It is a shame that more time is not given in this House to discussing the business of the European Parliament. From now on, whether we like it or not, the Council of Ministers are the people who will decide our lives for us. The whole system of the EEC should be changed and an agenda should be drawn up of what the Council of Ministers intend to discuss in the next six months, and one day should be set aside in this Parliament and in every other national parliament of the EEC to discuss that agenda. It is very hard for a Minister who lives in one part of the country to have to decide what would be good for the whole of this island, small and all as it is, without being briefed by this Parliament. Consultation after the decisions have been made is not consultation at all.
If you want to know what is happening in Europe you must find out by way of question and answer across the floor of this House. If you ask a question about a directive you are told— and rightly so because the rules are laid down—that it is a directive sent from Europe and it must be accepted. This is a most undemocratic way to run any community. What I am asking is that our Minister in Brussels and our members of the European Parliament should be briefed on the wishes of our National Parliament in regard to matters to be discussed at EEC meetings. As I say, one day should be set aside for such a discussion, and it should not be in an empty House. I was appalled when I came here first to find that we had very little say. Everything in connection with everyday life of the people, in agriculture and in industry is decided in Brussels.
There are a few points which I would like to discuss, and I hope anything I say will be considered constructive. As I have said on various occasions, I would say the same thing no matter what Minister, my own or that of any other party, was in power. I do not use this House for political purposes, particularly when we are dealing with the lives of people and with the economy.
When a number of directives came from the EEC some of us living down the country knew that these directives were unsuitable to our needs but we were criticised and told we were trying to throw a spanner into the works. I will quote from a report in The Irish Press of yesterday, 8th April, which stated:
An immediate review by the Government and the Irish Farmer's Association of the three directives concerning the structure of farming which is coming into operation was demanded last night by the IFA Secretary.
We know these directives are completely unsuited to this country. Deputy Cunningham went into fair detail about the disadvantaged areas. I am not very clear on this latest directive, but I understand that Brussels will put 25 per cent into the scheme. I think the Government can give a subvention of 50 per cent, and if the Government are really interested in the survival of these farmers, they will give the maximum amount which is allowable by the EEC. I am sorry the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is not here to enlighten us about this.
Another thing I was very disappointed about is that the published location of the disadvantaged areas are very deceptive. It is stated that the 12 western counties are in the disadvantaged areas. I have a map in front of me of my own county of Galway, and there is very little east of the Corrib. Though we are in theoretically, practically we are not in at all, because the only advantage of being in is getting the headage payment. There are designated areas, but desperately poor areas like east of Glenamaddy, Mountbellew and Newbridge are outside the scheme. There are only a couple of areas in at the northern end of the county, south of Lough Rea and the mountains between Clare and Galway. It is ridiculous to publish that the 12 western counties are in when they will not get the full benefit of the scheme. It may be said you are in if you are a developing farmer. To be in a disadvantaged area is to be at a disadvantage. In regard to County Galway I stated on one occasion that 8 per cent would qualify, but I am sorry to say that at the moment only between 3 and 4 per cent of the farmers will qualify as development farmers. If it is not a disadvantaged area when that low number qualify, what is a disadvantaged area? I do not know whether the Minister knows County Galway, but before he came in I referred to Ballygar and Newbridge as not being in. He might be entitled to exclude the area around Eyrecourt and Ballinasloe, which is my own area but it is a shame not to include some other areas.
I understood that those who were in the beef incentive scheme in the disadvantaged areas would be grouped with the present headage payment. It might be a disadvantage to a farmer to be in the beef scheme at the moment but it is certainly an advantage to people to be classed in disadvantaged areas. I object to finding it set out on a sheet of paper that we are theoretically in a disadvantaged area but practically we are not.
When I criticised some of the directives I was told by some people that I was throwing a spanner in the works. I read a summary of a speech by the General Secretary of the IFA in yesterday's Irish Press asking the Government to seriously consider altering the three directives which came from Brussels. The most important matter of all is if the EEC put in 25 per cent and we can go to 50 per cent. Is the State prepared to put in the money that would bring it up to the maximum allowed within the context of the EEC?
