The time limit for the debate is two hours. The Minister is allowed 15 minutes; the proposer of the motion is allowed 12 minutes; each other speaker is allowed eight minutes; and the proposer is allowed five minutes to reply.
Farmyard Pollution Scheme: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to reverse his decision to suspend the operation of the Control of Farmyard Pollution Scheme, and demands that sufficient funding and the necessary administrative personnel be made available so that applications under the scheme can continue to be accepted and processed and grants paid as they become due, particularly in view of the importance of farm pollution control to the operation of the REPS scheme.
I welcome the Minister on his first visit to the House. I hope he heeds what we have to say.
Fianna Fáil feels it is incumbent to move this motion because of the outrageous unilateral decision taken by the Minister to suspend a scheme demanded by farmers so they can continue in farming and meet the highest possible standards and so that the Irish food industry can increase its market share and provide produce of the highest standard in the most environmentally friendly way possible. Our motion asks that the Minister's decision to suspend the scheme be reversed. We demand that sufficient funding be made available to enable every farmer seeking grant aid under this scheme for necessary works to be paid promptly.
It is clear from the haphazard way approvals have been given throughout the country that, depending on the level of personnel in the farm development service in each county, there is great discrepancy between one county and another. The farm development service determined the numbers approved under the scheme until it was unilaterally suspended on 27 April by the Minister. More personnel are needed through the reallocation of resources, but that is the Minister's job.
We seek the proper administration of this grant scheme and ask that the total mismanagement this Minister has overseen over the past four months since he came to office should stop immediately. We insist on the farm pollution control scheme continuing and being properly administered because of its crucial importance to the take-up of over £450 million available from Brussels over the next nine years under the rural environmental protection scheme.
I will deal with each objective outlined in the motion and give reasons why Seanad Éireann should support them. The operation of the control of farmyard pollution scheme should not have been suspended. This scheme was brought in under the operational programme as part of on-farm investments up to a total of £235 million, and was agreed under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
Some £100 million was made available for the control of farmyard pollution scheme. That was a five year scheme which was unilaterally suspended by this Minister within six months of it coming into operation. This flies in the face of all logic. We have heard much about the need to meet the demands of farmers and to prioritise spending in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. It is clear, given that 18,600 people applied for the scheme since September and that there have been only 6,000 approvals, that this Minister is cutting off a scheme being demanded by farmers throughout the country. So much for the Minister's claim that he wanted to run a Department which was consumer friendly for farmers.
This scheme was demanded by farmers in unprecedented numbers. Grant aid under the scheme, which allows farmers to carry out this necessary environmental protection work, does not add one penny to the profitability of farmers. It is investment which must be carried out by all progressive farm enterprises to ensure we continue to have produce of the highest quality emanating from our farms as a raw material for the food industry, which is crucial to national development and responsible for 40 per cent of our exports.
So short sighted is the Minister that the only way he can deal with the increased demand for this scheme over and above expectations is to suspend it arbitrarily. There are a number of options open to him if he has difficulty providing cash for the scheme. There is nothing to stop him coming forward with a national control of farmyard pollution scheme to augment the present scheme.
There has been huge excess expenditure since the Government came into office on 15 December last. Public expenditure has increased by 12 per cent in the first quarter of 1995; £260 million has been made available for equality payments; £10 million has been spent to return the community employment scheme to its previous strength of 40,000; and £12 million was paid to maintain jobs in a private company at Shannon Airport. I have no objection to these expenditures but why is this Minister totally impotent in getting funds at the Cabinet table for a necessary scheme which farmers are demanding?
We call for sufficient funding for necessary administrative personnel so applications under the scheme can continue to be accepted and processed and grants paid as they become due. The Minister has been totally responsible for the mismanagement of the scheme. Over 18,600 applications came in since last September. The scheme was suspended on 27 April. Therefore, over the six months in which the scheme has been in operation an average of 3,000 applications per month came into the Department. That means approximately 12,000 applications were received since the Minister was appointed and he did nothing until 27 April to deal with the situation.
Only 6,000 people have been approved for the scheme. He now seeks to bring forward what he calls "conditional approvals" for 220 farmers who already received the first instalment of REPS, 100 farmers who have received section 12 notices for local authorities to do immediate and necessary pollution works, and 3,000 others whom he says will be approved for the scheme. These will receive conditional approval, bringing the total approvals up to 9,000 out of the total of 18,000 applicants — 50 per cent of the total applicants.
Of those approved, 6,000 have the approval as available already and 3,000 others will get conditional approval. Over one-third of the approvals will therefore be conditional, which means the people will be told to do the work but the Minister cannot tell them when they will be paid. He hopes they will be paid by 1997 and in 1997 they will be paid thereafter. Does the Minister not realise that on a practical level no farmer is in a position to do the work unless he knows he will get prompt payment of his grants as they fall due?
As I said, these works do not add one penny to the profitability of a farm enterprise in Ireland. Farmers are already suffering cash flow problems as a result of the disastrous price situation in the sheep industry and great uncertainty is being created in the cattle industry because of the Government's failure to establish proper access to continental markets for the live export trade through our ports.
It is important that the Minister reverses his decision to suspend this important scheme. The scheme is important for the environment, and the control of farmyard pollution is demanded by environmentalists. The farmers will not make a penny extra in profits. They carry out this work for the sake of staying in business and so that their farms would be a credit to the country. I appeal to the Minister to reverse his decision to suspend the control of farm pollution scheme. The Minister will get the money if he argues for it at Cabinet. There appears to be money for everything else, but the Government seems to be anti-farm. Perhaps it is being controlled by a junior partner. It is up to the Minister to ensure the farmers get what they deserve.
I second the motion with a degree of confident anticipation that, having reflected on the reaction to his announcement last week, the Minister will be able to tell us that he has reconsidered the position. I am confident we will hear positive news of this necessary programme.
We have seen reconsideration — that is a kind word for it — by the Government twice this week and we will see it again this evening. The punitive and criminal associations being attached to certain professions in the Finance Bill have been reconsidered. There has been a reconsideration in relation to the community employment programme because the Government, which does not like to face even the mildest breeze of unpopularity, has seen the reaction to the changes in this programme and, as a consequence of a Seanad proposal, it has reconsidered. I am reasonably confident, because the facts are unarguable, that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry will do the same. My question is why were the wrong decisions made in the first place.
I wish to put in context the reason for this programme and its importance, and analyse the reasons given last week by the Minister for suspending it. In August 1989 I announced what I had negotiated with the Commission as a matter of priority in our anti-pollution drive. We extended to the country what I had previously negotiated in the western package — farm pollution grants. Those grants were agreed by the Commission in advance of the operational programme of the Structural Funds.
The Commission and the Council endorsed the application in advance of the passing of the operational programme because they accepted my argument that this was of such priority in Ireland that we needed to have this extracted from the other elements in the overall Structural Funds programme in order to put it in place immediately. The response of the farming community throughout the country, the Minister's constituency included, was immediate and positive.
The focus of the advisory services up to that point was to increase productivity without any awareness of the consequences of much of the enhanced productivity for the environment, particularly our waterways. Hence, silage pits were constructed near to houses and water flows. That was the main reason I was able to negotiate what I announced in August 1989 — the introduction of farm pollution programmes in advance of the sanction of the overall Structural Funds programme.
The scheme has been successful. It is vital not only for the agricultural industry but for tourism and the economy overall. I am gratified the programme has been so successful. I was concerned when I read the Minister's announcement. I know one has to adhere to budget disciplines, and the Government will have our support when it does so. However, it is a question of what its priorities are at any one time.
In his statement of last week the Minister said that his analysis of the on-farm investment schemes showed an underfunding of at least £60 million. He said, in effect, that since the launch of the scheme last September over 17,000 applications had been received. He mentioned that the demand was driven by the fact that a control of farm pollution scheme had not been in operation since April 1992; the need for some participants in the REPS 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.
I welcome such pressures. I would have been disappointed if there had not been such pressures from the local authorities and fisheries boards. I would have been disappointed if they were not aware they had obligations to take action immediately to deal with what was becoming a critical problem. The Government makes decisions on the basis of the Minister's proposals and I would have assumed it would have anticipated a major demand for this priority programme. The Minister and I are from rural constituencies and we know there is a critical need for the programme.
