Vol. 398 No. 9
8 Mr. Bradford asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has any plans to abolish the off-farm income limit used to disqualify applicants for grant aid under the scheme for control of farmyard pollution operated by his Department whose income from sources other than farming exceeds £10,000 in the current year.
It is not intended to propose amendments to the eligibility terms of the programme for the control of farmyard pollution which was approved by the EC Commission as recently as last August.
The off-farm income limit under the headage schemes has been dropped from 1 January 1990 at a cost of £12 million in a full year.
Is the Minister aware that in 1988 12,000 farms were surveyed throughout the country to determine the risk of farmyard pollution? Of these 23 per cent were considered to be in the high risk category while 22 per cent were considered to be in the medium to high risk category. It was pointed out at that time that many of these farms were in the hands of farmers with off-farm incomes. We often find that those farmers who modernised their farms in recent years have off-farm incomes and that they used their better income for capitalising the farm. However, these farmers will not be able to avail of this scheme. Does the Minister agree with this? Would it not be better, during the so-called Green Presidency, to extend this scheme to all farmers in the same way that all farmers will now be able to avail of the headage schemes, which is long overdue? In this way we would tackle the problem of farmyard pollution in a far more realistic way.
In introducing the western package I accorded priority to anti-pollution programmes. That was a major development and I would like to acknowledge the co-operation I received from the farming community and their organisations in making this scheme a success. It forms a major element of the programme. Secondly, I should point out to the Deputy again that the off-farm income limit under the headage schemes has been abolished as and from January this year which will be of substantial benefit to the people he is talking about.
I accept that. It was long overdue.
It should be of considerable help to them in meeting the costs of any pollution control programmes and should also lead to extra income. In the nature of things, there are many full-time farmers on low incomes outside the disadvantaged areas. I am anxious to strike a balance and to consider their interests also. I hope that by doing things in stages we will be able to tackle all of these issues.
A brief question from Deputy Connaughton.
Is the Minister not being inconsistent, at a time when he has dropped the off-farm income limit under the headage scheme, in imposing a limit of £10,000 under this scheme for the control of farmyard pollution? I cannot understand the logic behind this. Would the Minister also inform the House if it is his intention to increase the standard costings on farm buildings this year?
I should point out to the Deputy that I did not impose that limit but rather retained it. The Deputy should be accurate in what he says. Surely the Deputy is not going to use this positive move, which is both welcome and overdue, to try to attribute blame for a failure to move on all fronts at the same time.
A final question from Deputy Stagg.
Would the Minister not agree that we cannot justify paying, from taxpayers' pockets, a subsidy to people with an income of £10,000 as well as their farm income, for staying within the law?
That is one side——
Question No. 9, please.
The EC provides 50 per cent of the cost of implementing the programme for the control of farmyard pollution.
I am calling Deputy Connor's question, if he will allow me.
I will take all these matters into account and somehow try to accommodate the different views on all sides of the House.
Question No. 9.
Deputy Connor surely wishes to hear a reply to his question.
I hope the Minister does not take the views of the Deputy who spoke last. God help the farmers of Ireland if he does.
What about a reply to Question No. 9?
