Willie Penrose
Ceist:78 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the plans, if any, he has to reintroduce the installation aid scheme which was suspended in August 1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18695/98]
Priority Questions. - Installation Aid Scheme.
The scheme of installation aid for young farmers introduced in 1994 under the Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry was suspended on 7 August 1997 when the available funding was exhausted. Recognising the importance attached to this measure by young farmers embarking on their careers, I secured the agreement of the Minister for Finance to the reintroduction of a more tightly focused revised scheme targeted towards those smaller farmers most in need of assistance.
Following discussions with the farming organisations on the nature of the new scheme, my Department submitted the terms of a revised installation aid scheme to the Department of Finance and to the European Commission for approval in late July.
In mid-September the Commission raised questions about the proposal which provided for accommodating young farmers who failed to make application under the earlier scheme before its suspension subject to their meeting the relevant eligibility criteria. The Commission also sought clarification that the equivalent skills and competence qualifications of other member states would be recognised in determining eligibility under the proposed scheme. My Department has responded quickly to the Commission on these issues and again stressed our desire to secure the earliest agreement for the new measure.
The Government's handling of this scheme has been nothing short of disgraceful. It has been informed by excuses, fudges, smokescreens and downright deception. I was misled in this House on 28 May 1998 that the scheme was about to be reintroduced.
That is right.
A sum of £6.5 million would cover this scheme even if we were to provide it ourselves out of national Exchequer funds. Ninety four applicants are taken off the scheme every month while 100 people leave farming every month. Reintroducing the scheme would almost negative the drift from farming.
I have three files here which were sent back by the Department in September to three sons in one family in County Westmeath who are beef farmers. I told the Minister the other night that they could not be facilitated in farming and they have been told by the Department that they are ineligible for aid. Let us get off our butts. We should not have suspended the scheme but should have found the money. That is the kernel of the matter.
The Deputy must ask a question — I remind him this is Question Time.
I am about to formulate a few questions.
Does that mean we are going to get answers?
Is it reasonable to take the figures from 1994 as an indicator of the likely participation rate? Based upon that, is it not also reasonable that the amount involved was only £6 million? When will the Minister give a definitive answer?
Why did we not seek approval from the EU Commission long before July if approval was needed? Was there an attempt to scrimp and save a few bob in the Department rather than finance it ourselves? Is it not the case that a few bob would be introduced in September or October with the intention of stretching it out until the next budget?
The scheme could be introduced immediately if it were to exclude applicants after 1995. It is the intention of the Department that anyone who has qualified since 1995 should be included in the scheme. I remind the Deputy that the last Government did not include money for the scheme in last year's budget.
The Minister should forget about blaming the last Government — he has been in Government for 15 months and he has failed.
Who introduced the budget?
The 1997 budget was introduced by Deputy Sheehan's party when it was in Government. That Government did not bring forward the money for the scheme. It cost £17 million and an extra £5 million was needed to complete the over 4,100 schemes which were already in existence.
This Government, in agreement and following talks with the various farming organisations, has brought forward a scheme. However, we do not want to exclude farmers who did not apply the last time. We could bring in the scheme immediately but that would mean excluding people who could qualify for it, which would be a terrible mistake. We will fight the Commission on the basis that those people should be included.
If the Government had financed the scheme over that period how could the EU Commission exclude anybody?
Hear, hear.
Funds should be provided from the national Exchequer because we are facing a massive dilemma with 5,000 people leaving the land. We have an opportunity here to give £5,600 per applicant, which is only 40 per cent of the cost of creating an IDA job and would save rural Ireland. That position should not have arisen.
I agree with the Minister that we do not want to exclude anybody, including the three farmers to whom I referred earlier and another 30 farmers in my Westmeath clinics. However, the Minister should ensure that this is not used as another smokescreen. If we must provide funds from the Exchequer to ensure those applicants are included, will the Minister give me an undertaking that they will be included?
The Commission has raised the fact that the scheme was extended. We must seek the permission of the EU Commission. We do not like to have to get into this area because the renationalisation of the CAP would be to our detriment and would be dangerous for us because other countries would swamp us. However, we are fighting to ensure that all eligible smaller farmers will be included. The funding will be directed towards smaller farmers.
Question No. 79 was tabled by Deputy Creed. As the Deputy is not present, we must skip that question and proceed to Question No. 80.
Can we not take that question?
No, the Deputy who tabled the question must be present for Priority Questions.