Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Oct 2001

Vol. 542 No. 5

Written Answers. - Control of Farm Pollution Scheme.

Alan M. Dukes

Question:

129 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the number of applications under the scheme of investment in the control of farmyard pollution which have been held up due to the fact that the budgeted allocation for 2001 has been fully committed; the measures he has taken to secure extra funding for this scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21788/01]

Jim Higgins

Question:

132 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason grants approved under the national farm pollution scheme have not been paid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21410/01]

Charles Flanagan

Question:

135 Mr. Flanagan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the number of farmers for whom payment of farmyard pollution grants have been sanctioned but not paid; when payment will be made; if interest will be paid for the length of time that farmers have this money borrowed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24860/01]

Willie Penrose

Question:

139 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the efforts made by his Department since June 2001 to have the EU Commission formally raise the ceiling on the national scheme for the control of farm pollution, farm waste management scheme; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that over 600 farmers are waiting for the payment of such grants; if his attention has further been drawn to the prompt payment of accounts legislation and the fact that farmers might be entitled to interest on outstanding grant payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25102/01]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 129, 132, 135 and 139 together.

My Department was in touch with the EU Commission about this problem well before June of this year. A formal written application to amend the State Aid approval was in fact made on 4 April 2001, some months before the ceiling for payments was reached. Since then my Department has been in constant communication with the Commission services, supplying additional material as requested and addressing the various concerns that are always present when there is any question of raising the ceiling on state aids. Officials of my Department travelled to Brussels in September to ensure that everything had been supplied to the Commission's satisfaction and were assured that this was the case and that all that remained was to process the application formally through the different levels of procedures laid down for internal and inter-service consultation. This procedure closed at the end of last week and I expect to have the formal written approval within the next day or so.

Just over 650 applicants await payment under this scheme. I have in previous replies explained that there is no provision for the payment of interest in cases like this. The Prompt Payment of Accounts Act referred to by Deputy Penrose is not intended to cover payment of grant-aid, which may be delayed for any number of reasons.
Top
Share