Deputy Creed gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of the crisis in the farm development service and Teagasc with regard to the processing of young farmer installation grants and the control of farm pollution grants, due to alleged staff shortages. Deputy Creed has ten minutes to present his case and the Minister of State has five minutes to reply.
Adjournment Debate. - Farm Development Service.
I seek permission to share my time with Deputies Carey and Therese Ahearn.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Chair for allowing me to raise this very important issue on the Adjournment. One might assume that the farm development service affects only those directly involved in agriculture but the present crisis has a significant impact on those directly involved in farming and also on the quality of the environment and on industrial relations, given the present dispute between the Civil and Public Servants Union and the Department. The dispute must have implications also for the national understanding because the union are a party to that.
To appreciate this crisis fully one must cast one's mind back to the mid-eighties when a series of fish kills alerted the community to the environment issue, to the quality of our environment and to the fact that any damage to our environment would adversely affect our international image and our important tourist industry. As a result of that awareness Governments since have introduced and pursued a series of initiatives to combat environmental crises. We had the farm improvement programme, the PWDH initially introduced in the western drainage areas and subsequently extended to cover the whole country, and the most recent and possibly most attractive help, the control of farm pollution grants introduced in August 1989. Tribute must be paid to individual farmers who availed of the attractive grant aid to combat what was a serious problem for them and a problem which affected the whole community. Much progress has been made, as I am sure is recognised by the Department of the Environment, the Department of Agriculture and by the Minister having regard to the lessening number of fish kills and the improved quality of the environment.
I am sceptical that the present mood is towards publicity hype about solving the environment problems. The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment published a new booklet today but little resources are being deployed where needed in order to effectively tackle the problems.
The crisis to which I refer arose because a series of initiatives were introduced with little consideration for the effect on the farm development service. The initiatives introduced in the mid-eighties coincided with the embargo on recruitment to the public service and, since 1987, the devastating voluntary redundancy package which took many of the best and the brightest from the service, from top management down to clerical level. The lack of planning and consideration for the ability of the organisation to carry out its duties effectively and efficiently has led to the unions refusing to handle the CFP grants which since August 1989 grant aided to the tune of 55 per cent categories of farm pollution control. Throughout farm development services and in the Minister's Department grant applications that passed through the local farm development services are lying there because the unions are legitimately and understandably refusing to process them. All these schemes have been foisted on the workers with little consideration for staffing levels and that is where the crisis arises. This dispute has gone on too long. I earnestly request the Minister to tackle the problems. Since 1 November the unions have been blacking these applications and no progress has been made. What steps has the Minister taken or does he intend to take to resolve the dispute? The Minister should provide adequate staffing and finance for the various sections. Field officers have found themselves office bound because their travelling allowances have run out and farmers anxious to play their part in protecting the environment are unable to fulfil that desire due to the present legitimate dispute. Little attention was paid to the effect of these schemes on staffing, given that the introduction of the schemes coincided with the embargo on recruitment and the voluntary redundancy package.
In Teagasc there is a particular difficulty with regard to the installation aid grants in the Cork, Kerry and Limerick areas which relate to the failure to replace a Mr. Cadogan——
I would appreciate if no names were mentioned.
There was a failure to replace a senior agricultural officer who had direct responsibility for inspecting installation aid grants which were a significant incentive to handing over farms by elderly holders to young and more enthusiastic entrepreneurs. They are facing inordinate difficulties any way in the Land Registry office. A senior officer from the Department in the Dublin area is being asked to visit Cork, Kerry and Limerick on a once, twice or thrice monthly basis which is totally inadequate. The installation aid applications are piling up in Teagasc offices through Cork, Kerry and Limerick and there is no hope of resolving the matter unless that post is filled.
Many of these farmers are operating to deadlines, tax year deadlines, bank deadlines, etc. and it behoves the Minister to act in a positive manner to resolve the dispute forthwith.
I wish to thank Deputy Creed for sharing his time with me.
