asked the Minister for Agriculture (i) when the farm modernisation scheme will be reintroduced; (ii) the type of scheme it will be; (iii) the amount of grants available per application; (iv) the number of applicants already grant-aided and the amount paid to them; (v) (a) the number of applications rejected since the inception of the scheme and the reasons for this; (b) the number of applications rejected in 1983; and (c) the numbers pending sanction in 1983; and (vi) the number of farmers who will be reconsidered for grants due to their applications being lodged prior to the suspension of the scheme.

4.

asked the Minister for Agriculture when farm modernisation scheme grants will be restored.

5.

asked the Minister for Agriculture when the farm modernisation scheme is to be reintroduced.

6.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will, as promised, reintroduce the farm modernisation grants this year.

7.

asked the Minister for Agriculture when he intends to reintroduce the farm modernisation grants.

8.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if applications received by local farm development officers under the farm modernisation scheme prior to 9 February 1983 will be processed; and if approvals will be issued to them.

9.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will outline the operation of the western package in relation to the proposed changes in the farm modernisation scheme.

10.

asked the Minister for Agriculture when the farm modernisation scheme will be reintroduced.

11.

asked the Minister for Agriculture the amount of money that was saved by the Government by suspending the farm modernisation scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

12.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will ensure that grants under the restructured farm modernisation scheme will be paid to farmers who had completed work but had not received the final certificate from the farm development service at the cessation of the farm modernisation scheme earlier this year.

13.

asked the Minister for Agriculture when he will introduce a pre-development scheme for small farmers; and if he will give details of the scheme.

14.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if a restored farm modernisation scheme will be geared to implement the European Community view that greater encouragement be given for increased productivity on the smaller and medium size farm holdings.

15.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if the new farm modernisation grants will be confined exclusively to the provision of buildings; and the percentage of the grants which will be paid by the EEC.

Grants under the farm modernisation scheme for buildings and fixed assets, which were suspended with effect from 10 February 1983 will be reintroduced at the earliest possible date having regard to the Exchequer funds that can be made available for capital development in agriculture. In the revised scheme it is intended to concentrate on the most essential forms of investment, with special emphasis on basic livestock housing.

The question of broadening the development category to include farmers below the development level will be considered in the light of the eventual decision by the Council of Ministers on the Commission's recent proposals on structural reform, which pay particular attention to this group of farmers.

Up to 31 December 1982, 105,162 applicants were accepted for participation in the scheme and a total of £234 million was paid out in grant aid. Also up to that date 2,507 applicants were refused participation, the principal reason being failure to meet the requirements relating to time spent in farming and income earned from farming. In the first six months of 1983, 26 applicants were refused admission to the scheme. Information is not available as to the number of persons who were admitted to the scheme over the years but whose applications for aid for specific items of investment were rejected.

Recoupment is available from EEC funds in respect of grant aid paid to development farmers only. The rate of recoupment is 50 per cent of eligible expenditure in the western region and 25 per cent outside the west.

The number of applications on hands on 9 February 1983 for grant aid for buildings, fixed assets and mobile equipment, which could not be dealt with due to the modifications to the scheme introduced on that date was 4,644. On the reintroduction of the revised scheme, fresh applications from these participants will be considered, provided that the proposed works are still eligible for grant aid. Where building work was carried out without the prior written approval of the farm development service, grant aid will not be paid.

The saving in 1983 resulting from the suspension of grant aid for farm buildings and fixed equipment is estimated at £10.3 million.

(Limerick West): Is the Minister aware that in June, when agricultural questions were asked in this House, he made the very same statement with regard to the restoration of the farm modernisation scheme? Does the Minister know when this early date will be reached and is he further aware that statements were issued by his Minister to the effect that they would be restored in early autumn? Does the amount of money lost include compensation from the EEC?

Despite what the Deputy said about questions asked in June, an announcement about the reintroduction of the scheme will be made in a few days. As I pointed out, because it was a budgetary measure, the saving to the Exchequer will be £10.3 million.

(Limerick West): The Minister has failed to mention the amount lost from EEC funds by the suspension of this scheme.

While I cannot be specific, the rate of recoupment is 50 per cent of eligible expenditure in the western region and 25 per cent in the rest of the country, so the Deputy can make his own deductions from that, starting at £10.3 million.

Does the Minister intend compensating farmers who commenced work on schemes prior to the abandonment of the farm modernisation scheme in the February budget, where inspections were carried out by officials of his Department and farm plans drawn up by ACOT advisers?

