Arising from the reply to Questions Nos. 3 to 15 today, Deputy Noel Treacy has been granted permission to raise on the Adjournment Question No. 3, Deputy Seán Byrne Question No. 8 and Deputy Kitt Question No. 13. The Deputies will have 20 minutes between them.
Adjournment Debate. - Farm Modernisation Scheme.
I thank the Chair for allowing me to raise this question on the Adjournment. I propose to share my time with Deputies Byrne and Treacy.
At Question Time today the Minister attempted to answer together 13 questions which related to the Farm Modernisation Scheme, the operation of the western package and the introduction of a pre-development scheme. We on this side of the House were not satisfied that we got full information in reply to these questions.
I asked specifically when the pre-development scheme for small farmers would be introduced and got no reply. Deputy Connaughton has spoken about this on many occasions. I can quote from The Connacht Tribune issue dated 4 November 1983:
The Minister added that he would be introducing a pre-development scheme which would help small farmers to increase their viability substantially and also give them the opportunity of obtaining higher farming standards.
I was trying to establish the type of pre-development scheme envisaged. Were we talking about a new scheme, or about changes to the western package which many would regard as a pre-development scheme if modifications and certain changes were made in it? There is confusion on the subject. The western package has contributed in many ways to the needs of farmers, but it is disappointing that very little money has been spent on the farm investment end. For County Galway this year the allocation was only £1,100. A lot of money has been spent on water supplies and the provision of electricity, for marketing and processing, for roads, for lands improvement, training facilities and shelter belts.
It is important that the part of the package allocated to roads be utilised. The allocation to each local authority under the local improvements scheme has been greatly reduced. There is also the question of qualification for roads in Gaeltacht areas. I am thinking particularly of Connemara, where the roads are in very bad condition. There was recently a strong protest by the people from that area at the last meeting of the Galway County Council.
When the farm modernisation scheme was suspended on 9 February, farmers expected that the grant would be restored quickly when the review was carried out. Many small farmers thought that in the absence of a farm modernisation scheme changes and improvements would be made to the western package. Neither of these things happened. I welcome the news from Minister of State, Deputy Connaughton, that the farm modernisation scheme will be restored within the next few days. However, I cannot accept that there should be a delay of ten months before the grant can be restored. We were told that it would be restored in early autumn, then in late autumn and now, in December, we are without the farm modernisation scheme but with a promise of a new scheme in the next few days.
The past ten months have been frustrating for Irish farmers as regards development. There was confusion concerning the introduction of the farm modernisation scheme, with the farmers in the west under the impression that there would be changes in the western package. We still do not know what type of scheme will be introduced, or the rate of grant. A very important question is the operative date for the new scheme. For example, will farmers who applied before 9 February or those who had finished the work but had not received their final certificate from the farm development service now be considered for farm grants? The Minister has told us that 14,644 farmers had applications in before 9 February last. Because of the large numbers involved, I ask the Minister to make the operative date retrospective to 9 February. I have always maintained that the farm modernisation scheme could be reviewed without suspending it and it is only fair that it would be dealt with in this way. Farmers have lost confidence in the agricultural industry through the decision to save £10.3 million by the suspension of the farm modernisation scheme this year.
Farmers should be given adequate time to complete the work involved, as many are experiencing financial problems. The Minister cannot expect us on this side of the House to believe that the problems of the super-levy caused a delay of ten months in restoring these grants. Neither can he say that the super-levy problems delayed improvements which his Department intend making in the western package, or the introduction of a pre-development scheme for small farmers. There are three Ministers in the Department of Agriculture. Surely one of them could have dealt with these development schemes? I ask the Minister who is present tonight to tackle these problems for the sake of our farmers and the agricultural industry. Could he give some of the answers for which we were looking today at Question Time? Possibly because 13 questions were taken together we could not get the required information. I ask him to bear in mind what we on this side of the House have said when any future schemes are being introduced.
In the few minutes available to me, I want to say a few words on the farm modernisation scheme which has been discontinued since 9 February. I am deeply disappointed at the failure of the Minister of Agriculture to make progress here in the last almost 11 months. Especially with the threat of the super-levy hanging over our little nation, we should not have a Government dithering on this issue. As my colleague said a few minutes ago, we have enough civil servants and advisors in the Department of Agriculture for these schemes to have been ready months ago. Last July they were promised for early October. They will probably now be introduced when the Members are having a few days' holiday at Christmas, depriving them of an opportunity of debating it. It is an insult to the farming community to treat this issue in that fashion and a complete con job by the Minister. A number of questions were lumped together and we got a blanket reply, which was not a reply at all, to the effect that the new scheme would be introduced in a number of days. To suggest that the Department are not equipped to deal with this matter and that the super-levy interfered with the introduction of the new farm modernisation scheme, is a sad reflection on the officials of the Department. It is only a lame excuse to delay the announcement of the scheme and deprive the Members of this House of an opportunity of debating it.