I join with Deputy Creed in expressing my concern at the delay in the processing of grants for the control of pollution due mainly to the reduction of staff in the farm development service. It is unfair to expect a depleted staff to cope with an increasing volume of work, due mainly to the Government's insistence, and rightly so, on farm pollution control. It is equally unfair to expect farmers to spend large sums of money providing the buildings necessary for farm pollution control if they cannot expect to receive the grant when the work is completed. They are discovering that when work is completed the grants are delayed for several months. This is totally unacceptable to a farming community that has responded magnificently to the general demands for farm pollution control. Delays in payments puts much stress on farmers who have a commitment to pay their lending agency when buildings are completed. These honourable farmers are rightly upset at not having the money when payment is due. It puts them in a position where they may not have credibility with their lending agency when they look for a further loan in the future.
Unfortunately a similar situation exists with Teagasc. In my own constituency in South Tipperary both technical and clerical staff have been reduced by over 60 per cent. Two area offices in Cahir and Killenaule have been closed and further areas, Tipperary and Dundrum, have an almost depleted service. As a result only 700 farm families out of a total of 5,000 can avail of the Teagasc service. I see little point in the Minister paying lip service to quality production, to farm pollution control and to modern farm management techniques while at the same time presiding over the removal of the necessary assistance to members of the agricultural community by reducing the number of staff in Teagasc and the farm development service who provide the necessary incentives for farmers to deal with farm pollution by the speedy payment of grants.
The Minister should get his priorities right. If he wishes to enhance the name of Irish agriculture as a producer of good quality food and as a protector of the environment, he must remember that that job starts at the farm gate and can only be continued by providing adequate staff in the farm development service and Teagasc.
I thank Deputy Creed for allowing me this brief intervention in the debate. There is a crisis in the farm development services. The Minister's decisions have put at grave risk this antipollution programme which has been heralded in the media.
The farm development service is so depleted that in my own area farmers entitled to £700,000 worth of grants have not had the final inspection carried out because the officers have a limited travel budget. It is very difficult to understand why the Department decided to discriminate against the officers in the farm development service by putting this upper limit of approximately £2,000 on their travelling expenses while an ERAD officer of the same standing has a travel allowance in excess of that provided for the farm development officers.
I want to make a telling point about the services being given by the farm development service. In the regulations the Minister implies a clawback system. There is a clawback of £30 for a visit and that is given as a subsidy towards the farm development officer's work. When this money is available as a result of the good work done by farmers, why is this niggardly approach being adopted by the Minister with regard to the travel budget of the farm development service officers?
There is also a problem in regard to the appointment of senior officers. In my constituency a senior officer has retired and he has not been replaced. In west Clare in particular some applicants have been two years waiting for inspection. That is not a modern way to look at things. While we have to work within the constraints of the budget cuts that have been imposed on us, surely the Minister, with this self-financing programme, could make a better effort to resolve this dispute in his Department.
I am glad of the opportunity to reply to the short debate we have had here and I thank the Deputies for their contributions.
There is no crisis in the farm, development service or Teagasc. The workload of the local offices is, admittedly, heavy due to the volume of applications generated by the very attractive incentives introduced by this Government for on-farm investment. These applications are being dealt with as quickly as possible having regard to existing staff resources.
From the beginning of 1989 to the end of September over 14,000 approvals issued to farmers for investments costing in the region of £120 million under the revised western package, the farm improvement programme and the new scheme for the control of farmyard pollution. In addition nearly 500 applications were received under the scheme of installation aid and 422 premiums were paid.
The processing of applications of the young farmer installation scheme is generally a lengthy and complex process. This is due to the detailed examination required in determining eligibility to comply with the relevant EC regulation. In many cases, however, failure of the applicant to have his title registered adds to the delay.
The control of farmyard pollution scheme was introduced last August. Unfortunately, in many offices throughout the country, industrial action has been taking place in relation to the processing of applications under this scheme. Officials of my Department are having negotiations with the union involved and it is hoped that agreement will be reached shortly.
As the demand for grants this year has exceeded the budgetary allocation of £19.4 million, there is now a short time lag in payments. I expect, however, that all the outstanding grants will be paid before the end of the year. I am sure Deputies are aware that we hope to have a Supplementary Estimate to the tune of £8 million in the next week or so and that should certainly help in coming to terms very quickly with the backlog of payment of grants that are now ready for payment.