asked the Minister for Agriculture the number of applicants affected by the modification to the farm modernisation scheme, effective from 10 February 1983.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Farm Modernisation Scheme.
18.
A total of 4,644 applications under the farm modernisation scheme received prior to 10 February 1983 were rejected as a result of the suspension of grant aid for farmbuildings and fixed assets and the termination of grant aid for mobile equipment.
That is a shocking figure for the Minister to be stating.
A question, please, Deputy.
The Minister should be very uneasy about that. Could he make a statement in the House today to the effect that those 4,644 farmers trying to make a living on their holdings and to create employment will now be granted their due as far as grants are concerned? Will he do this when the scheme is introduced in November and stop this indifferent type of reply and garbage to which we have been listening for the last two months?
We cannot have argument, Deputy, I am sorry.
The Minister must give us an assurance. We do not want any more commissions or committees. Will he or will he not accept their applications and pay their grants during the course of November in the interests of the nation?
The Minister has already given that information in his reply.
When the farm modernisation grants are being re-introduced in late autumn, there will be an opportunity for farmers to apply and, subject to the grants being available, they will then be in a position to be grant-aided.
Am I to take it from the Minister's reply that they must re-apply for some of the work which they have undertaken or equipment which they have installed?
They must re-apply, if they have not had prior approval in writing before 9 February.
There is a hidden danger in the Minister's reply. Can he give a clear indication to this House that the development work, equipment and buildings which have been approved in his Department but not by his people on the ground — the advisory service — will be grant-aided? These people have complied with every regulation and their applications have been caught in the post, or something like that. Is he now going to penalise those farmers because they were progressive and did what the Department of Agriculture advisers told them to do, or will he accept a fresh application for the work already carried out?
As I have said on numerous occasions at Question Time in the last four weeks, it is necessary to have written approval of the farm development service before an applicant can be grant-aided.
We all know that that has obtained since the scheme was introduced. However, no Government or no Minister pulled the mat from under the farmers until the Minister's Department did it.
The Deputy's party put them in jail not so many years ago.
It is very unfair for the Minister to use the approvals aspect in this way.
If the Minister is not giving in on any other point I would appeal to him to reconsider his decision in relation to forcing those farmers to make new applications in November next in view of the fact that many of them applied for the grants as far back as February 1981, a year before the scheme was suspended. In these circumstances would the Minister at least make a decision now that farmers who had applied before the scheme was suspended and who, through no fault of their own but because perhaps of slowness on the part of the Department in proceeding with the applications had not received approval, would not have to make new applications and possibly have to wait for another six to 12 months after November next?
I will have due regard to what the Deputy says but I would remind him that yesterday in the House both the Minister and I said that if there were conditions prevailing whereby people who through no fault of their own had applied perhaps 12 months earlier but had not been approved we would have a serious look at such cases. However, I must reiterate that for a long time the practice of the Department has been that before a farmer was grantaided he had to have prior written approval.
Is it not universally recognised now that the decision to suspend the scheme was ill-considered? Can the Minister give an estimate of the loss in terms of agricultural output as a result of the suspension of the scheme since February?
As I said yesterday, the saving to the Department is estimated at £10.3 million.
That is not an answer to the question I asked. What is the loss in output as a result of the suspension of the scheme?
That would seem to be a separate question.
In one area at least the loss is 30 per cent.
Can Deputy Wilson quote the source of that information?
Mr. Leonard
When the scheme is resumed will the Minister be asking that the farm plans that were drawn up be changed? Will he not accept that the plans drawn up by the ACOT advisors took account of the problems of the farms in question or is it to be the position that those problems are to be disregarded, in which case there would be irreparable damage done in terms of ACOT vis-à-vis the farm modernisation scheme. I urge the Minister to pay the grants to the 4,000 people who had applied and to work from that base in the new situation.
I have asked if any other section of the community would tolerate such treatment?
That is not an appropriate question as I have ruled already.
If it is not a question, I do not know what it is. The Minister said during the week that the lime subsidy or the AI subsidy would have to go and then said later that the matter was a budgetary one. Which is correct?
