asked the Minister for Agriculture the criteria used in deciding both the disadvantaged areas and severely handicapped areas throughout the country as announced by him recently; the reasons certain small isolated pockets were not included; the number of staff in the economic division of his Department involved in deciding on the various areas; the number of agricultural field officers; the number of inspections they carried out; the locations of the inspections; the dates on which these inspections were done and any other relevant information; the reasons a larger area was not included; the input which he himself and his Ministers of State made to deciding these areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Disadvantaged Areas.
2.
The criteria used in determining the boundaries of the disadvantaged areas were laid down in Directives 75/268/EEC, 75/272/EEC and the recent proposal from the Commission to the Council for a directive concerning the Community list of less favoured farming areas within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC (Ireland). As the most recent review of the disadvantaged areas involved some 600 DEDs in 21 counties, covering 10,000 townlands and close on four million acres of land, it would not be feasible to provide the details asked for by the Deputy.
(Limerick West): Can the Minister say — and this was the purpose of the question — why certain townlands surrounded by other townlands in district electoral divisions were omitted from the disadvantaged areas scheme? Furthermore, were those areas submitted by the Government to Brussels or were they omitted in Brussels by Brussels officials?
As I said yesterday, when replying to some such questions, the reason some areas were omitted was that they did not meet the criteria laid down. As to whether areas now omitted were involved in the sample, I should say that any areas about which representations were made — and that applied to all places within those four million acres — the slide rule was applied and, if they were not admitted, it was because they did not meet the criteria.
(Limerick West): Is the Minister aware that there are small townlands, some comprising only six farms, that did not meet the criteria; but that other townlands that were included certainly did not meet the criteria either? Is the Minister in a position to investigate areas brought to his notice — and this would apply to all counties?
I agree with the Deputy that there is fairly widespread anxiety felt, as there was on the two previous occasions, that every time a boundary is extended a new frontier is created.
(Limerick West): On the last occasion it was the DEDs——
It was, and because of that it was found to be much more advantageous, from the point of view of getting more areas in, to reduce it to townlands, as the Deputy is aware. But there are many townlands now involved in the disadvantaged areas scheme that were refused entry on the two previous occasions because of the system of measurement through the DEDs. I will acknowledge that there are persons——
(Limerick West):——and groups.
——who genuinely believe that their townland should have been included. We have adhered to the criteria laid down by Brussels and because of that there is not anything that can be done. I mentioned here yesterday that I will certainly look favourably on an appeals system with regard to any future extensions. It appears to me that people would like to have the right to ask questions of an independent tribunal, and that is something I would certainly examine.
(Limerick West): Were those pockets — I want to refer to them as pockets because they are very small — submitted by our Government to Brussels?
No, they were not. As I said yesterday, what actually happened was that the criteria applied to areas contained within those four million acres, of which 1,250,000 acres were accepted by Brussels as having met the criteria. That was the way it was done on previous occasions also.
Have the criteria changed from the time, that the base was the DED rather than the townland? Would the Minister not agree that it is more than just anxiety on the part of farmers, that farmers are disgusted at the way——
The Deputy is entering into argument now.
For example, the Minister knows what the IFA in County Galway think of the way the scheme is operated, which is more than mere anxiety. Would the Minister not arrange immediately for his departmental officials and, if necessary, some EC officials to visit some of the areas that have been omitted, to bring this immediately to the notice of the Minister and the Commission in order to have these areas included?
I would have to say, first of all, that there is no corrective or revisory machinery available once given areas have been designated. We should very much like more areas to meet the criteria. I mentioned yesterday that in any future review we will have to take special note of the criteria that talk about population trends. It has certainly meant that there are many areas now outside which should have been included but were not because of that criteria. We must be very careful about that in any further review. In so far as the appeals part of it is concerned, I will take a very close look at this in the future to see if this can be done.
In regard to the second part of Deputy Kitt's question, the district electoral divisions versus the townlands, everybody now acknowledges that there are many acres of land now reclassified which will get a new status they would not get if we had done it under the old DED system.
Would the Minister not agree that in any selection system there must be a form of appeal and that otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction? Would he not also agree that there has been more dissatisfaction on this occasion than there has been in the previous reviews? I have been on to the Department asking if there was any way these matters could be re-examined to satisfy people. There was some semblance of irregularity as far as selection goes.
I was not around when the others were announced but I know, as I was a Member of the Oireachtas the last time, that there was no shortage of criticism on that occasion. I would accept that in future an appeal system may be the right way of doing it but that is not the full answer to it. I believe there is certainly a need in any future extensions to argue with the people in Brussels about the actual criteria.
With regard to the criteria in deciding which area should be designated disadvantaged or severely handicapped, these designations apply in the payment of headage grants for cattle and sheep, which is primarily why farmers are interested in being designated.
A question, please.
Do the criteria provide that lands located inside the county borough area will be excluded from the disadvantaged or severely handicapped area and will payment of headage grants be made in a county borough area?
That is another question.
It relates to the criteria. The Minister knows what I am getting at. The Galway County Borough has been extended. Will the farmers who are now qualifying for headage grants, because they are in a severely handicapped area, be excluded when the boundary extends to include them in a county borough?
I am speaking from memory, as I have not any notes with me about this. Once the area has been designated severely handicapped, which in effect means that the headage payments would be paid in that area, irrespective of what happens after that they will be entitled to the grants. If it happened the other way around, they might not need the criteria after that.
They will lose their headage grants.
Deputy Seán Byrne had a good innings yesterday on the same topic.
(Interruptions.)