asked the Minister for Energy if he will apply the change in EEC Regulation No. 1820/80 in relation to the supply of electricity to new dwelling houses on farms only to applications received after 1 January 1984 the date on which the new regulations became applicable.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Electricity Supply Regulation.
17.
There has been no change in EEC Regulation 1820/80 in relation to the supply of electricity to dwelling houses on farm holdings.
The objectives of the western package electrification scheme were included in a programme submitted to the EEC Commission in 1981. This programme on which the regulation is based was approved by the Commission in March of that year. The programme has not been altered since that time and applications for new supply are assessed in line with its objectives.
While the programme approved by the Commission in 1981 allows for connection of farm dwellings to supply, it is clearly stated that assistance for this purpose applies only to farms which do not have an existing electricity supply. Stricter adherence to the programme in this regard must be enforced in accordance with the recommendations of the EEC Court of Auditors.
Is the Minister aware that the change which came into being on 1 January diminishes the benefit to be gained from this scheme and makes it almost non-existent? Is the further aware that up to 1 January 1984 farmers who had an existing supply to their farms benefited from this scheme and could add to their supply? As a result of the Minister's fundamental changes in the regulations they cannot do so in future?
As I said in my reply, the rules being enforced have been in existence since 1981 since the initiation of the scheme. There was a liberal interpretation as to new supply to farms in the intervening period up to 1984. The question of interpretation and eligibility requirements were subject to examination by the auditors of the EEC and as the Deputy will appreciate, we are at all times subject to examination and evaluation by the auditors who are of the opinion that we should apply this scheme in relation to new connections to farms.
Does the Minister accept that he has made a fundamental change? Does he also accept that people who applied some months prior to 1 Janury 1984 were informed that they were entitled to this benefit but then, in a very blunt fashion, the regulation was changed? Applicants who rang the Department were told that grants which were not sanctioned before 1 January 1984 were not payable. As the Minister introduced the change, would he agree that it should only apply to applications made after 1 January 1984?
I fully understand the sentiments expressed by the Deputy in relation to applications which had been on file. I will examine the matter to see if any relief can be given to those people. I am not aware whether it can be done——
This was a decision by the Minister. There is no indication that the EEC came down on the Department.
You must ask a question, Deputy. You cannot make a speech.
I have repeatedly asked the Minister, by correspondence and otherwise, if he will consider changing this regulation. Does he agree with this proposal? Could he also inform the House how many applications are involved as I understand the number is small? Does he also accept that other Departments, such as the Department of the Environment, who have suspended schemes have always used the criteria that suspension would only take place in respect of applications made after the date of suspension?
That is another question.
I have been attempting to explain to the Deputy, although I do not seem to be getting through to him, the concern expressed by the auditors of the EEC Commission. As they have the ultimate responsibility in relation to the utilisation of funds, it was not a question of an arbitrary decision being taken by me. We want to ensure that moneys made available in the western package will stimulate the development of agriculture. I will examine the matter and inform the Deputy of the result as soon as possible.
Would the Minister agree that only £1.25 million was spent out of the £10 million allocated? If a farmer's son or daughter wishes to get married——
That is argument.
I want to ask a question.
I will allow a question but I will not allow a speech.
I am asking a question.
The Chair will decide whether it is a question or a speech. To date it looks more like a speech.
Does the Minister agree that the son or daughter of a farmer who wants to build a new house and live on a farm would make a major contribution to the development of agriculture provided they were working full time on the land? Would he now give a direction to his Department that these people can avail of the subsidy?
I take the Deputy's point but we do not live in an ideal world. When Deputy Fahey asked this question before I pointed out to him that we will attempt to have this scheme made as widely available as possible. I know it is important to keep a son or daughter on the land but the aims of the package are to improve the viability of farms by facilitating the introduction of modern intensive farming methods, increasing the quality and quantity of production or improving farm hygiene. The electrification scheme obviously helps to fulfil these aims with the improvement of electricity infrastructure but it was originally intended to use the scheme for new electricity supplies to farms. That is the bone of contention between us and the EEC auditors. Obviously, if we can extend the scheme we will do so.
Does the Minister agree that measures for the west have not been taken up due to their restrictive nature? They should be modified so that more people could avail of them and I ask the Minister to investigate many of those areas.
As I said, I will take up the matter in an effort to widen the scheme and to get full utilisation.