asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the steps he has taken to procure changes in the farm modernisation scheme; and if he will indicate the changes envisaged.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Farm Modernisation Scheme.
13.
In regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the Deputy to the reply which I gave on 30th October to similar questions by Deputies Kitt and Leonard.
The proposals put to the EEC Commission relate, inter alia, to the method of fixing the comparable income and of calculating the earned income of the farm. These are designed primarily to bring an appreciably greater number of farmers into the development category. Other changes proposed are aimed at introducing a greater degree of flexibility in applying certain aspects of Directive 159/ 72 and at an improvement in the Community's financial contribution to measures undertaken under the directive.
Would the Minister not accept as a primary necessity that the uniform application of the scheme throughout the Community is quite unsuitable in view of the regional differences and does he not accept the Irish solution, the position being probably worse than the southern Italian position, would be to have in effect a special farm reorganisation scheme?
I would not accept that that is so. The criteria have to be the same wherever the scheme is operated.
Why?
To qualify.
To conform.
To conform with the requirements of the directives.
Why must it?
Because farmers in the EEC are all entitled to the same type of assistance and I do not think one can make any argument about that.
Am I to take it that the Minister agrees the quality of the farmer rather than the size of his holding will be the major criteria?
No. The quality of the farmer cannot be taken into consideration.
Would the Minister push that point of view remembering that a particular farmer with a large holding will not be able to make as good a living as a more industrious farmer with a smaller holding?
An estimation of quality will not be accepted and how will you get a uniform measure of quality?
Would the Minister not get that through the advisory services because they are the people who, in fact, know the farmer on his own holding?
That is, of course, a very important element but you will not get Brussels to accept our estimation of ourselves in these things because every other country will have its own estimation of the quality of its farmers, so it could not be a measure.
Would the Minister not agree that how much he will make depends on the ability of the farmer rather than what he holds?
It depends on both.
Would the Minister accept, having regard to the special land structure here, that it does not necessarily follow that the European uniformity is the one most advantageous to the Irish situation?
What they are saying in the directive is that wherever you have a farmer who measures up to certain criteria he will get these aids irrespective of whether he is farming in Italy, Ireland or in any other of the Nine.
But the Minister would accept that the criteria set are not those to which the representative Irish small farmer can aspire?
I do not accept that. I say the directive is not perfect but it is an improvement on anything we have up to the present. We are trying to get it improved. We were not there when it was adopted.
I am not blaming the Minister. All I am asking the Minister to do is admit that the application of Directives 159 and 160 is more advantageous and more relevant to continental or, indeed, English farmers that it is to the Irish small farmer.
I cannot see that point of view at all.
Then I am afraid the Minister is not familiar with the breakdown of the Irish land structure.
Mark you, I am fairly familiar with it.
Does the Minister not accept the Commission's concept of the modern farm?
Yes.
People who have not reached development status are not the most popular farmers with the Commission.
I need no persuasion on these points at all. We have already had discussions with the Commission on this and we will have more. The more farmers we can get in the better we will be pleased even though the EEC is subscribing only 10 per cent of the cost and the national Exchequer has to foot the rest of the bill.