Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise this important issue. I have been trying to discuss this matter with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, for two years. As a result of the failure of those discussions I have been obliged to bring the matter to the House tonight.

I thank the Minister for the fact that some money has been made available to the person who represents the third example I will provide. The man in question is still being withheld 10% of what he is entitled to simply because of the failure of personnel within the system to pass on correspondence from the farmer which was submitted as requested. The farmer in question built his own shed. He built identical buildings with the same finish for two other farmers, both of whom have been paid in full. However, he has been waiting since April 2009 for news of progress. Last Friday he received a portion off the grant. This happened simply because of the attitudes of different inspectors and the failure to use common sense.

The first case on my list involves a structure built totally on the advice and guidance of the then Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food official, that is, the grant inspector. This man used the same cladding as his neighbours, whose shed was passed and paid for two years ago. This farmer has received no payment although the then Department official visited and measured the building on three occasions and assured him that everything was correct and was put through for payment. However, when the inspector retired, the farmer found the application had not actually been put through.

A different inspector took a different attitude, and this man now finds himself under severe financial pressure, paying high interest on money borrowed. This case has been with the Minister since April 2009, and I ask for it to be fully resolved urgently.

In case 4, the person concerned has a similar problem to that I outlined in case 1. His cladding is the same as that of his neighbours, who have been paid, yet he has not. It was accepted by the grant personnel in Monaghan that properly perforated cladding would ensure clear air in the building but prevent the chicken litter from becoming wet, which is the whole purpose of such housing. In cases 5 and 6, structures were built with advice from the same Department official who gave the instruction in case 1. Case 5 has been partially rectified through the appeals system, but there is still significant money outstanding. In case 6, although the building was built to much stronger specifications than were required, as demanded by the Department official, the cost of this was never taken into account when the grant, amounting to around 40% of the total rather than the 70% the farmer was originally promised, was paid. In case 2, a structure was built with the clear involvement and advice of a Department official but unfortunately, once again, a different official dealt with the case on completion, and there was a shortfall in the grant of at least €10,000.

These are just some examples in which farmers - exceptionally good farmers, not fly-by-night types - who worked closely with officials, having found no reason in the past not to trust them, now find themselves under severe financial pressures through no fault of their own. It is important that the Minister of State understand that those who used high-quality perforated cladding rather than open mesh in order to provide sufficient air flow in their chicken houses while ensuring that the chicken litter was not damaged or destroyed by rain were not asking for the cost of the cladding in their requests for grant aid. They simply included it because of their knowledge of the typical weather conditions that would force rain through mesh structures. It is plain to any person who stands in one of these structures that they meet all the necessary criteria and are in the best interests of everyone concerned. As I said, I welcome the news that there has been at least one partial breakthrough. I hope the Minister of State's reply will give me some hope for the remainder.

As someone who spent seven years involved in the sale of structural steel and farm buildings, overseeing and inspecting the finished structures - none of which has fallen in almost 40 years - I have some understanding of what is necessary and what is justified. I would certainly recommend any of the buildings I have mentioned for inspection by any person and I assure the Minister of State that they will meet the necessary specifications. These farmers are under extraordinary pressure. The situation, which resulted from no fault of theirs, has continued for two years now and is extremely unfair.

Seán Connick (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Crawford for raising these matters with me. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the position on the farm waste management and farm improvement schemes, which are at issue in the cases referred to by the Deputy.

A revised farm waste management scheme was introduced by the Department in March 2006 to assist farmers in meeting the additional requirements of the nitrates directive. The amendments to the scheme included an increase in the standard grant rate from 40% to 60%, with 70% being available in the four zone C counties of Cavan, Donegal, Leitrim and Monaghan. In addition, the new scheme provided for an increase in the maximum eligible investment ceiling from €75,000 to €120,000 and removed any minimum income requirements from farming from the scheme so that all small farmers could participate. As the Deputy has mentioned, all work had to be completed by farmers by 31 December 2008 and the application of this date was a strict requirement of the EU Commission state aid approval for the scheme.

The immense success of the scheme is demonstrated by the fact that almost 43,000 approvals to commence work issued to farmers while the scheme was in place. However, due to the budgetary constraints placed on the Department at the beginning of 2009, it was decided to make the remaining payments under the scheme on a phased basis, with 40% being paid in that year as claims were approved, a further instalment of 40% in 2010, and the remaining instalment of 20% in 2011. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, also announced at that time that a special ex gratia payment would be made to farmers whose grants were deferred in this manner. It is also intended to make this payment in early 2011. The financial commitment of this Government to the scheme is substantial, particularly during these challenging economic times. It is estimated that when all payments have been made under the scheme in early 2011, the total expenditure under the scheme since its introduction in 2001 will be of the order of €1.2 billion.

The farm improvement scheme was introduced on 12 July 2007 following receipt of EU approval for the Rural Development Programme 2007-2013, and closed for applications on 31 October 2007. The scheme replaced the previous farm waste management, dairy hygiene and alternative enterprises schemes, which had closed for new applications at the end of 2006. Under the 2007-2013 programme, a sum of €85 million was allocated for modernisation of agricultural holdings, including the farm improvement scheme. Of this amount, €6 million was subsequently earmarked for the introduction of the 2007 pig welfare - sow housing - scheme, thereby leaving an allocation of €79 million for the farm improvement scheme. It was clearly stated at the time of the launch of the scheme and in its terms and conditions that the scheme would be suspended when the financial allocation for the scheme had been reached.

A total 12,675 applications were received from farmers under the farm improvement scheme by the closing date of 31 October 2007. However, the funding of €79 million permitted approvals to issue to farmers only for the 7,347 applications received up to 21 October 2007, and these approvals have now issued to the farmers concerned. Under both schemes, however, it is clear that all work must be completed in full in accordance with the Department's technical specifications. This is clearly set out in the terms and conditions of both schemes. The existence of these Department specifications is widely known in the sector, and they reflect the highest construction, health and safety and animal welfare standards.

With regard to the specific cases raised by the Deputy, the circumstances of each case are different, and the time available does not permit me to enter into the individual details of each case. I propose therefore to write to the Deputy to advise him of the up-to-date position in each case.