Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 1 Mar 1984

Vol. 348 No. 7

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Farm Modernisation Scheme.

13.

Mr. N. Treacy

asked the Minister for Agriculture the number of grants allocated by his Department since the introduction of the farm modernisation scheme; the number of these grants that were not paid due to applicants not having completely adhered to the specific grant requirements; the amount of money saved by his Department as a result of these grant rejections; if he will now introduce emergency legislation to pay a percentage of the allocated grant to applicants who completed projects and did not receive any grant or part thereof; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

14.

Mr. Kitt

asked the Minister for Agriculture if refunds of grants will be sought from the farmers that his Department alleged did not fully comply with grant requirements under the farm modernisation scheme.

Mr. Deasy

I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 14 together.

The total number of grants approved from the inception of the FMS in 1974 to 31 December 1983 was 300, 295.

No figures are available on the number of approved grants, or the amount of grant-aid involved, which were subsequently not paid due to the applicant's failure to adhere to the conditions of the scheme. Where a grant has been paid and an applicant subsequently fails to comply with the conditions of the scheme, e.g. in relation to the keeping of farm accounts, the grant or a portion thereof falls to be refunded to the Department.

Mr. N. Treacy

There should be figures available for the number of applications rejected. Many farmers got sanction for grants but for various reasons — be they financial, the weather, the soil or the topography of the area — they were not in a position to adhere strictly to the criteria laid down and as a result——

An Ceann Comhairle

A question, please, Deputy.

Mr. N. Treacy

——they have been denied these grants. Would the Minister make a special effort to pay a certain percentage to farmers? I know a farmer who adhered 90 per cent to the criteria laid down. In my view he is justly entitled to a 90 per cent grant for his investment. Would the Minister consider, even at this late stage, compensating those farmers by granting them a percentage of the grants originally allocated to them?

Mr. Deasy

It is impossible to give the number of applications received because a great deal of the work has not been completed. Some farmers were not paid because the work was not carried out. Of the 300,000 applicants I referred to, 246,500 have been paid.

Mr. N. Treacy

Could we have an indication of the Minister's commitment to these farmers?

Mr. Kitt

How many farmers were asked for a refund and what was the amount involved?

Mr. Deasy

I do not have that figure.

Mr. Wilson

Where a farmer has done everything that was asked of him to get a grant, and where the only reason for his not getting the full grant has been his failure to publish farm accounts, is it not possible to pay the remainder of the grant when the farm accounts are produced?

Mr. Deasy

The Deputy will be pleased to hear that I have decided to extend to 31 July 1984 the submission of accounts for the accounting years ending prior to 31 July 1983. Instructions have been issued to ACOT who have been asked to notify relevant farmers of the relaxation in the requirement. Account extracts for years ending after 31 July 1983 must be submitted to ACOT within 12 months of the closing inventory date.

Mr. Wilson

I am delighted to hear that, but is the Minister not being restrictive in tying it to 31 July 1983? In this House we are constantly getting accounts from semi-State bodies two and three years late. Why should not this 12 months latitude, for which the farmers will be grateful, be extended to July 1982?

Mr. Deasy

The earlier part of my statement took care of people in 1982 and earlier years.

Mr. Wilson

If a person sends in his accounts for 1982 and they are verified, will he get the remainder of his grant?

Mr. Deasy

Yes.

Mr. N. Treacy

The Minister said the Department would be seeking refunds from farmers who did not keep farm accounts. Would he agree that it is not traditional for farmers to keep accounts over the years and that their only incentive to keep accounts was for grant purposes? Now that the farm accounts grant has been suspended, would the Minister consider restoring it to ensure that in future farmers keep proper accounts?

Mr. Deasy

No scheme is introduced with the idea of it staying on ad infinitum. Schemes are brought in to help people get used to a certain system. This grant scheme has been in operation for a number of years and it was felt that the farmers should have become accustomed to keeping farm accounts without the help of grants.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): Would the Minister consider paying these grants by way of instalments.