What confidence can any farmer have in the ACOT advisers, the farm development service or the Minister for Agriculture and his Department officials in the future after the manner in which they have been treated by the Ministers for Finance and Agriculture in the last 11 months? A great deal of damage has been done to the services given to farmers to develop their holdings. I lay that blame squarely on the Minister's shoulders. He failed miserably to deliver the goods on behalf of the people he is supposed to be representing at Cabinet level, which is a sad day for out little country. What do the people in Brussels think of us when our Government are penalising the people? This is really a super-levy. The reply we were given today was full of ifs and buts. We were told that if the 14,644 people who were deprived of their grants in February would fall in line with the type of work they should be doing they may get a grant. This is disgraceful, and no section of society would accept that.
The Minister should have thought seriously before he introduced this scheme and done justice to the people who are trying to rear their families and earn an honest living on their holdings. We are losing out in a lot of money from Brussels also. It is a shame that we have a Government with so little confidence in our basic industry when farmers had such a tough time during the last three years trying to survive. The Government should have speeded up the introduction of the new scheme and should have brought it in early in October. This would have shown the people in Brussels that the Government had confidence in the future of our farmers, especially our young farmers. They would have been given hope for the future if this new scheme had been introduced then. I again warn the Minister that any type of con job over the Christmas weeks will not cod our farmers. I hope he will go back to his Cabinet members during the next few days and tell them that this will not be acceptable. These people work hard and are very honest people. They do not cry out for assistance unless they need it.
I thank you for giving us the opportunity to say a few words about the farm modernisation scheme. I also want to thank the Minister of State in the Department of Agriculture, Deputy Hegarty, for coming in to make a contribution. I am very disappointed that the Minister for Agriculture did not see fit to come in at this stage to make his contribution, because we have already had both Ministers of State at Question Time yesterday afternoon. We are raising this matter on the Adjournment because of our confusion and because of the farmers' anger and frustration at the attitude of the Government towards the farm modernisation scheme and towards agriculture in general. Only 25 per cent of our farmers are up to full development. The primary purpose of the farm modernisation scheme is to ensure that there is equal opportunity within all the member states for all farmers to develop and expand.
Over the last ten years our farmers and our economy have benefited to the tune of £234 million from EEC funds through the farm modernisation scheme. This is an average annual grant aid of £23.4 million. On a pound for pound basis we have benefited to the tune of £10 to £12 million per annum, so it is simple logic to state that we have lost in the region of £10 to £12 million of EEC aid for agriculture this year. The Minister of State said today that the Government saved £10.3 million through the suspension of the scheme. Therefore it is reasonable to state that agriculture has lost in the region of £20 million in 1983. Through the failure of the Government to continue the scheme we have lost £10 million from Europe and we have lost a further £10 million of Government investment through the suspension of the scheme. If that is the attitude of the Government, the Minister for Agriculture and the Ministers of State charged with the responsibility to lead, develop and programme our primary industry, what hope is there for the future of the country? Surely it is an indictment of the Government and shows their attitude to our principal industry. At a time when over 200,000 people are out of work an investment of £20 million would do a lot to help to expand and develop our agricultural industry and our economy. It would help to cushion many companies who find themselves operating in a very tight fiscal situation if extra money was available for agriculture, because our farmers are our biggest spenders. They are constantly investing the money they get in their own industry and in ancillary agri-industries. They help every sector of our economy through spending the grants and the moneys which are at their disposal.
It is reasonable to conclude that the fact that the Government failed to invest £20 million in our primary industry in 1983 has had a major effect on our overall economic situation. At a time when we are threatened with this terrible super-levy by the EEC surely our whole credibility in Europe has been weakened and our negotiating strategy has been completely weakened by suspending the farm modernisation scheme at a loss of £10 million to our economy from European aid in 1983? Now at the end of the year we are negotiating in relation to a super-levy which we cannot accept. Surely it is very hard for us as an agricultural nation to be reconciled with what our skilled counterparts have? We are the only member state in the history of the EEC who have suspended the farm modernisation scheme. This has done irreparable damage to Irish agriculture.
