asked the Minister for Lands if he is aware that farmers who have land let for a certain period are not considered for the farmers' retirement scheme under EEC Directive 160; and if he will take steps to have the scheme reviewed in respect of this particular section.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Farmers' Retirement Scheme.
24.
(Cavan): The farmers' retirement scheme prescribes that in order to qualify for the benefits of the scheme an applicant must have devoted at least 50 per cent of his working time to and derived at least 50 per cent of his earned income from work in agriculture on his holding during the five years immediately prior to making application. Applicants who have been letting their lands during this period do not fulfil these conditions and, accordingly, cannot be adjudged eligible.
These conditions are laid down in Directive 160 of the European Communities and the Commission have made it clear in written opinions that Community subvention of the annuity will not be forthcoming unless these two conditions are fulfilled simultaneously for each of the five years prior to the application.
It is expected that this directive will come up for examination as part of the general review of the common agricultural policy when member states will have an opportunity for putting forward proposals for amendments. I am fully aware of this particular difficulty and I intend to take whatever steps are open to me to improve the situation.
Would the Minister not agree that factors such as the average age of our farmers, emigration and migration have meant that people were compelled to let their land? This militates against more land being put into production. In view of these facts, would the Minister try to have a better solution in this case?
(Cavan): I should like to tell the Deputy the scheme is doing very well. I agree with him that there are cases of hardship arising out of the fact that some people who have been letting their lands are more than 55 years of age and do not qualify under the scheme. However, I do not think a blanket application of the scheme to all lands that are let would be justified or desirable. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that many people who are letting their lands are engaged in other occupations, in and out of the country. I concede the matter needs looking into and when the review is made I shall do my best to get a solution that will meet the type of case I hope the Deputy has in mind.
Will the Minister state when this review will be made?
(Cavan): I regret I am not in a position to say that.
Does the Minister accept that, in general, Directive 160 is suitable for the small farm set-up we have in this country? Does he not agree that the aspects of that directive referred to by Deputy Gallagher are far too inflexible, and that it would be an advantage if it were more flexible?
(Cavan): I think Directive 160 is more than reasonably suitable for the task it has in mind. The only fault found with it in recent times is that referred to by Deputy Gallagher and, apart from that, the scheme is being hailed as a very appropriate and generous one. Having said that, I should like to remind Deputies that this directive was made in 1972——
Before we were members of the Community.
(Cavan): The Deputy also appreciates that the then Government had an opportunity of studying this directive as well as Directive 159 and they had an opportunity to make representations to the Community with regard to them. I do not know what happened with regard to Directive 159 but the records of my Department show that Directive 160 was received in my Department and that no representations were made in regard to the point now raised by Deputy Gallagher.
The point the Minister is trying to make is that the Irish Government of that time should have made whatever alterations are now recommended, but he did not advert to the fact that we did not become full members until a month before the present Government took office.
(Cavan): I concede that.
While I concede the efficiency of the last Government was far better than what we have got used to in the meantime, to expect us to amend three very important directives in the space of one month of membership is rather too much.
(Cavan): I want to make the position perfectly clear. Long before we became members of the Community, if it became obvious that the matter concerned would affect us when we became members the relevant directives were submitted to the previous Government.
They were produced late in 1972—all three together.
(Cavan): The Deputy is not correct. The records show that the directive I am talking about was adopted by the Community in April, 1972. I am only speaking for my own Department but the records there show that Directive 160 was submitted to them. My predecessor had an opportunity of making representations and making a case for amendment but no point was raised with regard to the letting of land.
That is a very weak argument.
(Cavan): It is what happened.
I am calling Question No. 25.
Will the Minister do what he can to change the directive?
The Deputy is not in order. I have called the next question.
(Cavan): I dealt with that in my original reply. When the common agricultural policy comes up for review I will be trying to do what my predecessor should have done.
The Lord protect us.