I would have been happier if twice as many farmers had applied. I would have been happier if the Minister had said there would have to be a reallocation between this programme and, say, the afforestation programme. Many small farmers have problems in trying to compete with the funds available to private foresters and Coillte. That element should have been reallocated to this programme.
Coming from an agricultural constituency, the Minister will have got the message. What Minister responsible for agriculture would ever say to the farmers to whom a programme has been advertised, "Sorry, too many of you have applied. It is too successful and we cannot cope with the applications to the programme"?
I do not know what it is like along the Slaney, but Lough Derg on the Shannon, where I live, is being polluted and changed in character. Farm pollution is but one element. In fairness to the farmers, they have responded positively as the custodians of the environment in controlling the amounts of fertilisers under the advice of Teagasc. This is not the way to show our appreciation of their response. In anticipation of a change of mind from the Minister this evening — he must know that there will be a positive response from the farmers — I am happy to second the proposal by our spokesman on Agriculture.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:
"supports the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry in his efforts to ensure the effective operation of the Control of Farmyard Pollution Scheme, in view of its importance in protecting the environment; and urges the Minister to review present procedures in order to meet that objective and to ensure the success of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme."
I am happy when I hear the terms of that amendment from the Government. It "urges the Minister to review".
Acting Chairman
I urge Senator O'Kennedy to allow Senator D'Arcy the same opportunity he received.
Due to unprecedented demand for aid under the control of farmyard pollution scheme and in the light of funding set aside for the scheme under Structural Funds, the Minister was forced to suspend the scheme on 27 April. From that date no CFP applications are being accepted until further notice. Similarly, formal approval of existing applications 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 of Structural Funds was provided for the period 1994-99. Approximately half of this amount was earmarked for the control of farmyard pollution scheme. An analysis of the on-farm investment scheme shows an underfunding 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 that £245 million would be allocated. We have heard a lot of crying from the Fianna Fáil side, but let us be clear that they as the last Government, are totally responsible for the present situation. While we had arguments on the Structural Funds in respect of the £8 billion, the £6 billion and the £5.4 billion, the truth was that the scheme that suffered was that particular scheme. As a result we have a shortfall of £60 million, which is a serious situation and we all know that now.
Other schemes did not suffer.
Since the launch of the scheme last September until its suspension on 27 April, about 18,600 applications were received.
Senator Kiely is always attacking Shannon.
This demand was driven by the fact that the CFP scheme had not been in operation since April 1992. Let us be clear on that: it was suspended in 1992 and was not in operation.
The Senator should ask his Labour partners about that.
There was a loss of 18 months. We should not fool ourselves about these things.
Who was Minister for Agriculture?
Who was Minister? Deputy Joe Walsh.
Not then. Let the Senator ask his Labour partners.
There were 18 months lost at that time and that is a serious loss which has resulted in the present influx of applications at this time. The need for some participation in the rural environment protection scheme, and to have pollution work done under the CFP; the fear that funds would run out and pressure from local authorities and fisheries boards to address pollution problems are all issues that I wish to discuss. I call on the authorities, the county councils and the fisheries boards to restrain from applying too much pressure unfairly. There was a situation in Wexford where an officer of Wexford County Council called on a farmer three months ago. The farmer got such a fright from what he was told about the conditions of his farmyard that he proceeded to contact his auctioneer and sell his herd of 25 cows. I inspected that farmyard last week, with another member of the county council. That was a wrong statement to make and led to a serious situation, which I have taken up with county manager and the county engineer. It is unacceptable for that type of pressure to be put on anybody. I want to tell the Minister about this situation, which is unacceptable. When there are heavy rains an ordinary dwelling house causes more pollution than a farmyard. People have an obsession that the only place that causes pollution is a farmyard. That is incorrect. I am not saying that the official intended that the farmer sell all his cows and leave himself in that position, but it happened. He sold his 25 cows and leased his milk for quota for approximately a year. He is in a serious situation because he has to buy his cows back next year and he will not be able to carry out the necessary works to do so.
By 27 April about 6,000 of the CFP applications received had been approved for the commencement of work. To make the payments resulting from these approvals and to make some into inroads into the backlog described earlier requires the bringing forward into 1996 of some of the moneys previously earmarked for later years. This will need European Commission approval and Department of Finance approval. I encourage the Minister to ensure that the approval is forthcoming. I understand that he is pursuing this matter and am confident that he will be successful. As well as endeavouring to have Structural Funds payments brought forward from future years, I understand that the Minister is making a strong case for additional funding — this is the important point — under the review of the community support framework which will be carried out by the Commission in 1996. In addition, when the funding is secured, it will be possible to reopen the scheme for new applicants. I ask the Minister to consider this.
The European Commission consider this to be a top priority. They will give the Government the money. I thought I would tell the Senator that.
I am stating facts.
It is a top priority. The Senator would have no problem there.
It is a top priority and we are encouraging the Minister to do so. He informed the Dáil yesterday that he is prepared to do so. I ask him to ensure it is a success. One cannot close the scheme entirely in this situation. As Senator O'Kennedy has said, it is a top priority. It is also a top priority with the Commission. I understand that the Minister is anxious to establish procedures which would enable as many as possible of the 12,600 unapproved applications currently on hand to proceed with work. In order to deal with unapproved applications it is his intention to grant conditional approval. I encourage him to do that. He has stated that the conditional approval will allow people to start the work and to make the necessary preparations. I must point out that there is only a certain number of contractors in each area and it essential that we have them working fulltime. The contractors have told me that during the 18 months while the scheme was suspended by Fianna Fáil, they had no work to do. That was a serious loss.
The scheme was not in place.
It was not Fianna Fáil. Let us be clear on that. I was the Fianna Fáil Minister. I did not do that.
The interparty Government of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats.
No. The Senator should be precise.
My time is almost up.
Acting Chairman
Due to the interruptions, I am allowing the Senator some leeway.
Do so, as long as he acknowledges the fact that Fianna Fáil did not suspend the scheme.
Senator O'Kennedy is disruptive this evening. That is not his form.
Only when I hear inaccuracies.
There are no inaccuracies. It is absolutely true. I call on the Seanad to support the Minister in trying to bring forward Structural Funds from future years to allow the processing of the remainder of 19,000 applications; to ask the Minister to secure additional funding under the review to allow all to participate in the control of farmyard pollution programme; and to ask the Minister to contact the necessary authorities, county councils and fisheries boards to be fair where they send an official into a farmyard.
I support my colleagues, Senators Rory Kiely and O'Kennedy, in the motion tabled this evening. It is a serious motion which concerns our most important industry, agriculture. I am annoyed that the Minister, being a practical and modern farmer himself, has been let down by his colleagues. It shows that not only does a rainbow suggest rain but it also brings poor Government, particularly when it applies to our most important industry and all the jobs created by that industry. In any business one cannot plan without firm commitments. I pose the case of a young farmer who might have taken over a farm in the last six months or so. Having made his application under this scheme and gone into his bank manager for a business loan, he is told that the Government has changed its mind. Conditional approval is of no use to any bank manager, as we all know. I do not remember any Government ever pulling the rug from under a scheme that involves such an important industry as agriculture, as has been done by the present Government. I am disappointed that the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Yates, as a farmer, has allowed himself to be let down badly. It has shattered the belief held, not only by farmers young and old but also by financial institutions, that whenever there is a farm development plan, the money will be forthcoming from the Government, whatever Department it may come from. With this Government the rug may be pulled at a minute's notice, and that is very sad. Some 75 per cent of the funding comes from the EU and the Government is so weak-kneed it believes it will not get sufficient funding to continue the programme.
Who negotiated that? Modesty obliges me to say——
It was Deputy Joe Walsh, was it not?
The Senator must be joking.
There are 18,600 applicants. There are press releases all over the constituencies saying that the Minister may not pay the grants to those who have applied or that applications have not been processed. A business, whether it be a farm or anything else, cannot be run in those kind of uncertain circumstances. It is very sad and damaging to an industry that needs to be supported and to be competitive.