First of all, it is necessary to have the announcement made that there will be a national modernisation scheme available before anything is agreed.

Why not make the announcement?

I have informed the House that an announcement will be made in a few days. As has been the case for many years, grants have only been made subject to prior written approval. However, I have said in this House on a number of occasions that there are particular instances involving farmers at the commencement of this scheme which I am prepared to consider but, until such time as the farm modernisation scheme is reintroduced, it has to be left in abeyance.

With reference to the Minister's comments about the saving to the Exchequer, bearing in mind that the purpose of the farm modernisation scheme was to increase farming productivity, has he any figures with regard to the net loss to the economy as a result of the suspension of the scheme on 9 February?

That appears to be a separate question. I am happy to be in a position to inform the House that we will have a farm modernisation scheme within the next few days.

Have the Minister and the Department of Agriculture got a system for monitoring the benefit of the scheme to the economy and to the agricultural industry in general?

It would be very difficult to monitor a scheme of this kind. It is well known that not everybody wishing to build a farm building applies for a grant. For various reasons it would be impossible to put a figure on the loss or otherwise to the economy of any scheme.

Would the Minister not agree——

I am calling Deputy Leonard.

We were told before the summer recess that grants would be available under the farm modernisation scheme and that similar grant type works would be grant-aided under the western package. Since then we have discovered that only £70,000 has been expended in this way. Would the Minister agree with the points we put to him at that time regarding the scheme being so restrictive as to render it very difficult for farmers to qualify? Is this not borne out by the fact that in the entire 12 western counties only a couple of dozen applicants have qualified? Would the Minister not agree also that by withdrawing the farm modernisation scheme, the Government left themselves in a very weak bargaining position in relation to discussion in Brussels on the super-levy?

This is argument. There are questions on the Order Paper in that regard.

The Government withdrew a scheme that was essential to full production.

I would agree that because of the way in which the western package was negotiated in the first instance some years ago, it is not tailor made for the type of small farmer for whom it was intended. I have taken very real steps in the past few months to have this whole question of the western package re-negotiated in Brussels. However, because of our preoccupation with the super-levy, this re-negotiation has been delayed but despite my having made certain adjustments early in the spring of this year, I am still disappointed with the uptake under the western package. The scheme was extremely restrictive at that stage because it excluded any farmer over 55 who was without successors. I directed all the area officers that this was to be switched around so that the same discipline that was there under the farm modernisation scheme would be available under the western package. This change has had some beneficial effect. The great problem with the western package is the way in which it was negotiated in the sense of there being an orientation away from milk. The problem was that those who were most likely to avail of the benefits under the grant scheme in the western package were people who were expanding their dairying enterprise. Therefore, a number of anomalies have been created but these will have to be ironed out. I must accept that the scheme has not been as useful as we would have wished.

Prior to the recess the Minister seemed to be very sympathetic towards the thousands of people who were caught by the embargo in February. I hope that sympathy still persists. There were more than 200 people affected by the embargo in my county which happens also to be the Ceann Comhairle's county.

That is not a question.

The important aspect of this is that we have a farm modernisation scheme. An announcement to that effect will be made within a few days.

We have been waiting for 12 months.

I will be making the announcement in a few day's time.

The House should be allowed debate the matter.

Is the Minister acting Santa Claus?

Yes, a Santa Claus who has something for everyone which is what the Deputy is seeking. Deputy Leonard referred to an expression of sympathy for those people who were disqualified in terms of the grant system that operated up to February last but I can assure him that once the farm modernisation scheme is in being certain categories of people for whom I have sympathy will be considered. I cannot go further than that.

I propose calling those Deputies who put down these questions.

Regarding the restoration of the farm modernisation scheme, can the Minister say who will make the relevant announcement, where it will be made and also the date from which the new scheme will apply?

The Deputy will have to wait for the answers to those questions.

Does this mean that the Minister is denying the House information about a scheme in respect of which this group of questions has been tabled?

I am sure that adequate time will be made available at some other stage which will enable the Deputy to receive answers to the questions he is asking.

Is there any valid reason for the scheme having been delayed for so long?

It was delayed because the Minister for Finance had the Minister of State like a cat in a cage, a large but dignified cat.

Something like Deputy Wilson.

I am asking the Minister of State to consider seriously including in this scheme the 5,000 farmers who were deprived of grants because of the change announced on budget day, assuming that they comply with what is required by the various bodies, ACOT and so on. These people had £5.5 million taken from their pockets.

(Limerick West): It is up to £10 million by now.