Mr. Leonard
The Minister has not replied to my question.
He was not given a chance to reply. I am asking Deputy Byrne to resume his seat. Deputy Leonard may not monopolise Question Time.
Let us not be carried away in relation to the 4,000 applicants. Many of these farmers did not proceed with the works but we can assume that the great majority of those will qualify for grant aid.
A great injustice is being done to the farmers.
To go back to what Deputy Leonard said, there were farmers who were working to a farm plan and who had completed part of their development works although they had not received written approval up to 9 February. Both the Minister and myself have given an undertaking to have an in-depth look at the circumstances in such cases.
The Minister has said that the 4,000 farmers who had applied before the date of the suspension of the scheme would have to re-apply but this means that they will have to pay £20 in respect of each visit from the farm improvement service people. This will bring about an intake of £80,000 to the Department. Is this not very unfair and is it not the reason for the Department deciding not to approve the applications that had been made but to insist that the farmers concerned re-apply?
As I pointed out last week, the decision to charge £20 per visit by the farm development service people was included in the budget. I would point out, though, that there is no fee charged for ordinary advisory work. Some people think there is such a charge.
I would plead with the Minister not to put those farmers through the ritual of re-applying. A £1,000 grant could represent the making or breaking of a farmer.
The problem is the way in which farmers were treated in the past five years.
I am having the matters to which Deputy Byrne refers examined.
Is the Minister saying that the almost 5,000 farmers concerned will not have to re-apply?
I am not saying that.
There are two aspects to this question. One is the situation of applications which were in the office prior to the closing date but which were not processed because, perhaps, of pressure of work. In those circumstances the farmers concerned should be entitled to have the grants processed. The second aspect is that where there had been a visit by an official of the Department, the grant should be paid if only for the sake of the credibility of the official concerned.
The Deputy's question is reasonable. If it can be proved that a farm development officer had visited any farm in respect of which there is an application he will have to explain the reason for written consent not having been given. I am investigating that aspect of the problem but so far as the first part of the question is concerned, in the absence of written consect a farmer is not entitled to grant aid.
That is grossly unfair to farmers. The regulation was always there but the Minister withdrew the grants.
Has the Deputy a question?
The position is that 5,000 farmers are being sold down the drain by this Minister and by the Minister for Finance.
The Deputy is making a speech and a strong one.
Farmers are being evicted but the Minister has no sympathy for them.
It is not the first time that a grant has been taken from them. Does the Deputy recall the reconstruction grants that were eliminated overnight?
The Minister is dealing with the Department of Agriculture now. These half-hearted replies are disgraceful.
I said yesterday that Deputies should not become cross at Question Time.
I am cross with the Minister and I want to know if he will pay the grants to those farmers. I am asking a question and I will not sit down until I have had a reply. I represent a rural area and I am not prepared to accept waffle from the Minister. His answer are an insult to the House.
There have been two Fianna Fáil Members on their feet for some time.
Is Deputy Byrne expecting a reply without first sitting down?
I wish to know if the Minister will pay the grants to the farmers concerned.
Question Time is almost over.
I want a reply from the Minister.
Question Time is over.
Protecting the Minister again.
That kind of remark is not necessary.
I have great respect for the Chair.
The Deputy does not behave as if he has.
I wish to raise the question of harrassment of fishermen off the coast of Kerry by the fishery protection vessels and their crews. I had numerous telephone calls——
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
Will the Chair organise it so that the Minister will reply to me this evening?
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
I put down a Private Notice Question about the importation of potatoes. I was told it was not being taken——
This truculence is not necessary and it is not becoming. Deputy Byrne sought leave to ask a Private Notice Question. My Private Secretary communicated with him that in accordance with the procedure of the House his question was not in order. To raise the matter further here is disorderly.
I have made many attempts to raise this issue which is one of vital importance to the potato industry.
If the Deputy wants to talk to me about it in my office he is welcome.
I should like permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the question of cable television in my constituency. People who have paid are being cut off.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
Ask Jim. Jim will fix it.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.