Mr. Deasy

I would have to discuss this with my officials to see if it is practicable.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): I am not asking for an answer now; I am asking the Minister if he will consider it.

Mr. Deasy

Yes, I will consider it and discuss it with my officials to see if it is practicable.

15.

Mr. J. Leonard

asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will state whether in cases where the time has elapsed for work to be completed under the farm modernisation scheme for farm buildings, he will consider giving a further extension.

Mr. Deasy

Approved applicants for grant aid under the farm modernisation scheme are given adequate time in which to carry out their work. Failure to complete the work to specification by the given date can result in loss of entitlement to grant aid. I do not propose to allow any extension of time limits.

Mr. J. Leonard

Because the Department are not allowing any flexibility this is having a very serious effect on people who borrowed heavily to carry out grant-aided work. Heretofore there was a certain amount of flexibility which is no longer available. This type of flexibility cannot be withdrawn overnight.

Mr. Deasy

Some people had six years to fulfil their farm plans and in the Deputy's area they had eight years. That is a considerable length of time. My Department feel there is no justification for extending this scheme.

Mr. J. Leonard

Is the Minister aware that in some cases plans may have been approved in the sixth year? This means farmers have a very short time to carry out the work involved and because of scarcity of funds and credit many of them were unable to get the work done. I know of a man who lost £3,500. Is that fair?

Mr. Deasy

We extended the farm modernisation scheme for buildings and reclamation work from July 1983 to August 1983 and September 1983. We consider that a liberal extension.

Mr. J. Leonard

Farmers do this type of work in the off-periods, and that is when they can get contractors to do it.

Mr. Deasy

We are talking about an extension of the existing deadline. I think it was reasonable.

16.

Mr. J. Leonard

asked the Minister for Agriculture the steps he will take to assist farmers who are outside the scope of the reintroduced farm modernisation scheme.

17.

Mr. M. Ahern

asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will allow other low income farmers with young school going children into the farm modernisation scheme; and if he will extend the expiry date for development farmers by two years.

18.

Mr. J. Walsh

asked the Minister for Agriculture the plans he has for other low category farmers under the terms of the revised farm modernisation scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Deasy

I propose to take Questions Nos. 16, 17 and 18 together.

While farmers in the "other low" category do not qualify for aid under the revised farm modernisation scheme, some farmers in this category in the west of Ireland who follow an improvement plan designed to increase beef and sheep output may be eligible for grant aid for buildings for livestock under the orientation of production element of the western package. There are also aids for land drainage and land improvement available under the western drainage scheme and western package.

In view of the limited resources available it is not possible at this time to provide additional aids for farmers outside the scope of the revised farm modernisation scheme.

Development and "other high" farmers are being allowed an additional period of up to 11 months to complete items of investment on their plans on 10 February 1983, which are eligible for aid under the revised scheme. The additional period is in lieu of time lost during the period of suspension of aid for certain investment.

Mr. J. Leonard

Is the Minister aware that when we were discussing this topic last June or July a statement was made to the effect that farmers would qualify under the western package? Is the Minister aware that in the course of a reply to a parliamentary question at the end of last year I was told that only £77,000, a pittance, had been paid under that scheme for farm buildings? Is the Minister aware that the reason most of the farmers in Cavan-Monaghan, Donegal and other parts of the west could not avail of this scheme was because the main source of income for most of those farmers was milk production? As a result those farmers were debarred.

Mr. Deasy

I do not know to whom the Deputy addressed the question because I do not recall giving a reply to it.

Mr. J. Leonard

I was told that such farmers would qualify under the western package. At the end of the year I was told that only £77,000 had been paid out in grants for farm buildings in the west. That works out at about ten or 12 grants or one grant per county.

Mr. Deasy

I take the Deputy's word for that.