Will the Minister consider seriously paying those people and thereby giving an indication to Brussels that the Government are not prepared to penalise the farmers, apart altogether from the super-levy?

The Deputy may not go on debating the matter.

Has the Minister information to indicate how much money was lost to us from Brussels by the withdrawal of the scheme?

This is a separate question.

But the reply should be available to the Minister.

I have never denied that the withdrawal of the scheme was the result of a budgetary measure in the spring of this year which in turn resulted from the financial situation in which we found ourselves. However, it is not as simple as that because, as the Deputies are aware, the farm modernisation scheme embraced a variety of grants and a considerable length of time is required in which to get a package together. We hope that this package, when it is available, will be seen to be beneficial to Irish agriculture. In further reply to Deputy Byrne, though I have answered this question twice or three times today, following the announcement of the farm modernisation scheme I will have a sympathetic look at the cases of a number of those applicants who were caught by the decision in February.

The Minister has said that what we had from 9 February was a modification of the scheme and as nobody has seen any farm modernisation scheme in existence I should like the Minister to clarify the statement in his reply that the grants will apply provided the works come under the new scheme. The Minister said he would be announcing the terms of the scheme in a few days and I should like to ask him what works will attract a grant under the new scheme. If the scheme is to be announced in a few days the Minister must know the terms of it now. The agricultural grapevine has it that the terms of the scheme will relate mainly to farm buildings.

As I mentioned at the outset, I am not in a position to give details of the scheme prior to the announcement by the Minister for Agriculture.

The Minister of State is well aware of what is in the scheme but he is waiting for the big press conference to tell us.

The Deputy has been in charge of Departments for long enough to understand the procedures that must be followed.

The Deputies opposite know all about press conferences.

The Deputy would be a fine person to learn from; he is like a parrot on the Government side.

The principal thrust of the scheme will be for basic livestock housing, but I would not like to say that that will be the only thing involved.

At least we have got a little information from the Minister.

The Government intend restricting the scheme and taking more money out of the pockets of farmers. The Minister should admit that.

We got an assurance from the Minister of State that he would re-introduce the farm modernisation scheme in October. On today's Order Paper there are 16 questions about that scheme and I suggest that the Minister has had plenty of time in recent weeks to make an announcement about the reintroduction of the scheme. To say that the scheme will be re-introduced in a couple of days sounds a little suspect because this may be an effort to get the Minister off the hook. We will not be in a position to put a question to the Minister about the scheme until next February and for that reason the Minister should give the House a firm assurance that this scheme will be re-introduced within a few days.

The Deputy is aware that we encountered many problems with regard to the super-levy — a matter on which all Members are united — and this took up a lot of the time of officials of the Department. However, the terms of the scheme will be announced in a few days.

During last February, March, April and May the Minister for Agriculture announced that the scheme would be re-introduced in the early autumn. That was changed later to midautumn and then late autumn, but today the Minister of State is telling us that it will be re-introduced within a few days. The Minister should tell the House the exact day on which the announcement will be made because Members on this side, like the farming community, are fed up waiting for a definite decision. We have been misled time and again in the House on this issue. What date has the Minister in mind?

I cannot be any more specific than to say it will be announced in the next few days.

The Minister should name a day.

Is the Minister endeavouring to ensure that the House does not have an opportunity of debating this issue before Christmas?

That is not a question; it is argument.

It is not argument. We are not getting any definite answers from the Minister. We have had to listen to the same rubbish time and again from the Government.

If the Chair says it is argument then it is argument.

Will the Minister tell the House if the suspension of the scheme has weakened the hand of the Minister for Agriculture in the negotiations in Brussels?

Contrary to what the Deputy has been saying, we can all be happy about the way our case was put in Athens by the Government on the super-levy. I am not aware of any type of backlash by other Heads of State, or Ministers of Agriculture about our farm modernisation scheme.

Is the Minister asking us to believe that the super-levy problem is the reason for the delay in restoring grants under the farm modernisation scheme and the reason the Government have not made any improvements in the western package? Since the farm modernisation scheme was suspended there has been great confusion among farmers as to the type of grants that are available to them under the western package. They are certain that grants are not available under that package for dairying. Is that not one of the reasons why the western package is not as attractive as it should be?

The Deputy is aware that this Government did not negotiate the western package in the first instance.

Fair play to those who negotiated it.

I am sure the Deputy is aware of the criticism of the scheme.

It is always there.

(Limerick West): We have political will.