Agriculture and tourism go hand in hand. Farmers are a responsible body of people, who over the years have spent vast amounts of their own money updating their farmyards, silage pits, slurry tanks and slurry container units at enormous expense. They are also pressurised by local authorities to ensure, in the interest of public health, that streams are not affected by run-off from farms. This Minister allowed himself to be used by a weak-kneed rainbow Government, who pulled the mat from under him and told people to hang on for another five years.
People who took over farms and drew up plans with an ACOT adviser have to go back to their bank managers and say that while they thought they would get a grant, this is no longer the case because the Minister, Deputy Yates, says the money is not there. If one lives horse, one gets grass. That is very sad and damaging and it is an indication of who is running the show. The tail is wagging the dog. This will affect the job creation which flows from progressive modern farming. Much lip service has been paid in recent times to job creation. Fianna Fáil had to horsewhip the Government into keeping the FÁS scheme and they ran around the corridors of the Cabinet in the last fortnight and dug out £10,000.
Ten million pounds.
We will not know from which Department the blood will flow until questions are asked in the Dáil in the weeks ahead. This Government has a mishmash approach to running the affairs of State. It took over from a Government which left the country's finances in a better state than they had been for years. They were far healthier than what Fianna Fáil took over in January 1987. We had a bankrupt country with a lack of confidence and the World Bank about to move in, but Fianna Fáil cleared it all up. What do we have now?
The Senator is talking about 1982. He has his dates wrong.
We now have a Government spending money in areas where it should not be spent.
1977.
It pulls the rug in areas where we can create jobs and build confidence because the tail is wagging the dog. Various reports will arrive in a year and nine months from now and they will be put on the shelf while the Government looks into it. That is not good enough for our farmers. Both they and the country deserve better. As Senator O'Kennedy said, much hard work went into the negotiation of the funding for these projects to develop agriculture while the Opposition of the day tried to torpedo those efforts. It is very sad.
Acting Chairman
I will torpedo the Senator in a minute. He has one minute left.
I thought the Chair would be impartial.
Acting Chairman
I am. I am just telling the Senator he has a minute left.
I hope you put away your torpedo and bullets. I know the Minister is a practical man, but I am disappointed that he has been let down by his Cabinet friends. The young farmers and their plans have been thrown on the fire and they have been told to hang on. Something may be promised when the Government has to run to the country in about a year and a half when all the mismanagement will start to show.
I welcome the Minister to the House. There are problems in the current farmyard pollution scheme and in the REPS but they are not of his making. For many years we have spoken about rural Ireland and population decline. We demanded that we keep telephone boxes open when few people were using them. We spoke of keeping post offices open when the people remaining in rural Ireland do their business and get their pensions in the nearest town. We tried to keep schools open when most local children went to schools in the big towns where they thought they would get a better education. We even tried to keep Garda stations open while forgetting that technology had passed us by.
There are now a number of schemes in place which will halt the decline in rural Ireland and reverse this trend if we make a determined effort and put our shoulders to the wheel. The rural environment protection scheme has £240 million for rural Ireland. The control of farmyard pollution scheme has another £100 million. We also have Leader II, the country enterprise boards, the community employment scheme and a national tourist promotion scheme. If all these schemes are taken seriously, we can do something for rural Ireland and perhaps open some of the schools and bring the gardaí back to rural Ireland.
I would be less than honest if I did not admit that there are problems with the rural environment protection scheme. Up to 20 April only 1,839 applicants were paid a total of £6 million, which is the first of five yearly payments out of £240 million. At that rate it will take us a long time to draw down the £240 million. I happen to have some figures from Wexford, and it is not because the Minister is from Wexford. In that county alone it is estimated that 1,000 farmers could benefit from the REPS, but up 20 April only 148 had received their first payment. That was the second highest in the country, so there is definitely much room for improvement. It is worth noting that out of a total of approximately 150,000 farmers in this country only 50,000 are viable. We are fast approaching a situation where 50 per cent of all farm income will come in the shape of a cheque in the post.
We have heard much about control of farmyard pollution and it is one of the areas which is delaying applications for REPS. Some 10,000 farmers have applied and these applications have been delayed. A large number of farmers are trying to remedy farmyard pollution because they are anxious to join the REPS. It is a condition of REPS that pollution control work be completed within 12 months acceptance for the REPS. The Minister has a simple problem. There are not sufficient staff in the farm development section to handle the applications or do the office and field work. It is difficult hard to know what the Minister will do.
Mr. Justice Hamilton recommended in the beef tribunal report that people be taken on to supervise intervention. A large number were employed. As a result of what took place at the tribunal the meat factories did what informed journalists had been urging them to do for a number of years — they went out and sold beef. They are doing that now and in the past couple of years no meat has been put into intervention. Now I understand that the staff in that section have no work to do. It just goes to show that if one reacts to a certain situation by employing people one can find oneself in trouble later on.
It is clear that, at the present rate of progress, we will be unable to draw down the £240 million available for REPS. It would dramatically change this country if it were drawn down. There are other reasons, apart from the farm pollution programme, people are not applying for REPS, or at least are not encouraged to apply. It has been brought to my notice that due to the assessment procedures of the Department of Social Welfare many smallholders are reluctant to undertake a REPS plan. They are afraid that money they receive under REPS will be deducted from their social welfare. We should exclude REPS payments from social welfare assessments in the same way as family income supplement has been exempt from income tax and for other State entitlements.
I am concerned that REPS is not suitable for people engaged in fruit production. It discriminates against them. These people have not added to the pollution problem down the years. I can offer an example. I am aware of fruit producers who are using mushroom compost to increase the humus content of the soil. Under the REPS programme it cannot be used because it is high in phosphorus — 20 tons of mushroom compost is equal to one ton of 10:10:20. It appears to be a good way of using mushroom compost because one would complement the other. The Minister should look at such problems.
I had hoped to have detailed proposals today for the Minister on the implications of REPS for the soft fruit and horticultural industry. Unfortunately, I could not get them so I will forward them to the Minister later. It is unfair to criticise the Minister. Any steps he takes to improve the REPS to ensure that we receive the full amount of money over the next four or five years will have the full support of the Labour Party.
I welcome the Minister to the House for this important debate. I support the motion. I read the answers given in the Dáil yesterday to parliamentary questions on this matter. I also read the Minister's reply to Deputy Tom Foxe when he raised the matter on the Adjournment on 9 May. It was depressing reading. I cannot square our rhetoric about producing our food in a clean environment and selling it on international markets with the stamp of environmental approval, so to speak, with what has happened in this instance.
The control of farmyard pollution scheme was suspended on 27 April and "no further applications are being accepted until further notice". Under the on-farm investment section of the operational programme for agricultural and rural development and the development of forestry it is anticipated that we will draw down £195 million. Half of that was to go to the scheme for control of farmyard pollution.
In the context of a charter of farmers' rights the Minister went to Warrenstown to tell the media about the marvellous things that will happen within the Department. I am prepared to give him time in that regard because I do not expect these matters to happen overnight. However, I cannot understand how, in these days of modern communications, there was an overrun of 12,000 applications before the shutter came down and we said "no more". About 6,600 were processed but 12,000 were in the system before the shutter came down. How can that happen in this day and age? A total of 12,000 people are faced with disappointment and uncertainty. That is incomprehensible. That does not sit squarely with the charter of farmers' rights.
The Minister told the Dáil yesterday that he had received a report on the immediate administrative aspects and that he would speak about it in the Seanad this evening. I await his comments with interest. He also said that he had received the report the previous night, which was the night before last. How does that fit with a communications system where 12,000 people are excluded from a scheme? How does it take until the night before last for a report of that gravity to be prepared?
The list of counties and of applications, payments and so forth under the rural environment protection scheme is comprehensive. It shows the amounts paid by county, the area of land farmed, the number of applications received and the number of applications approved. However, the statistics in relation to the control of farmyard pollution are far less comprehensive. There is a list of the applications to date and approvals to date and little more. I concede that the Minister produced a total figure of £3.5 million.
