asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he agrees with the conclusion of the NESC to the effect that there is a strong case for the payment by the State of direct income aids to low income farmers, and that the payment of such aid should give the State, as the agent of society at large, a say in the use of land which is occupied by those in receipt of income support; whether this level of involvement by State agencies in the individual investment decisions of individual farmers is advisable or consistent with long-held beliefs of Irish farmers; and if he will make a statement on the matter in view of the endorsement of the NESC report by both major farming organisations.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Direct Income Aids.
7.
In the disadvantaged areas low income farmers already receive direct income aids through the mechanism of headage grant payments. The cattle headage scheme operates in the most severely handicapped areas and the beef cow scheme operates in the less severely handicapped areas; in both these schemes a maximum annual grant of £1,880 is available to low income farmers. The sheep headage scheme operates throughout the disadvantaged areas and in designated mountain sheep areas. Under this scheme a maximum annual grant of £1,750 is available to low income farmers.
Furthermore, the EC Agricultural Council adopted a regulation in March 1989 permitting the introduction by member states, under certain conditions, of a system of aids to agricultural income. Discussions are in progress at Commission level on a proposed regulation laying down detailed rules for the application of such aids. Following adoption of the latter regulation a decision will be taken as to whether the system would apply in Ireland. The NESC recommendation, which would have wide and complex implications, would of course be taken into account at that stage, as would the views of the major farming organisations.
Is the Minister for or against the NESC recommendation?
The NESC report, in its general——
This particular one——
——including this one, was a well informed one and I said so yesterday. The Deputy would agree that perhaps one of the most effective ways of introducing income supplement is through the headage payments system about which we have been talking for so long. In addition, until I see the actual details of the income aid proposals — which are not, as yet, in final form — I would not like to speculate on how suitable they would be for our conditions.
At what stage does the Minister expect a final proposal? May I ask him also if he believes that it is wise for agricultural experts to be given undue prescriptive rights in regard to what a farmer may do on his land in view of the fact that agricultural experts, not so long ago, were advising farmers to build silage outlets near rivers in order to make for ease of disposal of slurry?
I can inform the Deputy that that was the reason I insisted, in discussions with Teagasc, that henceforth Teagasc advisers would themselves be equipped on how to locate these with a view to minimising damage to the environment. We are totally in agreement on that. We shall consult with the widest range of people. Additionally, I will bear in mind the views of any Opposition Deputies in relation to an income aid scheme when finally proposed.
When will that be?
We expect that the Commission will probably bring it back before the Council either toward the end of this year or by the beginning of next year.
Would the Minister not agree that the NESC report demonstrated very clearly that the Common Agricultural Policy price support scheme does not transfer moneys to small farmers, in fact it has been the cause of driving very large numbers of small farmers from farming and has been more beneficial to larger farmers? In view of that, are he and his Department not in favour of a direct income system of payments to small farmers to encourage them remain on the land?
I agree that up to recent times almost all the funds coming from the Common Agricultural Policy came through the guarantee side and to that extent were not necessarily targeted at small producers. The Deputy will be reassured to know that over the last two years we have concentrated to a very considerable extent on the structural aspects. A whole range of new programmes has been introduced. I will not be satisfied until many more are in place, including a new one for rural development generally. I can accept what the Deputy says, that there is a priority urgency to be met here and I shall pursue it.
Can the Minister be more specific?
I am calling Deputy Connaugton for a final question.
Does the Minister believe, at some stage in the future, that Irish farmers will ever accept a direct payment in return for a decision to allow others to decide what their farms will actually produce? Can the Minister foresee that ever happening here?
I made it very clear in our discussions on income aids that, if this was meant to be a substitute in any way for the capacity of the farming family themselves — either by way of conventional agriculture or by way of alternative economic activities, such as rural tourism or whatever — I would be opposed to it. I am much more in support of the concept the Deputy is suggesting, that both the income capacity and dignity of the individual require that he himself be enabled to earn as much as possible from whatever source. It is my opinion that there is great scope there.