Vol. 402 No. 6
8 Mr. McCartan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if, in view of the many anomalies that can arise in regard to disadvantaged areas, he will initiate discussions with the EC partners with a view to having the categorisation changed to disadvantaged farms; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
EC Directive 75/268, as amended, allows for the classification as disadvantaged of "farming areas which are homogeneous from the point of view of natural production conditions" and this description clearly implies areas and not individual farms. The directive also allows for the limited classification of "small areas affected by specific handicaps". How small these latter areas may be has never been previously specified in writing by the EC but our clear understanding is that they would have to be much larger than the size of any farm in Ireland. Accordingly, the Deputy's suggestion does not fall within the definitions applicable in the directive as it now stands and I see little hope of having the relevant provisions revised in the way suggested.
There is also the practical requirement that disadvantaged areas must be defined in terms of map references and territorial constants such as townlands and DEDs which do not vary in size over time as individual farms do.
I accept, of course, that there is a problem that some individual farms in otherwise well structured areas, because of a variety of factors, may be relatively disadvantaged. While it does not appear possible to deal with these under the disadvantaged areas directive, I will continue to seek solutions to their problems in other ways.
I am quite sure the Minister is aware of the anomalies that exist in this area. Originally the classification was district electoral division and then it was townland. As the Minister recognises that there are anomalies, why does he not seek to have this matter brought under the directive which allows for the establishment of disadvantaged areas to enable headage payments to be paid? Because the anomalies are so serious I ask the Minister to give further consideration to that matter.
I have considerable understanding of and sympathy for the kind of individual cases to which the Deputy referred and I have taken up this matter vigorously with the Commission and my Council colleagues. However, there will always be anomalies in classification of disadvantaged farming areas. There will be individual farmers outside a handicapped area who will probably, individually, be worse off than some individual farmers inside the area. As long as there are boundaries and a definition of areas such anomalies will arise. For that reason, I have been pressing the Commission and the Council to find a specific target for disadvantaged individual farmers in otherwise non-disadvantaged areas. I have asked the Commissioner to bring forward proposals at an early stage on a constant basis to deal with those cases.
As official policy, will the Minister be seeking support for the type of assessment he mentioned? Will there eventually be a concept of disadvantaged farms or farmers instead of disadvantaged areas? Surely there is not a problem with the assessment of the incomes of people concerned because we are very good at assessing people. There must be about ten different types of assessment of income for small farmers.
I want to make it quite clear that, while I recognise the hardship in individual cases of people outside disadvantaged areas, I do not want to suggest that I have any expectation that the Commission will introduce a system relating to disadvantaged individual farmers. It would not be feasible throughout the European Community and nobody is even prepared to contemplate it.
That is not the impression the Minister is giving.
The whole focus of support in the reorientation of the Common Agricultural Policy——
That is a different matter.
It is a very important matter. As I said, the whole focus of support will be targeted towards farmers inside or outside disadvantaged areas who need specific support and special treatment as a matter of priority.
The point is taken.
In view of the Minister's answer and our peripheral location in relation to the rest of the EC Community, will he now press our claim to have the whole country designated as disadvantaged?
That is not possible under the regulations because the first qualification for mildly disadvantaged land specifies that the average income in the area must be 80 per cent or less of the average national income. By definition, Deputy Sheehan's case cannot be accepted on that basis.
What about Luxembourg and the North of Ireland?
I am calling Deputy Blaney.
May I reply to Deputy Sheehan?
Both sides of the House should obey the Chair. I have called Deputy Blaney.
Have the Minister, his Department and others given any real consideration to an alternative to the present operation of the Common Agricultural Policy? Is he aware that 80 per cent of our farmers are only getting 5 per cent of the total budget? In case that sounds extraordinary, only 25 per cent of the total budget benefits farmers and only 20 per cent of it goes to 80 per cent of the farmers. There is enough money — there always has been — and with this cut there still is and, therefore, I am asking whether the Minister has seriously considered and submitted to the EC that differentiated price support is the only answer to save the small and medium sized farmers before they are totally decimated? They have already left in their hundreds of thousands all over Europe——
This is an extension of the scope of the question.
It is the answer to the problem.
I have already pressed the case at the Commission and with my Council colleagues, not all of whom, of course, are remotely in agreement with the suggestions. Nonetheless, in the reorientation of the support for the Common Agricultural Policy, the primary — if not exclusive — target should be the family farm. I agree that the primary producers and the family farmers, here or elsewhere, are the fundamental priority target. I assure the Deputy and the House that that will be my case as I do not want to see reduced expenditure applied to them and increased expenditure applied to factory farmers or others engaged in various forms of processing throughout the European Community.
Deputies Sherlock and Stagg rose.
Two Deputies have risen in their places, I will hear Deputy Stagg and Deputy Sherlock if they will be brief.
I will be very brief. Will the Minister agree that the Common Agricultural Policy, as he has been pursuing it, has resulted in the outcome which Deputy Blaney outlined and has meant that 100,000 family farmers have left the land over the last 20 years?
The Deputy will note that there was a very significant change in direction in policy over the last few years in relation to smallholders.
The Minister is strongly resisting it.
Not only have we given them special priority in a variety of areas which I do not want to outline now because the House is already fully aware of them, but they will remain the priority as far as the Government are concerned.
They will all be gone.
Whether it is in terms of restructuring grants, milk quota allocation, premia or otherwise, those family farms and small units which are the very core of the social fabric of the country will be protected by me and the Government.
That is nonsense.
Arising from the reply given initially by the Minister in which he recognised that anomalies exist and because so many farmers are aggrieved at the system applied, is it the Minister's intention to set up an appeals system? When may we expect an announcement to that effect?
May I tell you that Ireland scored a goal?
Thank you. I was there for the first half and then came back here with my colleagues to resume my responsibilities. I am glad to hear the good news.
The Deputy knows that that is a separate question to which I should not reply at this stage. It is a matter that is being vigorously pursued by me. I hope I can get the agreement of the Commission and of the Council. I am confident that I can persuade both the Commission and all eleven of my Council colleagues that we should have an appeal system included.
Unfortunately my question was refused by the Chair earlier today on that basis. I am delighted to hear that Ireland got a goal.
In relation to the appeal system, do we take it that that will be put into operation before the new areas are announced, and when will they be announced?
Let us not extend the question. I am awaiting the response of the Commission and the Council and the Deputy knows that extensions are a matter for the Council of Ministers. I cannot say in advance when the appeal system will be in place. I intend that it should be in place in sufficient time to allow those who are successful to be included in next year's payments.
A question——
No. 10, please.
Sorry Deputies, I have dwelt over long on the previous question. I am now proceeding to another question. No. 10, please.
As spokesman for disadvantaged areas I want to ask a question.