£3.7 million.
It is difficult to understand how the analysis of one scheme can be so detailed while that of another is less detailed. The fundamental point is the connection between REPS and the control of farmyard pollution scheme and the number of people who will be excluded from availing of the £450 million under REPS as a result of being unable to comply with the requirements of that scheme and who need the support of the control of farmyard pollution scheme.
We are told that the mid-term review will solve all our problems. Regardless of what is in the Structural Funds, the mid-term review will produce this magic money. The Minister must get on his bike and talk to the people in Brussels and try to extract extra funds from them. If the bicycle to Brussels does not work he had better go to the Minister for Finance to see what can be done. It is unfair that people should be asked to enter a scheme when there is not enough money available to back up the scheme. There is also the issue of conditional approval. Who will pay the interest on the bill for the conditional approval? Who will pay while people make the investment, draw down the money from the bank if they are given it and wait for this ephemeral approval to fall out of the sky? These are fundamental questions.
I note that we have a consultative group. This is the latest fashion. If we are in difficulty we set up a consultative group — bring in representatives from the IFA and the farming organisations, put them around the table and attempt to mollify them. A consultative group is not the way to deal with this matter. How do we square what is happening with the rhetoric of promoting our food with CBF by saying that this is the food of Ireland produced in an environmentally friendly way on the land of Ireland and that these schemes ensure that the food is produced properly? I am prepared to accept that there have been huge improvements, that food is produced in an environmentally friendly way and that we are not intensive by European standards but I think we can put an even greater stamp of approval on our products when we send them to the market.
The money should be sought at EU level. In this respect, there is the question of the shrinking billions.
They have shrunk a lot lately.
I am glad Senator Farrelly intervened because I was thinking earlier of what he would have said a few months ago on this side of the House if a Fianna Fáil or a Labour Minister were taking this debate. I am constrained in comparison with the rhetoric we would have got from that quarter.
Since up to 75 per cent of this money is from the EU and 25 per cent is from the Exchequer, there is room to improve matters by looking for the money in Brussels. The suggestion of bringing forward the five year tranche requires EU approval, but it should be considered. However, with regard to the shrinking billions, I have a suspicion that the delays and obfuscation attendant on these schemes are an attempt to find them. The National Development Plan is based on the original presumption of what we would get, but now that there is a shortfall questions are being asked about how we are going to fill the gap. I do not wish to lay this at the Minister's door; I will grant him that much. This is a very serious matter which has profound implications for agriculture and the REPS, and I expect the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that it is corrected.
Acting Chairman
I call on the Minister, and as it is your first time here Minister, I welcome you to the House.
I am delighted to attend the House and to have the opportunity to clear up many of the serious misunderstandings which appear to have arisen on the other side of the House. I did not expect too much from the Fianna Fáil Members, but I am surprised that Senator Dardis misunderstands certain aspects of this issue. I am intrigued at him criticising consultative groups because Ministers are usually criticised for not——
Could we have copies of the Minister's speech?
Acting Chairman
This is not a matter for the Chair.
Details will be provided later regarding aspects of my remarks, but at present I am speaking ad lib. Ministers are accused of not consulting from time to time, but when they do consult, they are also criticised. I am sorry Deputy Dardis did not take the opportunity to attend the launch of the charter, as did the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on Agriculture, Food and Forestry. If he had, he would have heard me make specific reference to the on-farm investment schemes, to the shortage of funds and to the fact that the charter would not deal with this aspect of the issue.
The serious misunderstanding to which I referred relates to the fact that the entire negotiations for the total amount of money involved in the scheme — as is the case for the FIP, the animal welfare scheme, the dairy hygiene scheme and the CFP scheme — was undertaken by my predecessor and the previous Government. Even they would acknowledge at this stage that there was a very serious shortfall of £60 million on these schemes.
I do not know how people could be under the serious misapprehension that the row was about the £5.8 billion or that there is more money to be got from Brussels. The only option is to take money from headage, from FEOGA for the food industry, or, as Senator O'Kennedy said, from forestry. These are not options I am actively considering, but there is only the prospect for this room for manoeuvre; there is no prospect for more money from Brussels. We have signed off on the Structural Funds, as have the other Objective One regions. The only prospect of more money is if Spain, Portugal or Greece do not draw down their money in the mid-term review of October 1996, which is highly unlikely. Therefore, I am not promising that there will be a pot of gold out of this, indeed I am quite sanguine about it.
Is the Minister sanguine that there will be money?
The amount of money for this scheme left by my predecessor is £3.7 million, and I was negotiating today with the Department of Finance to pull £30 million into the scheme to keep it operational. Whoever was involved in drawing it up and who thought that £3.7 million would meet the needs of the scheme bears far more culpability than myself on this issue.
I answered various questions in the Dáil yesterday and I indicated that I would be making announcements this evening arising out of the first analysis of the situation. The scheme started last September and 18,400 people applied. Up to 27 April 1995, 6,000 applications had been approved, 12,400 had not. I am interested in those who wonder how we could have let so many people make applications. The clear implication is that they wanted the shutter pulled down earlier.
I would not say that.
Senator Dardis clearly implied this. Did he want me to pull down the shutter in November 1994 so that those 12,000 people, who I intend will get a grant, would not get a grant? Is this what is seriously intended? Or is it intended, as Senator O'Kennedy remarked, that I should not have suspended the scheme at all, so that we keep receiving 3,000 applications per month with no money to pay them? That would be farcical.
That is what the Minister did.
No, I suspended the scheme when I knew that there was inadequate money to make any more payments.
The Minister is negotiating with the Department of Finance.
On the one hand I am advised that I should have pulled down the shutters earlier, which would deny 12,000 people a grant and, on the other, I am advised to keep the scheme open when there is no money to meet it. In order to bring some kind of order to this chaos, where only £3.75 million was provided for next year, I have had to suspend the scheme to see how we can proceed on an orderly basis. However, the 6,000 applicants who have been approved are in no difficulty.
I want to announce some details of the consultative group I established because I wished to hear who the farm organisations thought was a priority case, the representatives of the farm builders and so on, and I am glad to say we got a very positive response. I propose to respond to the 220 people who have already been approved under the REPS and for whom there is contingent CFP work, and I am pleased to announce tonight in the Seanad that those people will get full approval.
So there has been a change since last week.
No; last week I announced the suspension of the scheme pending a reassessment of those applications that were not approved.
In one week?
Yes. Does the Senator want the period to be longer?
That was the shortest suspension of all time.
I am also pleased to announce — and this is of deep concern to me — that because of regional inequalities there were some counties, such as County Laois, where there were only two FDS inspectors whereas there were 23 in County Mayo. People in County Laois applied a long time ago but because of administrative and staffing shortages they did not get approval. I am pleased to announce that we are going to start issuing approvals again on a conditional basis for 3,000 applications, bringing every county up to 31 December 1994. The Department will begin to process these as of tomorrow.
(Interruptions.)
They will get conditional approval. I am pleased to say that I have secured the agreement of the Department of Finance to bring this forward. I have accepted the group's recommendation that the fairest and most transparent approach to deal with the unapproved applications currently on hand is on the basis of date of receipt, that is, first come, first served. I am arranging, therefore, for the processing first of all of the remaining applications, approximately 3,000, received up to 31 December 1994. Subject to meeting the conditions of the scheme, that is, standard approval on completion of the works, such applicants will be given conditional approval in writing to proceed with the specified works. The approval——
(Interruptions.)
——will be given on the understanding that payment will be made in 1997. That is important because——
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
Would Members please allow the Minister to continue his speech?
Thank you.
This is the speech we wanted to hear last week.
I understand that Fianna Fáil's major preoccupation is to play politics with this scheme, but these are serious announcements for the farmers affected and it is important that they be understood properly.
It is more important that they be paid.
Payment will be made in 1997. I have secured an agreement that moneys will be brought forward — I have provision for a total of about £51 million — so that these applications will be paid in 1997. I am satisfied to give an assurance of payment in 1997 following consultation with the Minister for Finance. The conditional approvals will issue on a month by month basis in order of receipt. This will enable my Department to bring into line applications from counties where progress was particularly affected by staffing difficulties in my Department. I should add that good progress with regard to the resolution of these difficulties has been made in recent months. I am having further discussions with the EU Commission.
