Before the adjournment I had been alluding to the fact that there is a perception that, as a constituency, farmers are hard to please. I had been musing on some of the many possible reasons for this impression. I have mentioned the decrease in margins and the huge disparity in income between different enterprises, rural poverty, the threat to the future of the family farm and indeed the massive emigration from the land generally. All these factors must be analysed and acted upon despite the statistics concerning the very welcome increase in farm output and indeed in farm incomes that we read about. Let us analyse these statistics and represent the facts as they are for the majority. Let us use this golden opportunity now presented with the doubling of the Regional, Social and FEOGA Guidance Fund by way of the Structural Funds not only to close the economic disparity between ourselves and mainland Europe but also within our country between the different farm enterprises. Above all we should ensure a future on the land for the backbone of this country, the family farm.
From an agricultural perspective the FEOGA guidance section of the Structural Funds provides great opportunities for positive compensatory policies in relation to the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Yesterday I had tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister for Agriculture and Food asking him what provisions he had made for agriculture within our national development plan for drawing down extra money from the FEOGA Guidance Fund in view of the doubling of the Structural Funds over the next four years. He replied that an overall plan for the drawing down of moneys from the EC Structural Funds between now and 1992 is at present in the course of preparation and that it will include detailed proposals on agricultural and rural development both in regard to new arrangements and the improvement of existing arrangements. The Minister told me that plan involving national and regional programmes will be the framework through which finance for the three Structural Funds will be maximised and that until the plan has been finalised it would not be appropriate for him to provide information as to the provision being made in respect of receipts from the FEOGA Guidance Fund. I regret that we do not know, and this House will not have an opportunity to debate, exactly what proposals for agriculture he will be submitting for the national plan to ensure maximum draw-down under the FEOGA Guidance Fund.
I would also like to put it to the Minister that the recent proposals by the board of Teagasc seriously weaken our hand in dealing with the many policies that are coming forward weekly in relation to Common Agricultural Policy reform. The rural economy section of Teagasc deal with this. They had a decrease of 50 per cent in staff and resources in 1988. As we have no agricultural economic institute here we must ask what effect the further reductions now proposed by the board of Teagasc for the rural economy section, and indeed accepted by the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Government, will have on their capacity to carry out economic and social research in view of the rapidly changing CAP.
Money under the Less Favoured Areas Directive for the disadvantaged areas, by way of headage payments are paid directly from the FEOGA Guidance Fund which is part of the Structural Funds. I am calling on the Minister for Agriculture to insist on the designation of the entire country as a less favoured area under Directive 75/268 of the EC. This would involve, first, the designation of all areas not currently included in the disadvantaged areas as less severely handicapped areas and, secondly, the reclassifying of all existing less severely handicapped and mountain sheep grazing lands to more severely handicapped status. The advantages of my proposals are, first, the significant boost to farming incomes. Secondly, up to 75 per cent of the expenditure would be met by FEOGA recoupment. Thirdly, there would be no need to carry out a further survey by the economic unit of the Department of Agriculture. At least, we would not need an immediate survey in order to be ready with our proposals for the national plan to be part of our submission on the Structural Funds by March 31. Fourthly, the timescale would be short compared with that of the last review under this directive which was completed after three or four years in 1985. Fifthly, we would still meet the terms of the directive that require payments to be graded according to the degree of natural handicap. There have been significant changes in the criteria as laid down in the Less Favoured Areas Directive governing classification, when we take figures on a national average basis, to justify the whole country being classified.
Under the Structural Fund's framework, as one of the most peripheral of the Objective 1 regions, the whole country is classified as one region. Headage payments under the Less Favoured Areas Directive are paid, as I said, from the FEOGA guidance fund. The Structural Funds are being doubled for the most peripheral regions such as Ireland, not just to achieve social and economic cohesion but also to compensate for the problems caused by the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.
This will be our last chance to exploit the opportunities being provided by the additional Structural Funds and to ensure a future for all our farmers, not just the more commercial. I call on the Minister again to insist on the inclusion of the entire country and the reclassification of existing areas under the Less Favoured Areas Directive as part of the 1989 price negotiations to commence shortly in Europe and as part of our national plan submission under the Structural Funds framework. The Minister briefly addressed this point in a reply to a parliamentary question from me again yesterday and I shall respond with that paragraph to have the complete story on the record. His view is that to propose including all unclassified areas, regardless of whether they meet the EC criteria, would therefore increase the survey work to be done by his Department and would delay the submission of eligible areas to the EC Commission.