Mr. J. Leonard

Will the Minister agree that most farmers after the six year period has lapsed are classified as "others"? In my county about 10 per cent of them move up into "development" and the others go down to "other low". Those farmers are now debarred completely from grant aid. They have been thrown to the wind. When the scheme was reintroduced did the Department look at the details of it and take into consideration the number of farmers who would be debarred? In Cavan-Monaghan four-fifths of the farmers are being condemned to be without a grant from now on and I believe the same applies throughout the west although we are supposed to get £300,000 over a ten year period to develop that region.

Mr. Deasy

I believe the figures asked for are given in the reply to the next question.

19.

Mr. J. Leonard

asked the Minister for Agriculture the percentage of farmers in Cavan-Monaghan who are classified as "other low" under the farm modernisation scheme; and the grant aid that is available for the erection of farm buildings for cattle for farmers classified in that category.

Mr. Deasy

The percentages of farmers classified as "other low" in counties Cavan and Monaghan are 17 per cent and 14 per cent respectively. No grant aid is available for "other low" farmers under the revised farm modernisation scheme. However, farmers below the development level who follow an improvement plan designed to increase beef and sheep output may be eligible for grant aid for buildings for livestock under the orientation of production element of the western package.

Mr. J. Leonard

Is the Minister aware that in Monaghan 900 farmers out of 5,000 have qualified for development and the remainder, four-fifths of the farmers of the county, do not qualify? The reason why the figure for the county is 14 per cent is because there was no grant aid available and they were not reclassified. Will the Minister ask the ACOT office in Monaghan to examine the remaining 83 per cent of farmers? If they were to be classified tomorrow it would be found that most of them had passed the six year period. If they apply for a grant now they will be classified as "other low" and will not get it. It is wrong to give this type of misleading information.

Mr. Deasy

I would not like any Member to think that I am giving misleading information.

Mr. J. Leonard

I will qualify my statement by saying that it is not the Minister who is giving misleading information. The fact is that 80 per cent of the 4,000 farmers we are referring to if they applied for grant aid tomorrow would be classified as "other low". The system in the ACOT office is that they remain classified as "other high" until they apply for grant aid. Immediately they do that they are reclassified and dropped to "other low".

Mr. Deasy

According to the information I have, 4,400 were classified in the small farm modernisation scheme in Cavan and 3,900 in Monaghan. Of these approximately 760 are classified "other low" in Cavan and 550 in Monaghan. However, I will look into the point made by the Deputy, that they were not classified because they did not apply for a grant.

Mr. J. Leonard

I would be obliged if the Minister would do that because the information given is very misleading for the people in the "other low" category whose survival in future will depend on the Minister introducing a scheme of grants for them.

20.

Mr. Wilson

asked the Minister for Agriculture the number of farmers in County Cavan who had spent money on farm modernisation prior to 9 February 1983 under the guidance of his officials, who were refused participation and who are eligible to benefit from the new scheme.

Mr. Deasy

As indicated in reply to a question on 28 June 1983, the number of applications under the farm modernisation scheme from farmers in County Cavan, which were refused as a result of the suspension of grant aid for farm buildings and fixed assets and the termination of grant aid for mobile equipment with effect from 10 February 1983, was 234. Information is not available to me on the number of those applicants who are eligible for aid for the same projects under the revised scheme.

I should like to add that, as I have indicated in the past, I have some sympathy for farmers who are affected by the suspension. I am continuing to examine the matter to see if some way of helping them could be found.

Mr. Wilson

I appreciate the final sentence in the Minister's reply. Will the Minister accept any responsibility in view of the fact that his officials at local level were advising on the schemes that were disrupted by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Dukes, in his budget speech on 9 February 1983? Will the Minister agree that there must be some legal responsibility in his Department for work carried out under the advice of officials of his Department?