(Interruptions.)
I was faced with the prospect of not being able to guarantee payment of the applications if I continued to receive them and the existing approvals would have exhausted the highest amount of money that we could have put in for 1995 and 1996. Therefore, we called a halt to it at that point. We then thought about how we could bring some order to the other 12,500 applications and I am now proceeding to do that. In September I will make an announcement about the remaining thousands of applications. We will deal with the matter on an orderly basis and of getting the EU Commission's approval for it.
From listening to the Opposition one would think that this was the first time an on-farm investment scheme had been suspended. I remind the House that the last Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh, suspended the farm improvement scheme last December before he left office. I do not hear too many crocodile tears being shed about that. My predecessor also suspended — Senator O'Kennedy would be aware of this — the CFP scheme in April 1992 due to the fact that funding had ran out and the farm modernisation scheme was also suspended in the 1970s. It is a lot more common than unusual that these schemes would cease when their moneys are exhausted and that is the only way to proceed. Does one cease before the moneys are exhausted or proceed in this way? I am glad to have the opportunity to clear up these misunderstandings. Senator D'Arcy raised the important point of the local authorities.
What misunderstandings? Were they in the Minister's statement last week?
No. There is no lack of clarity in my statement.
Would the Minister compare what he said tonight with what he said last week?
It is absolutely consistent because I said that I would be making a further announcement in a few weeks. This was to deal with the unapproved applications.
And another announcement in September.
It is kindergarten stuff, Senator O'Kennedy. I am glad to have this opportunity to come here and explain——
The Minister could have taken it up with the Commission over the next few months and now he is doing it all in one week. This is marvellous.
A further large number of applicants have not been approved and we are dealing with them seriatim. The date of receipt is now the basis for resolving these cases, apart from those REPS cases which I am proceeding with because they have already been given approval, which obliges my Department to deal with them on the same basis.
The Minister could use the money from the fine on our beef industry.
That is another mess that I inherited.
And it is costing a lot of money.
Senator D'Arcy raised the point of the local authorities and the fisheries board and I totally agree with him in this regard. Where section 12s have been issued prior to 27 April, I would be looking to give them conditional approvals irrespective of their date and my Department would be sympathetic to those cases. In view of the overall situation, I am anxious that local authorities will be sensitive to this matter and I will ask my officials to communicate to them in this regard. Some 2,181 REPS applications have been paid at cost of £7.6 million and we are hopeful of getting agreement to having REPS payments excluded from the exemption for means assessment for social welfare purposes.
I am as concerned as anybody else that we would have the maximum level on farm investment schemes, which is why I was able to secure an increase of 40 per cent in the resources this year when compared to last year for all the on-farm investment schemes. I am anxious to facilitate the cash flow difficulties of farmers in that regard. On the conditional approval for payment in 1997, I will be having discussions with the banks so that the type of alarmist comments heard earlier about it not being worth the paper it was written on will be dealt with. Banks will be told exactly what its value will be so that farmers will be able to obtain the necessary bridging finance. We are giving the farmer the choice. A farmer will be given the conditional approval so he can go ahead with his works where necessary, but it is on the explicit and transparent understanding of when he will be paid. If he says that he cannot afford the bridging costs, he does not have to go ahead with the works and that puts the ball back in his court.
We have undertaken a preliminary assessment of the REPS scheme and 60 per cent of its cases do not require CFP related work. However, it is true to say that 30,000 farmers over recent years have availed of pollution related work and they would be eligible. The investment over recent years has been over £400 million. It seems that demand in this area is infinite, but funding is finite. It is as simple as that. I cannot make a silk purse out of the sow's ear that I inherited. I am trying to ensure that the maximum number of cases can be facilitated, the maximum amount of money can be brought forward and that those who apply have a proper and reasonable prospect of payment.
Therefore, the timing of the suspension of the scheme was in line with the assessment of the cost of those approvals. At that time the assessment was £6,800 per application and was based on a fall-out rate of approximately 10 to 15 per cent of those that do not go through the works. That was the time we put the shutters down on the scheme. What were my alternatives? Should I have carried on merrily and kept on receiving applications and not suspend the scheme, with no hope of paying these people, but mislead them instead; or should I have suspended it on my arrival to the Department, at which time some of the people who would be entitled to a grant would not get one? I did all that I could have possibly done, given that there was not enough money, which I very much regret. I want to be realistic about the question of money. I am not promising that there will be more money.
I would put money on that. What odds would the Minister give me on that if I came to him in his other capacity? I am looking for a 6/4 bet.
I have to smile to myself on the business of going to the Minister for Finance for money. There is no precedent whatsoever for a 100 per cent grant aid scheme paid for by the national Exchequer and there will never be one. Senator O'Kennedy was boasting that he negotiated the arrangement where Brussels promised to pay 75 per cent of the funding for every 25 per cent paid by the Department for this scheme. If Brussels will not give any more money, there is no prospect of a 100 per cent scheme and we should be realistic about that. Those who are criticising the Government most severely about growth in public expenditure are the ones who are now weeping these crocodile tears for a direct Exchequer funded scheme. I have to deal with the real world.
The Minister is not alone in that.
I cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. I am trying to make the best of the appalling situation I have inherited. I hope my announcements today will respond adequately to the urgent needs of those farmers who applied before December and I look forward to making a further announcement in September in regard to other cases. Those who are approved will get the full co-operation of my Department and I hope their works will be carried out at the earliest possible date.
I move that we suspend the House under Standing Orders so as to have a vote of congratulation to Senator R. Kiely for bringing about this remarkable change of mind on the part of the Minister. It is a remarkable achievement.
Continue with the debate. I call Senator Finneran.
I welcome the Minister to the House. Tonight's debate takes place against the background of a very serious situation in the agricultural sector of the economy in this country. As the Minister and the House are aware, the discontinuation to a great extent of live exports poses a great problem, as does the disastrous situation in regard to the price of lamb. Last week farmers protested outside this House at the inability of the Government to secure a proper live export arrangement with the shipping companies. We are here tonight to discuss the control of pollution grants and their effect on the rural environment protection scheme.
I have a number of worries about this issue. We have seen the Minister's intent in this area to some extent tonight. I was interested to hear that he is in negotiations with the Minister for Finance for £30 million. That is the most important statement the Minister for Agriculture made this evening. I agree with Senator Dardis. The Minister was slightly unfair to him when he spoke about cutting off the grants altogether. That is not what Senator Dardis meant; I hope I will not be misrepresented. Although the Minister is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in his Department, somebody should have told him months ago that a crisis was developing. Why was he not told until late April?
That was known long ago. It was known when there was a hole in Albert's bag.
That kind of comment will not please the farming community. The farming community sees £60 million going to Irish Steel in Cork and wonders how Irish Steel can get money if the farmers cannot. That type of argument does not wash at all. The farming community feels, rightly or wrongly — I think rightly — that it is under threat from this Government. That may not be so. This Minister is very supportive of the farming sector, but is he in a position to persuade his Government colleagues to his view? I do not know. He may have trouble in that area.
The Minister has said that he will allow approvals of grant applications received up to 31 December 1994. In my county to date one fifth of the applications under this scheme have been approved. Scores of people have entered into contracts and made arrangements, people have done soil tests and made commitments. This scheme is very important to farmers who wish to avail of REPS; it is very important for the country and the farming community. Money invested in the farming community is ploughed back into the economy. Up to £500 million may be available under REPS over a period of eight or nine years if we are able to avail of it. The Minister said that it was his intention to try to have REPS extended from 1999 to 2004. In the period from 1990 to 1999 about £250 million is available and that money would develop our economy further.
