It is my intention to share my time with Deputy Finucane and Deputy Bradford.
Adjournment Debate. - Disadvantaged Areas Scheme.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is almost impossible to share five minutes but I will try to speed up the proceedings and I should like to thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing my question.
Asking questions in the Dáil is the only way of extracting information from a Minister on behalf of constituents. Any attempt to withhold information is a very serious matter and is unacceptable in every respect. The Minister has the relevant information on file in his Department in regard to a question tabled on 5 June and I ask for its disclosure.
The Minister informed me in his reply that he was setting up an appeals system; I already knew that. The Minister has examined the areas in question and has given his decision in relation to refusing their entry to the disadvantaged areas scheme. We also know the Minister carried out a land survey and that officials from his Department spent at least three years compiling information in respect of the criteria laid down by the EC. All this information in regard to population, the percentage of cereals and so on, is available in the Department. We know from the leaked list last November, which was submitted to Brussels for approval and returned, that certain adjustments were made in respect of several DEDs in Wexford which we compared with the current official list. It is further proof that the Department of Agriculture and Food have at their disposal the necessary information to answer the questions submitted to the Minister on 5 June.
As far as an appeals system is concerned, it is essential to know against what you are appealing and why you were rejected in the first instance. The Department have made a decision on the submissions but those affected must know the grounds on which those decisions were made. In 1985 the farmers of Wexford — and other counties — were not worried about getting into disadvantaged areas but the situation is very different today because of the expected drop of 25 per cent for the year 1990-91 in farmers net incomes. Reclassification is the only road to survival. I call on the Minister to disclose this information; if not, he treats the House with contempt, it becomes irrelevant and so does the Minister.
If the appeals in relation to DEDs are to have a reasonable chance of succeeding this information is fundamental to their case. I appeal to the Minister for its disclosure.
In regard to the proposals, of which I have a copy, there was much disappointment in many areas which were excluded. When European approval was given the disappointment was even greater for many farmers throughout my county especially in 30 townlands which were excluded. We understand these townlands were rejected by the EC. If they had already been approved by the Irish Government why were they rejected by the EC? For this reason I tabled specific parliamentary questions to the Minister for Agriculture and Food but I did not receive an appropriate response to my question although I was entitled to it. Why does the Minister not come clean on this issue? Surely he can see that the disadvantaged areas scheme is a divisive issue? The Minister is not doing anything to arrest this division and it is incumbent on him to give reasons for excluding areas.
The matter referred to by Deputy D'Arcy and Finucane concerns me and my constituents in East Cork. In the north Cork area, for instance, at least 50 per cent of the original applicants for inclusion in the disadvantaged area have been excluded.
If a farmer applies for a grant and is refused he is given a written reason for the refusal. If a person applies for a medical card and is refused he or she is given a written reason for the refusal. The same applies to a person looking for unemployment assistance. It is only right and proper that applicants for the disadvantaged areas who have been refused, presumably under one of the criteria laid down by Brussels, should be told exactly why they have been refused.
It is right and proper that the Chair should have stopped you half a minute ago.
I ask the Minister to give an assurance that each unsuccessful applicant will be told the reason for the refusal.
I am pleased to be given the opportunity to explain further why I do not propoise to give details of the disadvantaged areas survey results on a townland basis.
First, there is as indicated in my replies to recent questions, the issue of relevance. The designation of areas is not specifically determined on the basis of individual townlands or on the basis of individual district electoral divisions. It is instead based on "homogenous areas" which may embrace entire DEDs, part DEDs or groups of townlands straddling a number of DEDs. Indeed, it was in recognition of the fact that DED boundaries do not respect physical features and economic circumstances that the Government with which Deputy D'Arcy was associated introduced arrangements ten years ago to redraw boundaries on a part DED basis involving townlands rather than on the basis of entire DEDs which had previously been the practice.
Second, there is the question of confidentiality. The survey forms were filled in and signed by farmers on the understanding common to all Government census work that the information was confidential. Because of the high level of the sample taken, three out of four farmers in many townlands were surveyed and to give details of, say, income indicating that income levels in certain townlands in County Wexford were over four to five times the national average would be a clear breach of confidentiality and highlight facts which neither the farmers concerned nor their public representatives would wish to be published. It should be noted that the CSO do not publish data for individual townlands and the DED is the smallest area in respect of which data is published. I do not intend to depart from established practice or from the stance taken by successive Government in this regard.
Having said that, let me add that groups of farmers in DEDs and townlands not included in the new list of disadvantaged areas have a remedy now available to them which was not available in 1985 when, as the Deputy will be aware, the last extension was ratified. I refer to the appeals panel which I have set up and which has started to function. I am happy to inform the House that next week advertisements will appear in the national press and local papers in the 15 counties involved in the extension. These will give details of the appeal arrangements and where interested groups of farmers in areas outside the revised boundary may obtain the necessary forms to apply for inclusion.
Finally, I can understand Deputy D'Arcy's concern about Wexford which got no new areas admitted to the disadvantaged areas as a result of the 1980-85 survey when his party were in office. I am pleased to put on record that the new areas now being admitted in Wexford total 60,000 hectares and raise the percentage of the county designated from a mere 5 per cent to over 30 per cent. In sporting parlance, he has put in a storming finish but I am afraid his effort has come too late and he has, I fear, overused the whip. In fact, he has flogged a dead horse.
A good try but the Minister will not get away with it.