asked the Minister for Agriculture if the Tullylease area of County Cork was included in the submissions made to Brussels for inclusion in the disadvantage area scheme; and, if not, why.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Disadvantaged Areas Scheme.
15.
In the review of the boundaries of our disadvantaged areas carried out in 1978 the position in north Cork generally, including the Tullylease area, was very carefully considered in the light of the criteria for designation laid down in Council Directive 75/268/EEC, which is the basis of the disadvantaged areas schemes. The boundary adjustments that have eventuated from that review were the result of prolonged negotiotions at Brussels, and it was not found possible to arrange for any further extensions to be made in this area.
16.
asked the Minister for Agriculture why district electoral divisions are taken as units in defining severely disadvantaged areas; if this decision was taken by the EEC or his Department; and if he will review the decision to see if a more satisfactory system can be devised.
17.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will carry out a survey of farms and farm incomes in the foothills of the Knockmealdown and Comeragh Mountains to see if these areas can be classified as severely disadvantaged.
18.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the reason parts of district electoral divisions can be classified as designated areas and other parts cannot be classified as severely disadvantaged.
19.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the areas of County Waterford which are recognised as (i) disadvantaged and (ii) severely disadvantaged for the purposes of State and EEC support; the other areas of County Waterford which have applied for either of the above categories; the action the Government has taken and intends to take to ensure that these areas are so recognised; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 to 19, inclusive, together.
Council Directive 75/268/EEC, which governs the operation of the disadvantaged areas schemes, is aimed at assisting broad regions which, by meeting the criteria laid down in the directive, are shown to be suffering from permanent natural handicaps affecting farming. The boundaries of the areas designated as disadvantaged must be precisely determined and conform to recognised and well-established geographical units. The suitability of the district electoral division as the basic unit was very carefully considered by the departmental team which reviewed the boundries of the disadvantaged areas in 1978 and it was concluded that the existing practice of delineation by reference to the boundaries of district electoral divisions should be adhered to, given the requirements of the directive. The only exception to this is that of mountain sheep grazing land for the purpose of headage payments on mountain sheep, but the special conditions attaching to classification in this case are not applicable in the case of the cattle headage schemes.
Mountain sheep grazing lands in the Knockmealdown and Comeragh areas of County Waterford have been designated as disadvantaged in the Eastern Region of Ireland since the directive came into operation. A full list of the district electoral divisions concerned is to be found in the annex to Council Directive 75/272/EEC, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Following the 1978 boundary review by my Department, it was found possible to arrange with the Community authorities for the four additional district electoral divisions of Fews, Mountkennedy, Clonea (Power) and Clonea (Dungarvan) to be added to the disadvantaged areas in County Waterford. It was decided to provide special drainage aid from national funds to the area so enlarged. As the County Waterford disadvantaged areas are entirely within the Eastern Region for the purposes of the EEC Directive the distinction between more severely handicapped areas and those less so does not arise. I would, however, refer the Deputies to my reply to a question in this connection on 9 April. The position in regard to the disadvantaged areas generally continues to be kept under surveillance in my Department in case future developments at Brussels may make it possible for further boundary changes to be made.
The Minister refers to the fact that the description "severely disadvantaged areas" can only be applied to broad regions. Is the Minister aware that the areas referred to in the question, in other words, the Knockmealdown and Comeragh mountain ranges together with their foothills, constitute an extremely broad region? Is the Minister further aware that the valuations in that region can very from as little as half a penny per acre in the mountains to in excess of £1 per acre in the valleys? Would the Minister agree that there is a great disparity? It is entirely unfair to base the administration of this scheme on such district electoral divisions. The Minister cannot justify such a classification because of the disparity in the quality of the land.
I accept that whatever statistical unit is used, boundaries to them present certain difficulties. In relation to the DED, when this directive came into effect in 1975 the then Government, in consultation with the EEC Commission decided that the DED was the only practicable statistical unit which one could use for the purpose of this directive. That position has been maintained since. The question of having further areas included as severely handicapped will be kept under review but at present it would be necessary to get the Commission to agree to an additional percentage of utilised agricultural land for the purposes of this directive before it would be possible to have any major extensions carried out throughout the country.