The Dáil is the only democratic institution in the State, where the true facts should be known at all times. It is very unfair to have a situation where, repeatedly during 1983, the Minister for Agriculture and the Ministers of State in that Department have come in to the House and taken groups of questions together and have failed to give us proper detailed information. I want to object strenuously to the fact that the first question on the Order Paper yesterday to the Minister for Agriculture for a number of months, which I had tabled, was not answered fully. We were told by the Minister of State, Deputy Connaughton, that the announcement of the return of the farm modernisation scheme will be made in a few days. Surely this was an opportunity for him to give the knowledge to this House because this House should know first what is happening, and to allay the fears of our farmers about this scheme?
In my constituency we have the proposed closure of the Tuam sugar factory. We were told today that a Government decision would be made shortly, but last Saturday night, the Minister of State, Deputy Connaughton, was able to tell his friends at a local ball in east Galway that there was no need to worry, everything was in order and the factory would not be closed. Surely this is not the way to treat the Members of the House and our primary industry. I appeal now, as we go into 1984, for a fresh, clear, positive approach to agriculture and to the operations of this House vis-à-vis agriculture.
I have sympathy with the Deputy that taking too many questions together may not be such a good idea and it might be easier on the people asking the questions if they were taken individually. As was stated yesterday afternoon in reply to a parliamentary question, an announcement about the reintroduction of the farm modernisation scheme will be made within the next few days. I cannot, pending this announcement, give the details of the revised scheme. I can say that it will emphasise the most essential forms of farm investment, in particular basic livestock housing.
As regards applicants who are caught by the suspension of grant aid for building and fixed assets earlier this year the position is that the intention behind the suspension was to save money. I estimate that saving in 1983 amounted to £10.3 million. The cut-off applied to applications on hand on 9 February which had not been processed to the approval stage and, of course, to any applications for buildings and fixed assets received after 9 February. Any applications which have been approved not later than 9 February were not affected by the suspension. Any applicants caught by the suspension are free to re-apply when the revised scheme is reintroduced and their applications will be dealt with, provided the works proposed are eligible for grant aid under the terms of the revised scheme. Of course, the normal practice of the farm development service is to insist that written approval must issue before work commences.
In 1981 the western package commenced but the part dealing with farm planning and development did not get going until late 1982. Under this, small farmers who cannot make development category can get the same rate of grants for farm buildings and fixed assets as development farmers were getting in the west prior to the cut in grants for farm buildings and other special aids under the farm modernisation scheme last February. Their farm plans had to concentrate on cattle and sheep, and plan targets were not as onerous as for development farmers under the FMS. These grants for western farmers under the western package were not cut last February.
The recent EEC proposals on farm structures which are being discussed in a working party envisage aid being available to all full-time farmers below the comparable income who can make profitable investments. If these proposals are adopted any full-time farmer will be eligible for the highest grant rate and will not have to reach specific planned targets. This will go quite a bit of the way to meet the wishes of those seeking a pre-development scheme for small farmers. When the proposals are adopted we will incorporate them in a further revised farm modernisation scheme.
We have not, in fact, lost any EEC aid for the FMS in 1983, because any refunds we get do not come until the year following the expenditure by the National Government. For instance, our refund from the EEC is about 16 per cent of our expenditure and is received a year in arrears. As I have said, the reason for the suspension was in part financial, and this was stated by the Minister for Agriculture earlier this year. The problems related to finance arose before the Government took office and there is little use at this stage in complaining about the situation.
The western package, which was negotiated by a previous Government as Deputy Kitt knows, is not ideal for our conditions in that it does not allow for any worthwhile expansion in milk production. The package is being reviewed and the Government will seek to improve the conditions so that it will be more suited to the needs of western farmers. However, Deputy Kitt must be aware of the problems about increased milk production and that this will be a difficult nut to crack.
As the Deputies are courteous enough to stay here so late, I would like to inform them that I will be writing to them all individually because at Question Time today I may have given an incorrect impression with regard to the rescue package and the reduced interest scheme for farmers in severe financial difficulty. I would like to clarify the position, and I am availing of this opportunity to say that of the 9,300 applicants some 4,400 have so far received interest relief amounting to about £9 million. In regard to the balance of the applications, some were deemed ineligible while some others consisted of duplicate applications; in other words they owed money to both the banks and the ACC. A decision on some of these has still to be decided. This leaves about 2,500 cases where farm plans are awaited or where agreement has not yet been reached by the lending agency and the applicant on the plan provided. In other words, 2,500 are still in the melting pot.
In regard to the closing date for receipt of completed application forms by the lending institutions, this was extended to 30 June for applicants who had made an approach to the lending agency prior to the closing date for the scheme and had been turned down in error. I hope that clarifies any impressions.
The Dáil adjourned at 12.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 14 December 1983 until 10.30 a.m.