Vol. 410 No. 4
10 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reasons the United Farmers Association are not represented on the board established to hear appeals against exclusion from the disadvantaged areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The question of representation by any particular farm organisation on the Appeals Panel does not arise. The two farmers appointed by me to the panel represent all farmers regardless of the farm organisations to which they belong or whether they belong to any organisation at all.
Why are the United Farmers' Association, the fastest growing organisation of farmers at the moment, being excluded from almost everything? Is there a reason for not giving them recognition? Have obstacles been put in the way of the Minister which prevent him from recognising the United Farmers' Association? Why were they not allowed to participate in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress? Why are they not allowed to be represented on the disadvantaged areas appeal panel? Will the Minister give them full recognition with the other two farming organisations?
I am glad to tell the Deputy that I have given full recognition from the start before I even had an opportunity of assessing exactly the nature and extent of their representation in the farm sector. I attended the launch of their policy document. I have met them on many occasions. I have endeavoured to indicate to them and to the public at large that I am prepared to meet, within reason, that farm organisation, as I am others. I would like to say that obviously there is a limit to what any Minister at any time can do and particularly one who has to spend so much time in Brussels. It is appropriate that where farmer interests can co-operate rather than splinter it would be in the national interest that that be done.
Deputy Deasy rose.
I accept entirely that it would be very difficult for a Minister to meet every organisation regularly. Does the Minister recognise the increasing need for special consultation with the small and medium sized farmers in view of the major crisis arising and in view of the fact that they did not receive benefits from the development of CAP over the years? Can the Minister give special attention to this area of farming?
I would like to assure the Deputy and the House that the small and medium sized farmer is priority No. 1 for the Government because of social and economic consideration and because of the importance we attach to the family farm.
Why did the Minister reduce quotas by 10 per cent?
I think the Deputy misunderstands. In fact, before his time we introduced special priority restructuring schemes——
Is the Minister reducing their quotas this year?
——for small and medium sized farmers only when the administration the Deputy is supporting ignored them completely.
Is the Minister reducing their quotas by 10 per cent this year?
Deputy Creed must obey the Chair.
Having said that I will use every opportunity to protect particularly the position of small and medium size farmers——
Lip service.
——however it is not for me to adjudicate between which of the farm organisations represent best the interests of the small and medium sized farmers. That is a matter for the farm organisations themselves. I am ready to meet any one of them at any time.
You have given them all equal attention.
It is quite clear that Mr. Donnelly and Mr. McCarthy——
We do not name personalities outside the House.
——the two members who have been appointed from the farming organisations to the appeal board are senior members of the IFA and the ICMSA and clearly they were nominated because of that fact. The UFA have been omitted despite the fact that they are an organisation of repute and considerable substance and they should have been included. Even at this late stage would the Minister reconsider his decision, because they are entitled to representation? He gave the impression, in his reply to Deputy Mac Giolla's first supplementary question, that he almost did not want a proliferation of farm organisations. I would point out that there are at least three in Holland, at least seven in France and probably many more in Italy, representing all strands of the agricultural industry. I do not think this smear on the UFA is good enough. I would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision. These people are entitled to a voice.
Nothing I have said or done in respect of any farming organisation and particularly the United Farmers Association could be remotely presented as a smear.
There is a smear.
Quite the opposite is the case. I have, from day one, against the views of many people in the sector, met them, spoke with them and went along to the launch of their policy document.
Why did you?
The Deputy will be aware that it is a sector within which there are constant changes even within the United Farmers Association.
But the Minister is not responding to those changes.
So far as the differences in other countries are concerned, the Deputy conveniently overlooks the fact that in a country such as France there is sectoral representation from the south of France which has an entirely different pattern of production from that of the north of France; the same is true of Italy, north and south, and the same is true of Germany, north and south, whereas here in Ireland we are dealing with the same kind of production.
East and west.
The Minister is giving them a raw deal. We should have recognised them.
Deputy Creed and Deputy Sheehan are offering. I should like to entrtain them if they will be brief.
May I ask the Minister if it is not the case that the United Farmers Association claim to be the voice of the most hard hit sector of the agricultural community and that his failure to meet them and to represent them on the appeals board has to do with the fact that the policies the Government are pursuing have been detrimental to that sector of the Irish agricultural community if he is reducing their quota by 10 per cent?
I hope the Deputy will say what he has said now to the IFA and the ICMSA members in his constituency: that they do not represent the interests of small farmers. That is the implication of what the Deputy is saying.
Answer the question.
The Deputy should go down to his own constituency and just tell them that.
They are entitled——
I dislike the move afoot by the Minister and his Department to annihilate the small farmer producers——
And the organisation.
——and the organisation. The voice of the United Farmers Association is for the small producer and the small farmer and he is being completely wiped off the face of the earth by the policy of the present Minister and the Government.
And the chairman of Teagasc.
We are having an extension of the question. I am calling Deputy Kavanagh.
Can the Minister tell the House if any representative of the United Farmers Association has been appointed to any board, committee or organisation under his aegis? Perhaps that would be the best test as to how he recognises that organisation.
That is a separate question. To the best of my knowledge and belief the answer is "yes". If the Deputy had asked me I could have told him. The two gentlemen concerned are not on an appeal board as representing the IFA or the ICMSA. I would not appoint them on that basis.
They are very good men.
I am calling Deputy Mac Giolla.
The UFA should also have a man or woman on the appeal board.
We have no objection to the two representatives on the board but the Minister could include the third.
I understand the UFA have been somewhat dissatisfied and have requested a meeting with the Minister. Can the Minister assure us that he will meet them to resolve any differences which may have arisen for one reason or another.
Having regard to the fact that I spend every second week in Brussels, Luxembourg or elsewhere, I am glad to tell the Deputy—
The Minister has not much to show for that.
——that I met the United Farmers Association two or three weeks ago and undertook as a consequence of that meeting that I or, if I am not available senior officials at my Department will follow up any consultations with them. I am glad to put on the record that I will certainly pursue that commitment.
Thank you very much.
I am calling Question No. 11. We have dwelt overlong on the last question.
Deputy Finucane rose.
I hesitate to disqualify Deputy Finucane.
I heard the Minister state that both gentlemen on the appeals board are not necessarily representative of their organisations. Surely the Minister is aware of the reality on the ground in relation to both those senior members of those organisations. In various meetings which have been called in relation to the appeals they are the major spokespersons on behalf of the organisations who called the meeting. So I think what the Minister is saying is rather deceptive. If the Minister is talking about serious talks with the United Farmers Association the one way of retrieving the imbalance that exists is to ensure that the United Farmers Association are represented on the appeals board also.
I want to assert again that they are not there representing any farm organisation. I would not appoint them on that basis.
Nobody believes that.
Equally, I have to point out that we have an appeal board which Deputy Deasy never put in place.
There never was any request.
There are two farmers, two lay commissioners and one independent on the appeal board. Would the House have regard to the consequences of putting on another farmer? If the board is to be independent, we must maintain a balance. If you put on a third person thereby making an appeal board of seven, you begin to get into a very unwieldy situation. Please have some practical regard to the independence and balance within the appeal board.
Question No. 11 please.
The former Deputies Gibbons and MacSharry did not ask for it either.
