help to resolve this problem next year, if not sooner? Farmers with taxable income would get a tax credit for the amount of grant due to them if payable under the direct grant scheme. That would release the grant to those farmers with a non-taxable income. The Minister has confirmed that this scheme is of the highest priority to ensure environmentally friendly farming and prepare farmers for the competitive future ahead of them in view of the more market oriented agricultural policies that will come onstream at European and other levels. Given that there is a limited amount of money and there is an oversubscription of applicants, that would be a simple solution. Will the Minister consider giving a tax credit to those with a taxable income so that they get their money while those with a non-taxable income could apply for the grant scheme?
I agree with Deputy Smith. As I said earlier, £90 million is not adequate under the programme. We have succeeded in increasing the amount, but it is still not enough to meet the demand. There are small-scale farmers who need to carry out pollution control work but will not be able to do so until after 1999. As regards the commitment to funding, in 1995 there was a commitment of £22.6 million; in 1996, £18.6 million; in 1997, £40 million; in 1998, £18.8 million and in 1999, £4.8 million. That money is committed to ensure the 18,500 applications are dealt with. On Deputy Cowen's question about taxation, which he raised previously with the Minister, I am sure that matter can be considered and I will certainly explore it further.
