Vol. 410 No. 4
14 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason the Government are reluctant to have the country classified as 100 per cent disadvantaged for cattle headage payment purposes in view of the proposals announced last week on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy by EC Commissioner MacSharry.
If I considered it possible to have the entire country classified as disadvantaged, I would put such a proposal to the EC tomorrow morning. It is not, however, possible now, nor was it possible at the time of the last application in 1985 when in fact a much smaller portion of Ireland was classified as disadvantaged than the area in respect of which I secured EC Commission agreement this year.
Given that one of the criteria for classification agreed with the EC Commission in 1985 and still binding on me today is that the family farm income per farm worker in any area proposed for classification cannot exceed 80 per cent of the national average family farm income, the entire country could not be so classified — the farm income for the entire country obviously cannot be less than 80 per cent of the national average.
When, as I expect, the Community Ministers adopt that Commission proposal in the fairly near future, 72 per cent of the country will be classified as disadvantaged as a result of my efforts. I have set up a representative appeals panel to see whether other areas can be classified on foot of appeals. I consider this is as much as can be done on the classification front at present.
Deputy Kavanagh is offering. A final question.
Mr. Deasy rose.
I am calling Deputy Kavanagh.
It is Deputy Kenny's question.
My question relates to No. 12. I would like to ask the Minister, irrespective of his views of the Labour Party in respect of the inclusion of Germany whether the inclusion of 9,000 farms——
On a point of order, the Minister has replied to Question No. 14.
Yes, but he did not reply to my final supplementary question. I do not think the Minister was called to reply to No. 14.
I have just delivered a reply at your direction, a Cheann Comhairle, to Question No. 14. You specifically directed that we terminate our discussion on Question No. 12, and I did so. I have now replied to Question No. 14 and I assume it is supplementaries to that question that I am being asked to deal with now.
The Chair was not aware that No. 14 had been dealt with.
It was not even called.
I have just given a reply.
I was asking Deputy Kavanagh if he wished to put a question in respect of No. 12.
The Minister pulled a very quick stroke by answering Question No. 14 before it was called. I was entitled to ask a final supplementary on No. 12, and I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to do so. How could the Minister allow 9,000 farms of 4,000 hectares to be included in the Community irrespective of the background to the decision? Why has the product from those farms been allowed onto the Community market without, as far as we can read — all we can do is read about the Minister's adventures in Europe — any commitment being given that the Irish farming community would not suffer from that extension in the same way as they have been suffering from so many other blows from Europe. I am not aware that the Minister took any great action to safeguard our farmers from that huge extension of the Community.
I have read out in great detail the reply to the next question. I did not mean in any way to suggest that I was not prepared to answer further supplementaries. However, the Deputy has come back to No. 12 and I am prepared to deal with it. I will repeat that this was a political decision — I am sure the Deputy is aware of that——
It was also an economic decision.
——taken by the Heads of Government in the European Community and confirmed by the Foreign Ministers.
It was an economic decision.
What is the Minister doing to stop it happening?
People seem to want to turn back the clock. The Labour Party should say whether or not they want to see Germany divided again, with East Germany back in the folds of Communism.
It has nothing to do with that.
It was a political decision, and we have to accept that as a welcome political fact. The Agriculture Council and I in particular have pressed for extra funds to ensure that the costs of integrating the former GDR into the Common Agricultural Policy would be adequate, and that is under way. We have also requested protection to ensure that uncontrolled imports do not come in from third countries. As I indicated to Deputy Farrelly, there was initial evidence that such imports had been coming through at a much greater rate than they should have and I am glad to say that that position is now under control.
Ceann Comhairle——
I call on Deputy Deasy for a final supplementary question.
On Question No. 14?
We are dealing with Question No. 12.
We are on Question No. 14.
I have not called Question No. 14 yet.
I repeat that I have not yet called Question No. 14. If the Deputy wishes to ask a supplementary question to Question No. 12 he may do so otherwise I shall proceed to Question No. 14. I now call Question No. 14 in the name of Deputy Enda Kenny.
The Minister has already answered it.
Then the Minister will kindly answer Question No. 14 again.