In relation to the areas within the areas that theoretically are supposed to be in the disadvantaged areas, who was consulted? Was anybody at county level consulted? In relation to my own county who decided on the areas? I thought that at least the CAOs and the advisers would be asked for their opinions but apparently they were not. I resent the fact that all the 12 western counties are not in the disadvantaged areas scheme, although theoretically they are supposed to be in. The fund is also too small.
I do not like repeating myself but I have to in relation to Directive 159. I said this was unsuitable on various occasions. I was told that there were very few people who would not qualify. I know of a man who has 100 acres of land, some of which is furze. He has 30 cows and their calves, six young cattle, six calves, 40 ewes and he does not qualify. If he was in dairying he would qualify with 20 cows. That type of farmer is considdered a big farmer in my area. There is something wrong when a man like that does not qualify. This will have a demoralising effect on the people who will feel there is no future for them except social welfare. If the Minister does not want to bring down the maximum income I suggest that an intermediate scheme should be introduced with a target such as in the small farm incentive scheme which we had. Those farmers would be given a target to work to and told that if they reached that target they could eventually become developing farmers.
The Minister has promised, when this matter comes under review again, that those people will not be cut out. Under the directive they are cut out at a certain time. They are left at the bottom of the road and feel they will never make the grade. Some of them no longer have initiative to go ahead.
I know a few farmers in my area, who are in debt with the bank for large sums of money, who have up to 400 acres and can take advantage of some of the directives. I thought those people would be classed as commercial farmers. The Minister should try to get the people in Brussels to agree to having an intermediate scheme introduced for some of those farmers I have been speaking about. I do not agree with the set up in Brussels because if I were Minister and went to Brussels I would not be able to talk for all the country without being briefed by somebody. We never have an agenda from Brussels stating that within the next three months we will discuss Directive 159, 160 or any other directive.
If we spent one day discussing one of those directives and briefing our Minister on the type of directive which would suit the country, then he could go to Brussels with full knowledge of what is best for the country and would know what he was talking about. The Minister cannot have this knowledge without a full debate here on those directives. On one occasion I asked the Minister if we could have a discussion on a particular directive but he told me we could not because this was something to be done by the Council of Ministers. Why should we not discuss the agenda here? This would be the best day's work this Parliament ever did. I again ask the Minister to have a look at that.
The next point I want to make is in connection with Directive 160 which of course is married to Directive 159. While Directive 160 is a good scheme it is too selective. Most of the people who are anxious to retire under Directive 160 are people who have land rented. I know the Minister for Lands is anxious to change this. I want to make it clear that we are knocking at an open door. It should be changed. It is ridiculous to retire a man who is working his land well at 55 years of age when a man who may be crippled and who is drawing disability benefit and who has to set his land cannot retire. The person who should retire is the man who is not able to work his land or the widow who is unable to work her land. The age limit operates in both those cases. My view is that the age limit is wrong. You will not get many men who are doing a good job on their farms to retire at 55 years of age. How many people here over 65 years of age have made application to retire? This State has to bear the burden of the retirement of those people.
The process is that the person applies to retire; his application goes to the EEC section in Agriculture House and they process it to see if the applicant is suitable to come under the scheme. That is the first step of the ladder. A person can have his application rejected on the ground that he has set his land. There is a case that I know of where a man set his land only a week before he applied for retirement. Technically he was not entitled to come within the scheme. I hope he will be allowed to qualify. The next phase is that the application goes to the acquisition department and they have to consider the benefit that the land will be to the people in the area. That is perfect. What I object to is not the scheme but the technicalities, the age limit, and so on.
The Minister for Lands said today that it was a great thing that farmers could retire at 55 years of age. I am worried about one aspect. Will this have the effect of putting people out of jobs? I have known cases where men who retired early went back to work as cheap labour. The farmer who retires at 55 years of age will go to work and put a labourer out of a job. Many people will be glad to get men of 55 or 60 years of age to work for them.