Mr. Deasy

That is an interesting question. I cannot give an answer to it now. It would be of some interest if a person took a court action on that basis although I am not suggesting that he do that. Nevertheless, this point has been made to me on a number of occasions. I should like to point out that I take responsibility for the suspension of the farm modernisation scheme. I might as well, because I am blamed for it.

Mr. Wilson

There is such a thing as collective responsibility.

Mr. Deasy

Deputy Wilson interpreted a certain significance in the last sentence of my reply. I do not wish to elaborate too much on that except to say that I hope that what I am trying to do will materialise.

Mr. Wilson

I admit the matter about collective responsibility. The farmers who cross themselves when the name of the Minister for Finance is mentioned and throw salt over their left shoulder are not in a position to take an action in the High Court.

Mr. Deasy

I am not suggesting that they should do that but the question has been put to me before.

Mr. Wilson

I am encouraging them but they cannot afford to take the action.

Mr. J. Leonard

The Minister of State assured us last year that this matter would be given sympathetic consideration when the scheme was reintroduced. At a meeting in Monaghan this week we were told that in the Cavan-Monaghan area 400 farmers were caught in that net. Some of them were caught for technical reasons or because they did not have approval in advance. The scheme was operated liberally previously but when the axe came down and the decision was made to operate it strictly many farmers lost out. The Minister should give those people some consideration. About 4,500 are involved altogether.

Mr. Deasy

I have given the Deputy as much hope as I could without having the money in my pocket today.

Mr. S. Byrne

It is action we want.

Mr. Wilson

Pandora's Box.

Mr. Deasy

It is amazing how European candidates can broaden their interest in such a short space of time.

Mr. S. Byrne

The Minister made a promise about these grants 11 months ago and it is time we got action on behalf of these farmers.

21.

Mr. Conaghan

asked the Minister for Agriculture the number of farmers in County Donegal categorised under the farm modernisation scheme at 31 December 1983; and the percentage in each of the following categories: (a) commercial, (b) development, (c) other high, (d) other low, and the plans he has to help each category to develop to its full potential.

Mr. Deasy

The number of farmers categorised under the farm modernisation scheme in County Donegal up to 31 December 1983 was 4,569. The percentage in each category was as follows:

(a) Commercial 1 per cent.

(b) Development 10 per cent.

(c) "Other High" 69 per cent.

(d) "Other Low" 20 per cent.

Details of the revised farm modernisation scheme, introduced with effect from 3 January 1984 were announced in a press release issued on 30 December 1983. Under the revised scheme, aid is available to farmers in the commercial, development and "other high" categories. Aid is no longer available to farmers in the "other low" category.

An Ceann Comhairle

The remaining questions will appear on next Tuesday's Order Paper.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I am seeking your permission, Sir, to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 399 to the Minister for Health for written answer on Tuesday, 21 February 1984.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will communicate with Deputy Fitzgerald.

Mr. O'Malley

Deputy Gene Fitzgerald and I have a Private Notice Question submitted to the Minister for Energy today in relation to the announcement in this morning's newspapers of a decision by the ESB to close a substantial number of turf burning and other generating stations. In view of the fact that the closures of those and a number of retail outlets in the ESB are imminent and are liable to happen within a very short time, perhaps as a result of discussions taking place tomorrow, would the Chair feel that it is appropriate to allow the question?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair considered the question very carefully and arrived at a clear decision that the question does not comply with the criteria laid down for Private Notice Questions.

Mr. O'Malley

I do not want to argue with the Chair about the matter, but it is of considerable urgency. Unfortunately, the Government and the Minister for Energy have made no statement on it.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow a statement on it. I am sorry.

Mr. O'Malley

In those circumstances would the Chair allow me, because of the urgency of the matter, to raise it on the Adjournment?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will communicate with Deputy O'Malley.

Mr. N. Treacy

May I have permission to raise on the Adjournment the impending closure of the Hohner factory at Loughrea, County Galway?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will communicate with Deputy Treacy.