Liz O'Donnell
Ceist:14 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the proposals, if any, he has for a restoration of the dairy hygiene scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19432/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Restoration of Farm Schemes.
Robert Molloy
Ceist:42 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the steps, if any, he proposes to take to restore the control of farmyard pollution scheme and the farm improvement scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19427/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 42 together.
There are no plans at this stage to reintroduce the control of farm pollution scheme or the dairy hygiene scheme. However, as regards the dairy hygiene scheme, if additional funds become available as a result of the mid-term review of the Structural Funds, consideration will be given to its reintroduction in a modified form.
The farm improvement programme which was launched in 1986 continues to apply for those farmers who took out farm plans before 8 December 1994, when the scheme was suspended by the previous Administration. Farmers who had planned investments may apply to carry out these works in accordance with their farm plan. Due to a shortage of funds provided in the operational programme it was necessary to limit the relaunched farm improvement programme to investments in horticulture. This scheme, which was launched in 1995, has not been suspended.
I appeal to the Minister, as I have done before, to give special consideration to the reintroduction of the control of farm pollution scheme in counties Cavan and Monaghan. There are severe problems with the disposal of effluent due to the drumlin terrain in those counties. The Minister is well aware of ongoing representations all Deputies make on behalf of farmers who are under severe pressure from local authorities and fisheries boards in relation to pollution incidents. Those same farmers are very anxious to put in the necessary investment but they need grant assistance to carry out the required works. The Minister should consider further the proposal I have put to his Department on a number of occasions.
I understand the Deputy's request. There are a number of areas that have pollution problems and they could make similar cases.
The Minister could exclude a few and include some others.
The Minister could introduce regionalisation.
Given my current difficulties on segregation relative to other matters, it is not a precedent I wish to establish. The total amount——
The decision should be made if it is right.
As long as Offaly is in. An allocation of £195 million was the total amount for all of these investment schemes such as FIP and CFP. The original national plan had £245 million but that was cut by £50 million for reasons we all know. However, even the £245 million would not have been enough because the demand was so strong. By the time we got to the end of the last Euro tranche, the CMP had been suspended in April 1992. I have tried to facilitate those in REPS but I see no prospect of the CFP being reopened.
Would the Minister not agree that it is time for his Department to have an overview of all those schemes and to try to facilitate people? It is an impossible situation for many farmers, given the way these schemes stop and start. The farmers may not have all the money they want and when they have funding they find no scheme is in place. Those schemes should be examined closely to see how people with development plans might be facilitated.
If there is no money, all the reviews in the world will not change that. The mid-term review is in two parts. One is to see if there is unspent money in other Objective 1 regions in Europe and the other is to see if the overall Structural Funds can be spread around. That is the only prospect of more funding.
I did not make the original decision, but in hindsight it would have been fairer to have a lower rate of grant and give money to more people rather than give a 60 per cent grant to some people. Thousands of people get nothing. This should be considered if we have a future round of Structural Funds after 1999.
The control of pollution grants are an important area of continuing controversy. The Minister has consistently referred to the lack of resources to meet the demand for these grants. Could he try, as I have tried on two Finance Bills, to look at farmers with taxable income getting a tax credit equivalent to what they would get in a direct grant payment? That would pay that category of farmer and release the grant money for those farmers who do not have tax relief.
Does the Minister not agree that there are ways around the resource problem if the political will is there? One could use the tax system to pay people who have a taxable income and that would immediately release the grant aid resources to far more farmers who are not taxed. It is agreed by every Member with an interest in agricultural matters or who represents a rural community that the control of farmyard pollution scheme is the first opportunity farmers have been given to obtain assistance to ensure they work in environmentally friendly workplaces. All Members would agree that farmers have been unfairly regarded as the polluters of our environment when there is huge interest in the farming community in taking up this scheme. Rather than examining the reduction in the level of the percentage of grant aid under the scheme, the reason for it being so generous was the recognition of its importance——
This is overlong.
——and the recognition that it would ensure the maximum number of farmers would take up the scheme. Let us use a tax credit system to get around this resources problem. It could be done in relation to dairy hygiene and the control of farmyard pollution. It is not an impossible task to find an imaginative way around this problem. Let us do it if the political will is there.
People who have already received grants may or may not have a taxable income. I understand the Deputy's point. To be positive, now that there is no grant available to a farmer who wishes to proceed along these lines, there is a need to consider carefully some form of tax relief for pollution-related expenditure. At the start today of the general public talks with the social partners on a successor to the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, a number of them requested this be looked at as a negotiating condition. There are a number of ways to approach it and the Deputy has suggested one. Given collective Cabinet responsibility, it is a matter for the Minister for Finance and the Government in the consideration of the budget but I would support a favourable outcome for such a proposal. It can now be pursued more legitimately than ever because of the absence of grant aid.
The Minister will have to convert the Minister for Social Welfare. He says that farmers are rolling in it.