asked the Minister for Agriculture his reason for announcing at a press conference in Dungarvan on 11 February as reported in the Dungarvan Observer that the new disadvantaged areas scheme would apply to certain areas in County Waterford namely from the top of the Sweep taking in Moonameen, Mount Stuart and Aglish; and if the announcement still stands in view of a statement made by him on 21 February 1985.
Ceisteanna - Questions. Oral Answers. - Disadvantaged Areas Scheme.
16.
The specific area referred to in the question was mentioned only as an example of an area that might be regarded as disadvantaged. I would draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that, following the adoption by the EC Commission of a proposal for the extension of the Irish disadvantaged areas, a complete list of the proposed boundary adjustments was announced by me on 25 March last. I see that reference is made to Aglish in the question. I never referred to Aglish as being an area which might be disadvantaged. That never arose.
Were any of those areas included?
That general area was included, Mount Stuart and Moonameen; just that general area.
Aglish is not included?
No, that is not a handicapped area. Actually Deputy Fahey's home — well I do not want to say it — is handicapped and severely disadvantaged now. That is his home area. I do not want the Deputy to-read any inference into that.
Could the Minister indicate to the House exactly who had responsibility for drawing up all the areas in this scheme. Was it he himself, his officials or what section of his Department, who made the final proposals and who had the ultimate say?
There is a section of my Department which draws up the scheme. They are fairly well skilled at this. They have been doing it since our advent into the EC. I think this was our third review, as distinct from the original scheme, so the people who do it are skilled. They are in the agro-economic division of my Department. They are a very specialised, skilled group of people.
I should like to know how these skilled people decided to include certain areas of north Meath and excluded areas across the road which were a lot worse than those they included. I wonder how skilled are these people coming from the Department in Dublin. I would hope the next time there is a submission to be made that the opinion of local people would be taken into consideration, their comments and views on the matter.
The question appears to refer to County Waterford.
I have the same problem myself. No matter where one draws the line the fellow on the wrong side of it will be very annoyed. I am not saying that the system is foolproof; obviously it is not. But people do their best to ensure that it is done on a fair basis.
Seeing that in some cases the duckhouse is severely disadvantaged while the farmer's house is less severely, would the Minister now publish the recommendations which were sent from his Department to Brussels for consideration?
It was published, I suppose, six weeks ago.
The results.
The grand finale we saw, but what of the original?
The original recommended.
What has been published is identical with what was submitted. Our submission has been accepted by the Commission.
In toto.
Yes, in total, Now we have to wait until it is approved by the Council of Ministers. I might point out to Deputy Wilson that there are no such things as disadvantaged duckhouses in Cavan/ Monaghan. It is the heart of production of ducks and duck eggs in the whole country.
(Interruptions.)
Looking at the complete set of submissions on severely handicapped areas would the Minister not agree that the 12 western counties should have been included in their entirety.
There is nothing I would like better than to include the whole of Ireland but there are three criteria laid down in respect of areas for inclusion in disadvantaged areas. If one overdoes it by including areas which do not fulfil those three criteria one could find oneself ending up with a large segment of what has been submitted being disqualified. We have to walk a very thin line in submitting a little bit that might not be fully in compliance with the three criteria. If one overdoes it then certainly one will walk into serious trouble.
Are two of those criteria depopulation and productivity?
Depopulation is one; the level of income is the most important.
Then I agree with Deputy Farrelly that there is no skill in that section of the Minister's Department.
The level of income is the most important one, the critical one, and it is in that respect that we run into difficulties.
Can the Minister indicate to the House exactly what role the agricultural field officers played in putting this scheme together?
As I said previously, it is the agro-economic division of my Department.
Would it not be true to say then that these field officers made sporadic visits here and there throughout the country, came back to the economic division, put it on paper and then it was forgotten about?
It is the system that has existed since our entry to the EC. The people do a good job, though we all criticise them. A lot of my constituents are quite abusive about it. They think I drew up the scheme. It is one of those problems that politicians must live with.
(Interruptions.)
(Limerick West): Does the Minister anticipate the criteria being changed in a further review?
No. It did not arise during our recent discussions on the structural directives.
(Limerick West): Would the Minister consider suggesting a change?
I do not mind asking; it is always worth a try.
The remaining questions will appear on next Tuesday's Order Paper.