The farming community is up in arms. Farmers were asked to forward applications to the Department of Agriculture, but now they have discovered that the scheme has been suspended. The Minister has said that he will clear applications up to 31 December. What about the people who applied in January and February? He has said that he will make a further announcement in September. This will not wash with the farming community. I expect the Minister will witness another protest outside the gates of this House next week or the week after. Farmers feel, and I agree with them, that this Government is not responding to their problem. Our spokesman on Agriculture has emphasised that those receiving hygiene grants do not receive one penny for themselves. They have to make a contribution towards the work done. They are upgrading their farms for all the reasons we put in front of them today, to reduce pollution and to develop tourism.
The Minister has said he is working towards approval for those who need the grants to avail of REPS, but while the Minister's statement tonight is a step in the right direction, it in no way addresses the serious situation we have to deal with. I believe there will be protests. The Minister will have to do better than this, he will have to get the money. We must send a message from this House that the sooner he gets his agreement with the Minister for Finance on this matter the better. The farming community do not take kindly to being left without money, when other groups seem to be supported. Other groups seem to be getting finances at a time when we are told that money cannot be found.
People look at the Government's overrun and the amount of money being spent on the public sector. I have attended many public meetings and the general feeling within the farming community is that farmers seem to be coming out second best in 1995. I spoke to farmers from every county in Ireland when they protested outside the gates of Leinster House last week and that was the view from genuine full-time farmers who took the day off at their own cost to come up here on account of the seriousness of the situation. I believe that they will be back again to protest.
The Minister must get funding from the Minister for Finance and he must of course involve the EU to whatever extent he can. I understand that the Government has to choose which scheme to take on, but to put all these schemes on the long finger as has been suggested here tonight is not the way to treat the Irish farmer at this time. Farming is our main industry and it is the Minister's responsibility to support that industry, in particular where the measures being implemented are for the good of the country at large and not for the farmer alone. Control of farmyard pollution is of benefit to the whole country.
Since tourism, farming and the public benefit, the Minister has a grave responsibility in this area. We must not turn our backs and lose out on major EU funds under the rural environmental protection scheme over the next few years, because this Government is not able to allocate adequate funds to a scheme which has been publicly advertised and to which farmers have been asked to apply.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I hope he will come back again to make interesting announcements. We all agree that we have a mess on our hands. It is incredible to watch Opposition people fall on their own swords. They speak with no conviction. How could they have any conviction in criticising the Minister for various shortfalls in his ministerial capacity? The proposer of the motion accused the Minister of being short-sighted, impotent and of mismanaging the scheme. If Opposition Members spoke to the farming community they would find it would not agree.
I speak to farmers every day. I know more about farming than Senator Cotter because I am a practising farmer.
They are a pretty discerning bunch and they recognise humbug when they hear it. The Minister is seen in a different light to that in which the Opposition Senators see him this evening. He is seen as a Minister who has a tremendous interest in farming and who has brought verve and vision to his ministry. He has substantial achievements under his belt to date. By working with senior people in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, the Minister has changed the modus operandi there, although that has probably been unnoticed by Opposition Senators. It is now a much more farmer friendly place than it was.
The problem is that one gets no money there. The doors are closed when it comes to issuing cheques.
The farmers' charter the Minister announced some weeks ago will be delivered. It is difficult for Opposition Senators to see this Minister who took over from someone who seemed less than acceptable to the farming community, working well and being congratulated for it. Sheep farmers, for example, are not complaining.
Senator Cotter must not have been outside the gates of the House last week.
Sheep farmers were not complaining last week and they have no reason to do so.
Sheep farmers' income is down 30 per cent.
The price of sheep has increased by 5p per pound as a result of intervention by the Minister and the announcement he made last week. I do not know where those Senators were last week because they did not hear the announcement.
I met the sheep farmers last week and they told me that.
Sheep farmers are not saying what Senator Rory Kiely believes them to say, but the opposite. This Minister has much to be proud of at this point. Opposition Senators may attack him in four or five years time, but I am sure he will be in a different ministry then.
This mess was started when the former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, was in a flamboyant mood in Europe and talked about £8.8 billion. He said it was in the bag, but he did not realise the bag had an aperture in the bottom. A substantial amount of the £8.8 million fizzled away and, as a result, the operation programme with which the Minister is dealing was slashed. The people are aware of that and whatever they may criticise this Minister for, they cannot criticise him for that. The problem with this scheme began at that point. If anybody is to deal with this mess, this Minister will because he has proved his ability in those respects and he will deliver if possible.
The Minister made some further announcements this evening which will go a long way to make farmers relax a little and to help them do a little forward planning. Farmers are happier with this Minister than they have been for a long time. He is putting great effort into this ministry and everybody recognises there is action in Agriculture House which did not occur before.
It is hollow to scream and shout about a scheme which was so successful that it had to be capped. It is silly of Senators who supported a Government in 1992 which suspended the scheme. Before Christmas the farm improvement scheme was suspended by the former Minister, Deputy Joe Walsh and that is why there are so many applicants now.
The Minister and Members agree that farmers are concerned and anxious to be involved in this scheme. They are interested in controlling farmyard pollution and improving efficiency. This Minister has motivated farmers to think in a new way. However, this has interrupted his vision of a modernised agricultural sector. That is a shame because he provided the motivation that was lacking for a long time. The morale of the fanning community and the industry is better than it was and the road ahead has been brightened somewhat by the efforts of the Minister. As far as I am concerned, the system has been rejuvenated.
I expect that in the next week or so the Minister will make an announcement as regards the shipping of livestock. I am informed that negotiations are proving successful and a solution will be announced soon. Those who tabled this motion should have been more circumspect and should not have done so. It is a hell of a spectacle to watch them fall on their own swords. The public knows the cause of the problem lies elsewhere and that this debacle which was handed over to this Minister is in the best hands.
Acting Chairman
As we are running out of time, I ask speakers to try to share their time.
May I share my time with Senator Dan Kiely?
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister to the House. If it was not so serious, this episode could be described as a comedy of errors. It is disingenuous of the Minister to come here and say this has landed on his lap because of his predecessor. He has been Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry for five months and, as Senator Cotter pointed out, he is on top of his job. He would have known some time ago that this scheme was over-subscribed given the amount of money available. A long time ago the Minister would have gone back to the negotiating table in Brussels or to his Cabinet colleagues, but he did not.
That door was closed.
He failed to announce it. He was disingenuous. The farming community were under the impression that when they applied and were approved they were guaranteed grant aid. The Minister did not suspend the scheme until 27 April, but he did not inform the farming community until the time of suspension. It is disingenuous of my colleagues on the opposite side of the House to say this was landed on the Minister by the previous Administration; that will not wash with the farming community.
It almost belongs to a comic strip to say the opposite.
The Senators may tell that to their constituents.
The Senator did and the people did not support him.
I do not hear too many people applauding the Minister.
Acting Chairman
Senator Kelleher, without interruption.
The control of farmyard pollution scheme and the rural environment protection scheme are central to Irish farming and environmental policy. We tabled this motion tonight to highlight the dismay among the farming community at the suspension of this scheme and the fact that it could place the rural environment protection scheme in jeopardy. Modern intensive agriculture contributes significantly to the growing problem of pollution, but there is a heightened awareness of it among the community, particularly the farming community.
It is comical for the Minister to say that he will conditionally approve applications in the hope that he will find more money in 1997.
Some £8.4 billion.
He said it would be there.
How will he find it in 1997 when he cannot find it in 1995? Applications have been sent to the Department for the past five months, while the Minister visited Kinsale food firms, had his photograph taken and announced that we had the cleanest environment.
He is only trotting after the Senator.
I was treated well.
He is being hypocritical because he is doing nothing to protect the environment. The Minister is short-sighted to conditionally approve grant applications in the hope that money will become available in 1997. He knows he will be out of office at that stage and that someone else will be there.
He is short-sighted because he is not wearing Deputy Joe Walsh's glasses.
The Minister will pass the buck to another Administration.
That money is secure.
Why did the Minister not secure money for the applications to date? Why did he suspend the scheme without informing the farming community?
Why did Deputy Reynolds not hold out for the £8.8 billion?
I am enjoying this discussion.
He had it in his sights, but he lost it.
This is a farcical attempt by my right honourable friends on the opposite side to defend the Minister, when——
The Senator is not in the House of Commons now.
