asked the Minister for Energy if there has been a change in the interpretation of the EEC council regulation number 1820/80, relating to the supply of electricity to new premises on farm holdings; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Electricity Supply to Farm Holdings.
6.
My Department's approach in the interpretation of the EC Council regulation number 1820/80, relating to the supply of electricity to new premises on farm holdings, has always been to adopt the most flexible attitude possible towards the granting of aid to individuals under the scheme. Each individual case is assessed on its own merits and in line with the objectives of the Programme for Western Development on which the regulation is based.
Following their visit in April 1983, the EC auditors, whose function it is to oversee the implementation of the programme, reported that in the case of the electrification scheme the criteria for allocation of funds were unclear, and particularly questioned the provision of supply to new houses. The outcome is that, under the EC Regulation, grant assistance applies only to farms which do not have an existing electricity supply.
Can I take it that there has been a change in the regulations and that a new farmhouse, which formerly would have qualified under this scheme, no longer qualifies?
All Ministers for Energy have attempted to be as flexible as possible in the interpretation of the EC legislation in relation to this scheme. After the visit by the auditors in 1983 certain matters had to be clarified and questions were asked about the provision of supply to new houses. The present situation is that grant assistance applies only to farms which do not have an existing electricity supply.
I take it that there has been a change in the interpretation of the regulations and that where a young farmer builds a house on his own land he will not qualify if there is a supply to the farm, whereas formerly he did qualify.
The Deputy will be aware of the aims of the western package and this scheme and the provision of electricity where there is not already electricity on the farm.
My understanding was that the scheme was to encourage people to stay on the land. I understand that where a young farmer built a house on his own land he was entitled to benefit from this subsidy but that as a result of a change in interpretation this will not now happen if there is already a supply of electricity to the land. How many applications have been granted each year since the scheme was implemented?
That seems to be a separate question.
The rules which are being enforced have been in existence since 1981. The original programme which was submitted for approval to the EC states in regard to new supply that grant aid will be provided for "provision of electricity on farms not previously supplied".
Would the Minister not agree that there is an anomaly regarding income qualifications even where people are applying in respect of out-farms? A person may at the time of application be working short-time or part-time and that disqualifies him. I would ask the Minister to ensure that such a person would not be disqualified.
I take the point and I can appreciate that certain hardships are caused in such cases, with which I would be personally familiar in the western counties. I will undertake to look into the matter, but the Deputy will be aware of the requirements of the scheme in relation to full-time farming.
The Minister states that the purpose of the scheme is to supplement the cost of electricity supply where electricity was not already on the farm. Would he not agree that the ESB rural electrification scheme had previously brought supply to 99 per cent of all farms in the west? Would he further agree that this deal meant £10 million for the subsidisation of electrical connections in the west and that to date we have spent only about £1.5 million? When the scheme commenced young farmers were being given assistance but they are now being denied that assistance. The idea of the scheme was to stimulate agricultural growth and to keep people on the land, but due to the fact——
The question relates to the interpretation of an EC Council Regulation.
The Minister has said——
Finish your speech.
The Deputy is going around all the boreens of the west.
It is a very decent place. The Minister has stated that EC auditors claimed last year that the criteria were unclear. Is the Minister saying that he and his Department were not able to negotiate special criteria for the west in order to accommodate young farmers?
That is certainly another question.
Was there a sharp fall in the number of applications granted last year as a result of the interpretation of this regulation? Could the Minister give the numbers?
That is a doubtful supplementary too.
I am in difficulty in relation to the actual numbers but I will get the information for the Deputy.
Would the Minister agree that there has been no change in the regulation but that there has been a major change in the interpretation of that regulation? I am surprised that the Minister has not the figures with him, but he will see quite clearly what the change in interpretation has meant. If an old farmer is handing over his farm to a young farmer he does qualify and has done so under the interpretation adopted in the past.
I have been at pains to point out that the two main eligibility requirements are that the beneficiary must be principally dependent on agriculture for his or her income and that the provision of supply to that farm would aid the development of agriculture in the western region. Grant assistance applies only to farms which do not have an existing electricity supply.
(Interruptions.)
People are being strangled by regulations.