The scheme is not much use if it cannot be worked. The political will is available to make that package as attractive as possible for the farmers for whom it is intended. To put the record straight I should like to tell Deputy Kitt that there are not grants for dairying under the western package although I accept that small dairy farmers got grants under that package. We have not been in a position to announce details of the farm modernisation scheme up to now because of the problems with regard to negotiations on the super-levy.

Is the Minister saying that the western package is a pre-development scheme or had the Minister other plans in mind when he referred to introducing another pre-development scheme?

As I mentioned when I referred in the House to a pre-development scheme, it is important to point out that we are trying to get a development scheme providing for a certain level of grant-aid for those who are not eligible for other types of aid. It is against that background that we will be speaking in Brussels on the package we have forwarded for approval.

When will the Minister make the announcement?

I am calling Deputy Moynihan. In allowing 30 minutes on these questions I have been very fair. The Deputy is bullying his way, although he is doing so in a polite manner.

Is the Minister aware that many farmers who were given until next September or October to complete their work were notified that the work must be completed before 31 December? Will an allowance be made for those farmers? They have been given about three weeks to one month to complete the work although they were informed that they had until next autumn to complete it.

That is a separate question, but an important one. The Deputy will be aware that there are strict rules governing grants paid by the EEC for development and the expiry dates are strictly adhered to for good accounting reasons. However if the Deputy has in mind a farmer who was given to understand that he had until next autumn to complete his work, I am willing to investigate such a case. Normally those particular dates mean what is said.

A crucial question: how much money is included in the Book of Estimates for this scheme for 1984 and how much money will it attract from the EEC? If the Minister of State will answer that question we will know our own know.

That seems to be anticipating a publication that will come out this weekend.

I certainly welcome the Minister's proposed announcement in the next two days.

I caught Deputy Farrelly winking at the Chair and I take exception to him doing so.

Deputies opposite have been a long time winking at the Chair over the past number of years between them.

Even if the Chair saw the wink, which he did not, he would not have put any improper interpretation on it.

At least Deputy Wilson is awake today.

Santa Claus.

I certainly welcome the Minister's announcement here that he will in the next two days——

What announcement?

A question, please Deputy.

——reintroduce farm modernisation scheme grants. Would Deputies opposite please allow me to ask a question. Would the Minister ensure that applicants who want to commence work immediately will be allowed do so within a very short space of time of such announcement?

As the Deputy will be aware, this is a procedural or administrative problem as such. We would hope that anybody who would want to commence work after the announcement would be facilitated as far as possible.

Say 10.5 per cent, more or less?

A final supplementary from Deputy Noonan (Limerick West).

(Limerick West): I am glad the Minister stated that there will be included in the new scheme of grants a scheme for the housing of livestock. Is the Minister aware there is urgent need for a simple type of housing for the wintering of cattle? Would he include this in his new scheme of grants? Is the Minister also aware that the costings of the work should now be updated to the present day? Will he say if these will be included at a realistic cost in the proposed scheme he will introduce? Furthermore, is he aware that there is also need under the proposed scheme for increased grants to make up farmers' losses over the past nine months both from EEC and Exchequer funds?

In regard to the first part of Deputy Noonan's question about the necessity and desirability of having a cheap but functional form——

(Limerick West): ——simple.

——of livestock housing for cattle that is something with which I go a long way. I have been speaking about this problem continuously since coming to the Department. There have been a number of pilot schemes conducted. I am sure the Deputy is aware of one undertaken by the Agricultural Institute at which we are looking very closely at present. Hopefully after this winter this particular house will be seen to have advantages, particularly for smaller farmers and, if it happens that it is seen to be so, certainly it will be grant-aided.

(Limerick West): A Cheann Comhairle——

A Cheann Comhairle——

We are not going to have a row over this. I am satisfied that I have been fair and I am moving on to the next question.

(Limerick West): The Minister failed to answer my two other supplementary questions. I asked him about present-day costs and if he would update them.

I would have to say this in regard to them — as indeed in regard to some of the other questions asked — Deputies will have to wait until the actual scheme itself is announced.

On a point of order.

A Cheann Comhairle.

There is no point of order. There is no point of order at Question Time.

You are anticipating what I am going to say, a Cheann Comhairle. I should like to remind you that one cannot make up in half-an-hour what has been lost over a year.

That is not a point of order.

I should like to ask one final supplementary.

I am calling Question No. 16.

As the person who put down the first of these questions I want to ask a final supplementary——

I am not going to allow it. If I did I would lose control of Question Time. Deputy Treacy, if I were to do that I would lose control of Question Time and I am not going to do that. I am calling Question No. 16.