There may be a widow who wishes to retire. If she is under the age limit she cannot come under the scheme. The scheme should be flexible. Those persons we want to get out of the land and who themselves want to get out of the land and who are not suitable to work the land should be allowed to retire under the scheme. But for the technicalities, the scheme is a good one.
I have covered the three directives fairly well. I am very unhappy about the disadvantaged areas. I would ask the Minister to give some indication as to the amount of State backing there is in regard to this scheme.
Some attempt should be made to investigate consumption as well as production within the EEC. People say that we are inefficient but I do not think they are all that efficient in the EEC. What happened in regard to the pile-up of beef should not have occurred. They decided that they needed so much beef to feed so many millions but they did not take into account the consumption rate of the different types of meat. A particular slice of meat must eventually arrive on the consumer's plate and if the price goes beyond the capacity of the consumer to pay then you are in trouble. There may be something to be said for a different approach to price within the EEC. I know the Minister will not agree with me because he does not agree with direct payments at all but having regard to the cost of living it might be better policy to create a pool of money that would be used to subsidise prices when things are dear and when prices would fall to let prices find their own level. This would be a better policy than maintaining artificial prices by putting thousands of pounds of meat into intervention. It was a good thing last year but is it as good a policy as the one I have suggested?
Every directive and policy decision of the EEC is very important but few people here seem to take any interest in the fact that we are now directed from Europe. There is the Treaty of Rome. I do not understand why everybody except this country is allowed to break all the rules. I realise that the Minister is doing his best. It is scandalous the way the French have discriminated against the Irish lamb trade. We thought when we became a member of the EEC that we would have free access to the French market. Having regard to the levies imposed, that is not the case. The Irish sheep farmers are in a very shaky position. I know the Minister is anxious for a sheep policy. We were to have free trade within the Community and except in case of emergency no meat from countries outside the EEC would be allowed in while the Community was able to supply it. This rule seems to be broken by everybody else but we have to be the good boys.
If we are not bold here the Minister cannot be bold over there. If I go to a meeting to represent some people if pressure is not put on me people say to me that I am making it up. The Minister should go back to Brussels and say: "I cannot go home to my farmers. They are kicking up hell over this, that and the other." You can create an impression at any meeting if you have the backing of your people. The Minister will have the backing of this House in saying what we want. He may not be able to get everything but he will have a better chance of getting something with our backing than on his own.
It would be time well spent to debate in this House what is happening in the EEC. We had a Control of Mergers Bill in this House. Has anything been done about this within the context of the EEC? I went out to an international conference a number of years ago and I thought that it was a big man's club. That was long before we had any notion of entering the EEC. If companies are allowed to get too big and to amalgamate we cannot control them from here. We are only a fly in the ointment. If they are not controlled by the Community, and if big money rackets and big combines get together, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers will become irrelevant because those big companies will run Europe.
The Minister should ask his colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs to see that we are not controlled by big companies who amalgamate and become bigger and say to the European Parliament: "We have the money and you will do what we tell you." We should spend a lot more time discussing what is happening in Europe and what is likely to happen in Europe. The people who organise the Order Paper for the Dáil should see to it that we discuss what is happening in Europe more than once a year. We should discuss it at least every two months if we are to keep in touch.
Many of us knew that these directives were not suitable. I think the Minister now agrees that they should be changed. At last we have the secretary of a farming organisation saying they need to be changed. We knew this but we were told we were throwing a spanner in the works. I did not stand up here to throw a spanner in the works. I stood up to give my views as a practical farmer. I am looking at the situation from the point of view of the farmers and the workers. We come up here and try to give our views constructively. We should have a debate before decisions are taken and not after. Debating something you cannot alter is a waste of public money and a waste of time.
On the question of the disadvantaged areas, would the Minister tell us why we are in theoretically but not practically. Galway is not by any means the worst of the counties. If only 3 or 4 per cent will qualify for development, if that is not being disadvantaged I do not know what is. We should spend a lot more time discussing the European Parliament and what will happen to us in the future within the context of the EEC.