Does the Minister appreciate the absurdity and illogicality of his answer? I am quoting on the basis that what I think he said is correct. He said that the boundries of areas must be well defined administrative boundaries and implied that this made it impossible to use units smaller than DEDs, although in fact DEDs are composed of townlands which have defined boundries set out on every large scale map. That part of the answer was absurd and incorrect. The Minister then went on to say that, in fact, the principle which he had deduced as being one which made it impossible to depart from DEDs had been departed from in the case of sheep, thereby making his answer illogical. Would he explain, in view of the wide variation in the quality of land within the district electoral divisions, which can be quite large in size and can cover areas quite disparate in character, why the inter-departmental decision should have been accepted by the Government and why the Government do not take into their own hands matters of policy of this kind and take decisions, instead of leaving civil servants to decide such matters at a level of detail and in a manner which is absurd and illogical?
It would appear from the Deputy's question that he misunderstood my earlier reply. I indicated that when this directive came into effect in 1975 — and as the Deputy may recall, he was at the time a member of the Government — the dicision was, in consultation with the Commission, to adhere to the district electoral division as the statistical unit which would be the guiding principle for the boundaries of disadvantaged areas. He will also appreciate that this severely disadvantaged areas scheme cannot be compared with the scheme which operates in parts of our mountain regions in relation to sheep subsidies. They are not comparable by any stretch of the imagination. The Deputy's colleagues on the benches beside him would be able to indicate to him the reason for that. The question of whether future changes in these matters can be made will be guided entirely by what is possible in the Commission and whether or not it will be possible to get an increasing percentage of utilised agricultural area for the purposes of further disignations depends on whether that is possible or not.
While in the first instance the DEDs may have appeared to be a good unit to start with for an approximation of the areas concerned, it is quite clear from experience that they do not represent adequate units for this purpose. If different units could be used for the sheep scheme, why cannot the DEDs be broken up into parts which are poor land and parts which are good land for the purposes of the other scheme, except perversity?
The operation of this scheme from 1975 up to 1978 was perhaps a fair experience for our predecessors to decide whether the DED was a satisfactory unit or not. I recognise immediately that it does present certain difficulties for townlands which happen to be in a DED where perhaps the bulk of the land is very good. I do not at all argue with the Deputy or with my colleagues from any side of the House in relation to the difficulties that that presents. I would like to be able at some future time to assist in some way with the practical difficulties which exist in relation to getting the area for the whole country increased as distinct from a few townlands in one particular county. The Deputy will appreciate that representations of this kind would come from various areas and consideration would have to be given to the subject on a national basis rather than on an individual county basis.
Is the Minister aware that I sought in my question to have included areas which also applied to be categorised? The Minister did not visit these areas and he was remiss in not doing so. Is he aware that there are areas in County Waterford, such as the Nire, Ballymacarbery and Mellary which have applied, and indeed, have put a case to the Department, and have been refused full recognition under this scheme, even though they may be classified for the purposes of sheep subsidies? Would the Minister explain to the House why those areas which are acknowledged to be very poor areas, in terms of income, have not been fully recognised for all schemes?
The only Government to succeed last year in getting any extension in this directive was the Irish Government. That is indicative of the general effort made to try to extend the advantages of this scheme to as many areas as possible. The first strategy was to try to get an increase in the percentage of utilised agricultural land for that purpose. Last July the Minister for Agriculture succeeded in getting an addition of 1 per cent, which is not sufficient to meet all the requirements——
Finally, would the Minister contact me in regard to the areas that have applied for full designation and let me know what steps are being taken in the matter?
I will give the Deputy the information.
A final supplementary from Deputy Deasy.
The Minister in his reply referred to an inter-departmental group which met in 1978 and confirmed the system which was brought into use in 1975. Is this group going to meet again and, if so, how soon? In view of the statement which the Minister has just made, will he endeavour to get this group to change the system by which severely disadvantaged areas are chosen or classified? Also, what percentage of our allocation of severely disadvantaged areas have we used up? He referred to the fact that we might be exceeding that which is laid down by the Commission.
No. I do not have precise information but we have not exceeded the present allocation, as far as I understand it.
We have not?
No, but it is as near to it as makes no difference.
Can the Minister tell us if he will convene a meeting of the inter-departmental group?
We will be taking all steps necessary to explore the possibilities in that area.