I disagree fundamentally with the Minister on his contention there. There would be no increase of survey work or extra delay at all because, if you bring in all the areas not classified now as less severely handicapped areas, there is no need for a detailed townland by townland survey or a review by the economic unit of the Department of Agriculture at this point. We would have our policy in this regard ready to submit with the national plan by March 31. Including farmers who may not now have expectations to be so classified will in no way take from other farmers who wish to get classification status at the moment, particularly at this point when we are talking about a doubling of the Structural Funds and of maximising draw-down for farmers to compensate for the Common Agricultural Policy reform. My views, I am glad to say, were supported and were publicly supported last November at a conference, by Dr. Brendan Kearney who is now the chief economist of Teagasc. I take it that the Minister would accept what he has to say on the matter. At that time Dr. Kearney stated as follows:
Consideration must now be given to extending the less favoured areas, if not declaring the whole country disadvantaged, so as to exploit the opportunities provided by the additional funds. Furthermore, there is now a good case for including part-time farmers in development programmes and schemes. In disadvantaged regions, part-time farmers can be the most dynamic individuals in the local communities and thus help maintain the social fabric of the area.
A brief word in relation to part-time farmers and farm income as it is treated at the moment — and I respect the sensitivity as a High Court judgment is pending on this matter generally. With the indulgence of the Chair, I would like to say that large farmers in disadvantaged areas who have no off-farm income but a considerable on-farm income get headage payments regardless of their on-farm income. This is an anomaly. There can be off-farm income of very moderate means which disqualifies a small part-time farmer. As I have said, part-time farmers are essential to the viability of local communities, especially in the more remote areas, to prevent further emigration. There will be another opportunity to develop that topic when we are not constrained by a High Court judgment.
Again, to draw down FEOGA guidance money under the Structural Funds, I am urging the Minister for Agriculture, in the context of the debate on the doubling of the Structural Funds generally and on the basis of Ireland being classified by the European Commission as an Objective One region, a single region, among the most peripheral and disadvantaged in the Community, to ensure that there is a minimum of 45 per cent to 50 per cent grant aid, hopefully far more, for anti-pollution measures under the farm improvement programme for the entire country. This is an essential requirement as the greatest concentration of silage-making and intensive livestock units is in areas now eligible for only up to 20 per cent grant aid, whereas western package areas get a minimum of 45 per cent and it goes away beyond that in many cases.
Anti-pollution measures for dealing with silage and slurry effluent must be deemed "development" in their own right, not only as part of an overall farm development plan, and therefore eligible for grant aid as such. With up to 75 per cent recoupment from FEOGA guidance funds which, as I have emphasised, would be part of the enhanced Structural Funds, an increased draw-down for environmental protection under the farm improvement programme is in all our interests by way of keeping our country and our farm and food produce among the most marketable in Europe.
Again yesterday, by way of parliamentary question the Minister responded to a point about an anomaly which has arisen. There is a higher rate of environmental grants, under the western package than under the farm improvement programme for those areas already classified under the Less Favoured Areas Directive. I asked him, in view of his statement of some weeks ago, if farmers who were participating in farm improvement programmes, including the anti-pollution measures, could switch to the western package scheme to avail of the higher rate of grant for anti-pollution measures. I welcomed his proposals of further clarification and his response to me yesterday was:
The EC Commission has agreed, in principle, that farmers who cannot complete their plans under the farm improvement programme due to the need for substantial extra investment for environmental purposes may in certain circumstances terminate their plans and apply to participate in the programme for western development.
He went on to say:
Details of the precise procedures and conditions for availing of this change will be available shortly from local Teagasc offices.
We, and indeed all farmers in all parts of the country, await eagerly the procedures that will be involved so that they can maximise the anti-pollution grant. This is for all our sakes, not just for the sake of the farming community. A good healthy environment and the perception that Ireland has air, water and soil which are pure and environmentally clean is the basis of the future for us all and for our indigenous industries.
There are at the moment in Europe on-going discussions in relation to the farm price proposals. There are some very disquieting aspects in relation to these proposals. I hope the Minister will stand firm and not lose his nerve as he did earlier this week at the Council of Agricultural Ministers——