Vol. 521 No. 6
6 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development when he will announce the promised farm waste management grants; his views on whether it will soon be too late to have work car ried out in 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17659/00]
Under the National Development Plan 2000-2006 I have made provision for a scheme of farm waste management. A significant level of funding amounting to some £181 million has been allocated for this measure.
The measure will form part of the new regional operational programmes for the Border, midland and western regions and the southern and eastern regions. Clearance to proceed requires the approval of the European Commission. The broad clearance procedure is already well under way, as negotiations with the EU on the community support framework for Ireland necessary to draw down the EU element of the funds have been recently completed.
In addition, the relevant operational programme required has recently been finalised and submitted to the Commission within a tight timeframe. The further negotiation process in respect of the regional operational programmes will follow and there is a formal EU Commission procedure for the approval of operational programmes. The procedure is complex and involves the provision of a considerable amount of documentation and detail. As it is likely to continue over a number of months, it is not possible to indicate at this stage when this proposed scheme will commence. The Deputy can be assured that I will do all I can to ensure that approval is forthcoming in the shortest possible time.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Does the Minister agree it is outrageous that in the month of June he still does not have any idea when these grants will come into place? Given that protecting the environment is part and parcel of an important duty of care we have been given, it is outrageous that farmers, who are doing their best to prevent pollution of rivers etc. will have to wait almost 12 months for the payment of such grants. Given that some farmers have borrowed money to upgrade their farms, will the Minister agree to backdate grants when they are eventually settled, as he is forcing farmers to pollute the countryside or to be up to their tonsils in debt with their banks?
It is going a bit far to say I am forcing farmers to pollute the countryside.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is the month of June and nothing has happened on this scheme.
We operate as a member of the European Union. That has considerable benefits for Irish agriculture but it also has some drawbacks, one being the amount of bureaucracy involved and the time spent getting approval for various schemes and programmes.
This farm waste management scheme, for which funding of £181 million has been allocated, is worthwhile. Even though the European Commission indicated it will process the scheme with all speed, from past experience, having regard to clarifications and various other requirements sought, we realise it will take six to seven months to get EU approval for it.
To be helpful to the farming community, I approved a national scheme, the control of farm pollution scheme. That is in operation and farmers are availing of it to fill that gap until such time as the farm waste management scheme comes into effect.
Does the Minister agree that one of the problems with such schemes is that no preparatory action appears to be taken prior to the ending of existing schemes? In other words, if a scheme expired on 31 December 1999, will the Minister agree that the time to set in train the process of negotiating a new scheme should be 1 July 1999 and not 1 January 2000, given that the European Commission takes six months to reply to the Minister's request for approval for such a scheme, it is in recess in July and August and farmers have to wait until September or October for the approval of such schemes and the subsequent payment of such grants? Will the Minister agree that negotiating the coming on-stream of a new scheme in advance of the ending of an existing scheme is the way forward to obviate the difficulties experienced by farmers?
Given that there are two or three similar questions on the Order Paper, will the Chair extend the time allocated for this question?
They are not being taken with this question.
Questions Nos. 29 and 44 are similar to this question. This issue is one of the most serious affecting farmers. If a farmer participating in REPS has problems regarding farmyard pollution and a case is brought to court, such a farmer will be liable automatically to a possible clawback of £25,000. If such a farmer does not meet the criteria set for this scheme, he could be liable to a clawback in respect of other elements. The urgency of the need to introduce this scheme cannot be over-emphasised.
The Minister must accept that the programme of schemes for this country was submitted to Brussels too late and that is the source of this problem. Other European countries have got approval for their programmes. There is a delay in approving this farmyard pollution scheme, REPS, EU grants and other schemes. The Minister must make sure that—
I remind the Deputy that supplementary questions are limited to one minute.
—none of the £181 million funding for this scheme is lost, given that it will not be used this year.
I agree with what has been said about the importance of introducing this scheme. Is it the case that one country, Finland, has got authorisation to go ahead with its scheme? Is it likely that some other countries, through a fastrack system, might get approval for their schemes before we get approval for ours? Will the Minister comment on that?
The position regarding this scheme and EU schemes generally is unsatisfactory in that when one scheme expires, an application for a new scheme is under consideration for six to seven months before it is introduced. That is why we continue to run the national scheme so as to obviate the problems in this area. It is not the Department's fault that the EU Commission spends such a long time deliberating on these schemes.
In reply to Deputy Connaughton's question, Finland has got approval for its scheme. I made inquiries about why one member state got approval—
How did it manage to get approval for its scheme?
It got approval because it is a new member state, its scheme is new and very simple and it did not have to amend or modify an existing scheme.
Finland must be keeping its eye on the ball.