He is looking at too much television.
——they and the farming community know their promises have not been kept.
What promises?
The Senators will find that out in a couple of months time when——
We made no promises.
——the IFA, ICMSA and other farming organisations are outside the House begging the Minister——
Acting Chairman
I ask the Senator to conclude.
I will give Senator Dan Kiely three minutes of my time.
I do not want to speak now.
Acting Chairman
The Senator agreed to share his time with Senator Dan Kiely.
May I continue because we may have time at the end to allow Senator Dan Kiely to speak?
Acting Chairman
If the Senator does not wish to share his time, it will go to the other side of the House.
I am getting such a great reception that I will continue to speak in the knowledge that Senator Dan Kiely will be able to make a contribution at the end.
The Minister said that people served with a section 12 notice by a local authority or fishery board under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977, will be approved immediately. The Minister is sending out the message that if we pollute the environment we are guaranteed funding.
Prior to 27 April.
The Minister is bolting the door when the horse has bolted. Many farming families applied under this scheme in the hope they would get approval. This has nothing to do with profitability but with a serious concern for the environment and for the image we are trying to portray abroad. We must also consider tourism. We have marketed Irish waterways as being clean and home industries and bed and breakfasts have been established because of this tourism drive. The Minister will place this in jeopardy if he does not provide funding.
The problems are in good hands now.
Despite having responsibility for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry since December, it took the Minister until 27 April to realise that there were too many applications for the available money.
What was he supposed to do?
Was I supposed to spend it earlier?
For the biggest man in Cabinet, he is not pushing his weight around because another Minister recently announced that £10 million was available for the community employment schemes. This happened as a result of pressure from Cabinet members.
Is the Senator objecting to that? If he criticises it, he is objecting to it.
I was one of the first people to mention community employment schemes and I am glad it was accepted by the Minister's colleague at the Cabinet table. Why can this Minister not go back to his Cabinet colleagues and try to negotiate something to ensure that those who were guaranteed immediate approval will get money to tackle farmyard pollution?
The Senator should hold his breath and wait for the announcements.
We are still waiting. These are unconditional approvals; this suggests that the Minister and those who support him are suffering from the condition of the unconditional. This Minister has reneged on the farming community in his first major duty as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. He promised a farmers' charter but he has failed to deliver anything.
He has delivered.
I assure the Minister that we will be in Government at a future date and we will call for the control of farmyard pollution grants to be implemented because the Minister has no will to do so.
I wish to share my time with Senator Farrelly and Senator Naughten.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate him on the excellent work he is doing. His presence has restored confidence in the agricultural sector, and this is accepted by everyone involved in farming and the food industry. When he completes his term in office, he will have made as big a mark as Mr. Mark Clinton, who is still revered by farmers and the agricultural community as someone who contributed most to the development of agriculture in this country. We look forward to his work over a longer period of time than some people forecast here tonight.
I welcome the Minister's approval for the processing of the 220 control of farmyard pollution applications from farmers who already received the first year's payment under the rural environment protection scheme. They were required, as a condition of REPS, to carry out pollution control within 12 months. This is important for the 220 people involved. I also welcome his announcement that he is arranging for the processing of all the remaining applications, approximately 3,000, received up to 31 December 1994, subject to meeting the conditions of the scheme, that such applicants will be given conditional approval in writing to proceed with specific works. The Minister said that is the fairest and most transparent way to deal with the unapproved applications. He has given a firm commitment that payment will be made in 1997 and I welcome this assurance. He does not doubt this and we should not either.
It is important that the suspension of the control of farm pollution grants will have minimal impact on participation in the rural environment protection scheme. The Minister has given the go ahead for approval of the 120 participants. I wish the Minister every success with the European Commission in the coming months in his efforts to relax the condition relating to the 12 month deadline for carrying out pollution control works.
We should pay tribute to the consultative group, consisting of officials of the Minister's Department, farm organisations and other interested parties, which has advised the Minister on this and has reported to him in the past few days. It has obviously played a key role in the welcome announcement here tonight. It is important to note that we can expect further announcements in September.
The Minister will continue to work at every opportunity to overcome the difficulties being experienced by farmers who have applied for these grants. All public representatives are being contacted by farmers. When one explains fully the problem to them, they understand it; but are not happy about it. It is important that this situation is continually looked at and I look forward to the announcements in September. I am sure the Minister will continue to examine the situation.
To suspend?
The Minister will continue to examine the situation.
Sorry, I thought the Senator said "suspend".
No, we could keep talking about what happened in 1992 and last week. I am trying to be futuristic in what I am saying. What is of immediate concern to farmers is that the Minister is dealing with a critical situation and will continue to do so. He has made specific commitments for now and an announcement will be made in September.
I welcome the Minister and compliment him on his efforts in the Department of Agriculture in the very short time since he became Minister. This is a pure example of the shrinking billions we heard so much about over the last 12, 18 or 24 months. When allocations were made to the different schemes, following the exact amount being made known, the scheme was underfunded by 50 per cent. If any farmer has been told anything different, the people who told him did not inform him of the real facts, despite their knowledge of the problem.
Were it not for the incredibly poor staffing levels in many Department of Agriculture offices throughout the country, many more applications would have been approved long before the date on which this scheme had to be suspended. Certain former Ministers were in recent weeks trying to make capital out of the serious problem in some offices not too far away from where I live. When they were in office, they did nothing about it.
Agriculture House is the main problem.
The farmers and the Minister, in coming together to try the solve the problem, are only doing justice to those who made applications. Some Senators have asked why it has taken so long to find out the exact position. Staffing levels were one reason. I know exactly what the position was in the office to which I am nearest. What would some of my colleagues have said if the scheme had been suspended on 1 February? They would have said there was no proposal to try to secure from Europe the extra funds required to help the many farmers who find themselves in difficulty and need help to solve the problems on their farms. It is shallow for many on the Opposition to be critical, especially when some of them are advising us to wait until everybody gets a hold of us at the next election.
In the recent past all of these things were debated and we know the results. In the near future we will have another opportunity to see the results from the people as they speak. People expect to be told the facts and do not accept being told it will be all right on the night. It is not all right. The last Government did not leave it all right. The Minister will rectify the situation and all those who made applications will be paid.
Mr. Naughten
Senator Neville was sharing his time with Senator Taylor-Quinn and myself.
Acting Chairman
All the time has been used up. After Senator Kiely has spoken, I will give the other side a few more minutes.
I will speak for only four minutes.
Acting Chairman
You will have enough said in five minutes.
It has all been said already. I am enjoying the debate. It is as good as the Abbey Theatre.
Is the Senator sharing his time with me?
I am giving the Senator four minutes of my time. I welcome the Minister. He is receiving a great deal of criticism from my colleagues and this is right because he is in a position of power. Over the last few weeks when I have spoken on issues, a least ten different excuses were given in replies from Ministers as to why things could not be done. When a person is in a position of power, his job is to solve problems and find the money to do so.
The Minister must admit there is a huge outcry in the farming community at the moment about this scheme. Senator Kelleher stated that when the Minister received 18,500 applications, he should have seen there was a serious problem and sought extra moneys to be made available for the scheme. On the one hand we are trying to promote tourism and must protect our environment and maintain a green image. On the other hand important schemes like this have been suspended at the drop of a hat. What will happen to streams and to our green image? The Minister must admit there is a will among farmers to rectify problems on their land. Local authorities are prosecuting farmers for polluting streams and waterways. Small farmers in particular cannot make large investments to counteract this problem without some help from the State.
The Minister has a great deal of work to do. He must obtain the necessary finance. Yesterday £10 million was found at the drop of a hat because pressure was brought to bear. If the Minister has not a good relationship with the Minister for Finance, I suggest he should take the Minister for Finance out to lunch or dinner some evening —
Give him a glass of wine. It is called the Kerry way.
A good job was not done with the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
— and explain to him which party is the major partner in Government. In 1987 a Minister, before he left office, approved housing reconstruction schemes costing £220 million without having a bob in the kitty. He then left it to Fianna Fáil, when they came back between 1987 and 1989, to fork out £70 or £80 million a year to repair the damage. I must admit that it was a good scheme, but it was a pity that he did not arrange the finance for it before he left office.
Are we damaging the houses?
This is far more serious than the Minister thinks, and it is far from being a joke. The farmers are screaming and you are going to have deputations to Dublin the likes of which no Government has ever seen before. Not alone are you going to get it from the farmers but you are going to get it from the general public as well, because these schemes will have to be implemented and brought back. The Minister mentioned a figure of £30 million that is being negotiated with the Minister for Finance at the moment. Is that £30 million 25 per cent funded from your own resources and 75 per cent from Europe? I would like to know whether the Minister is going to provide 25 per cent of the £30 million.
No, it is the total.
So, in fact you are putting up only 25 per cent of it and 75 per cent is coming from Europe. That is not good enough.
That is 100 per cent more than his predecessor.
The Minister has a tough job on his hands.
And you wish him well.
The Minister is going to have an awful lot of problems unless he goes away and solves them, like I suggested, by having a chat with the Minister for Finance, who will be nice to him.
I thank Senator Kiely for sharing his time with me in a spirit of generosity from the Opposition.
You can vote with us.
We would do well to recall December 1992 when the then Taoiseach came back from the Edinburgh Summit announcing that he was on the pig's back with £8 billion for the coming five years. But that £8 billion has consistently been reduced and is now down to £5.2 billion now, a shortfall of £2.8 billion. This the first casualty of the shortfall in funding from Europe.
I compliment the Minister for his honesty and forthrightness in coming clean with the farmers and the public on the disastrous situation in which he finds himself with a £60 million shortfall for grant assistance under the farmyard pollution control scheme. He must be complimented for taking a stance in letting farmers know, honestly and transparently, what the situation is. He has been very straightforward with the Department. £60 million is a major deficit and was the assessment of his predecessor, who must be condemned for misleading the farmers. Senator Kiely said that if Fianna Fáil were in Government they would have approved the sum. That is precisely what they would have done, approving it and continuing to lead farmers up the garden path. By forcing farmers across the country to borrow money on high interest while awaiting grant cheques, the Fianna Fáil Minister would have put many of them out of business with a major debt hanging over their heads.
We always had to pick up the tab for you when you were in Government by rectifying the finances over the years.
But this Minister has told the story clearly and I compliment him for the action he is taking in managing applications that have not been approved.
Every time you are in Government you come back and wreck the country.
Acting Chairman
I call on Senator Naughten. He has only a couple of minutes.
Mr. Naughten
I regret very much that I only have a couple of minutes because it is a debate that I would like to have had more time to contribute to. I join with other Members in congratulating the Minister for the positive steps he has taken since entering the Department of Agriculture. He took over a mess in many areas, one of which we are discussing now. Another thorny question that the Minister inherited was the question of support for the live cattle export trade.
However, as Senator Taylor-Quinn said, the difficulties we are talking about have arisen from the miscalculation of the amount of money that was coming as a result of the Edinburgh Summit and the failure of the former Minister for Agriculture to secure sufficient moneys to finance projects which would seek grant applications from the Department for pollution control. That is the situation that we are faced with and, unfortunately, the Minister is faced with solving it. It is a problem that will have to be solved and it is one that arose not just from the previous Minister but also from officials in the Department. This is the first time in 14 years as a Member of the Oireachtas that I have had to say that, and I want to put it on the record. A situation has arisen in Roscommon where out of 1,000 applications, only 120 have been processed, simply because sufficient staff were not in the office to do it. Some of those staff have been missing since 1992 and were not replaced. The officials in the Minister's Department must accept full responsibility for the fact that the farmers of Roscommon are now lagging way behind farmers in other parts of the country where offices were properly staffed. Let us put that clearly on the record.
I appreciate the steps that the Minister has taken regarding people in other categories, but every application up to Christmas should be dealt with and should be grant aided.
I am dealing with that.
Mr. Naughten
I know, but it is with grant aided payments in 1997. Some people will have to borrow and they might not be able to meet the borrowings.
Acting Chairman
I must ask the Senator to conclude.
Mr. Naughten
I appreciate your situation, Acting Chairman, I have been in it many times myself. In Roscommon there is an office which normally has a staff of three but since 1 February there has only been one and consequently no schemes have been processed. There should be a special category for those affected, and wherever the Minister can get the money he should try to get it. Unfortunately, the Minister has inherited the situation and I appreciate the efforts he is making; but there has been a failure, both by the previous Minister and by the officials in the Department, to ensure that the local offices were properly staffed. They cannot deny that responsibility.
I cannot understand what Senator O'Kennedy was congratulating me about but I suppose it was for tabling the motion to highlight this injustice to the farming community. In the Dáil yesterday at Question Time I heard the Minister say that he would make an important announcement in the Seanad today. He did make an announcement, but I am really disappointed with it. The control of farmyard pollution is very important not alone to farmers but also for the environment. I have a copy of the application form here, which makes it clear that you have to carry out a farmyard pollution control scheme according to special specifications. I know that when Department officials visit you they look for great capacity, which is only right. The Minister says he will approve £30 million for applications made to December last and that they will be paid by 1997, but what other section of the community would be asked to wait three or four years to be paid? Who would accept that, only the poor farmers?
It is one year, 1997.
Ten months.
It will be more than one year. What about the other applications that will be approved in the meantime?
They will be paid in September.
They will be paid, but when? It will be after 1997.
Did the Senator ask Deputy Joe Walsh what happened to the money?
What about the farmers who are anxious to make applications but who have not yet done so? They want to come into the scheme and create a clean environment. We talk about this green image, but the Minister is doing a PR job on it, saying what great food we have.
If the Senator had asked Deputy Joe Walsh where the money had gone he would not have had to put down the motion.
You have lost the one scheme you had to improve that green image.
You have lost the green image now.
You have made sure that we have lost it.
Acting Chairman
Please allow the Senator to continue without interruption. Everybody has had a fair crack of the whip. Ar aghaidh leat.
One day on my way to Dublin I passed along a country road in County Tipperary between Lattin and Tipperary town. I was driving fairly fast and went through a foot of slurry pouring out a farmyard gate. Are we going to allow that to continue? It was a disgrace but it will continue if nothing is done to ensure farmers get the grants they are due, because the provision of storage facilities can be expensive, as the Minister is aware. As I said, farmers will not make any extra money through this scheme; they will do it for the sake of proper farming and to compete and maintain the standards expected of Ireland by the EU.
In the Dáil yesterday, Deputy Cowen asked the Minister a Priority Question about the commitment given by the EU to Ireland on REPS funding. The Minister said he was confident we would secure funding up to 2004, yet today he did not say what——
That is a separate scheme.
Yes but the farmyard pollution scheme is related.
Ask Deputy Walsh what he did with the money.
That is the scheme Deputy Walsh abolished.
I am talking about the REPS scheme.
Deputy Walsh did not introduce the scheme until winter time so that no-one could use the scheme in 1994.
Acting Chairman
Senator Kiely, I have been fair to everyone and I have to ask you to conclude.
What plans has the Minister for taking up the money if he suspends the farmyard pollution scheme? The money cannot be called upon if the scheme is suspended because the two are related.
That is the scheme Deputy Walsh suspended.
He did not suspend it. Senator Cotter has mixed up the schemes. I admire his contribution for displaying his wonderful imagination.
Since he comes from the same county as Deputy Walsh it is not surprising he has a good imagination.
I am disappointed with the response the Minister promised in the Dáil yesterday. I was delighted to hear he was giving priority to his big announcement in the Seanad. He said the charter of rights——
All terms of the motion have been met, with one exception.
I do not agree. It was said that some who were invited did not attend. I would have been there if I had been invited; perhaps I am insignificant but I received no invitation.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 20.
Tá
- Burke, Paddy.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Henry, Mary.
- Howard, Michael.
- Kelly, Mary.
- Lee, Joe.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Townsend, Jim.
Níl
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dardis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Roche, Dick.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Magner; Níl, Senators Mullooly and Fitzgerald.
Amendment agreed to.
Question, "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to", put and agreed to.