I intended no offence to the Chair in reading out the answer to Question No. 14, slowly and deliberately as I did, and I shall answer the question again:
If I considered it possible to have the entire country classified as disadvantaged, I would put such a proposal to the EC tomorrow morning. It is not, however, possible now, nor was it possible at the time of the last application in 1985, when in fact a much smaller portion of Ireland was classified as disadvantaged than the area in respect of which I secured EC Commission agreement this year.
Given that one of the critria for classification agreed with the EC Commission in 1985 and still binding on me today is that the family farm income per farm worker in any area proposed for classification cannot exceed 80 per cent of the national average family farm income, the entire country could not be so classified — the farm income for the entire country obviously cannot be less than 80 per cent of the national average.
When, as I expect, the Community Ministers adopt that Commission proposal in the fairly near future, 72 per cent of the country will be classified as disadvantaged, as a result of my efforts. I have set up a representative appeals panel to see whether other areas can be classified on foot of appeals. I consider this is as much as can be done on the classification front at present.
In the Minister's reply he referred to the 1985 submission. May I point out that the Minister, as Deputy O'Kennedy in those days, did not make any request for 100 per cent disadvantaged status for the country, nor did any of his colleagues or any of the farming organisations.
The Minister in his reply quoted farm incomes and the criterion necessary to have a country classified as 100 per cent disadvantaged. Is he aware that Luxembourg, which has a higher standard of living and better quality land than Ireland, is classified 100 per cent disadvantaged? Will the Minister in view of the collapse of farm prices and farm incomes, request that Ireland be granted the same status as Luxembourg, 100 per cent disadvantage?
If the Deputy is excusing his failure as Minister to do what I have done now on the basis that I did not ask him to do it then, that is a very timid response indeed.
The Minister did not do anything.
For my part, at the time I was not spokesman for Agriculture; I was spokesman for Finance. Surely the Deputy, as Minister at the time, had responsibility to do what was in the national interest. I do not think he can excuse himself now for not doing something because the former Opposition did not ask him to do it.
What about Luxembourg?
As far as Luxembourg is concerned, the Deputy is also ignoring a certain reality in that regard. When Luxembourg was designated 100 per cent disadvantaged, as the Deputy calls it, it was done on the basis of Luxembourg being part of the Benelux countries — Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg. It was because the Luxembourg average was less than 80 per cent of the Benelux average that Luxembourg came in under that classification. The Deputy must know that.
Several Deputies are offering and I wish to facilitate them if they assure me they will be brief. Some four or five Members are offering, and I shall go on to the next question if my order is not obeyed. I call first on Deputy Farrelly.
Taking into consideration the present position and crisis facing Irish farmers, will the Minister go back to the Commission to have the 1985 condition for 80 per cent removed to allow all of this country to be classified as fully disadvantaged, in order that as many farmers as possible in the non-disadvantaged areas may stay in agriculture?
The 1985 regulation is a matter of European law affecting all countries. I am not reluctant to go back to try to have that regulation changed. However, I wish to tell Deputies that that would take years to achieve. In the meantime, it is through working within the constraints of existing European law, as Deputies will be aware, that I have, in changing the areas to be surveyed from DEDs to homogeneous areas, been able to increase the amount from 58 per cent to 72 per cent. I do not think any Member would want me to delay putting that measure in place. When that is in place I will not be reluctant about asking the Commission throughout Europe — Greece, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal and so on — to change the regulations but I do not want to fool anyone, it will take at least two years before that is even contemplated.
Does the Minister promise to do so? Did I hear the Minister say "yes"? He is afraid to commit himself.
In view of the importance of agriculture to our economy — it is our only major industry — and in view of the fact that Ireland is the only island nation in Europe, as Great Britain is joined to the Continent by a tunnel, I ask the Minister to seek preferential treatment for Ireland in Europe and have the country reclassified as 100 per cent disadvantaged. Will the Minister give me an assurance on that point?
I have obtained special preferential treatment for Ireland. The Deputy must know that.
What special preferential treatment?
This is the biggest extension that has taken place in any country.
Forget about that, go for the whole hog.
It is the biggest extension that has taken place.
Go for the whole lot.
If that is not special preferential treatment. I do not know what is. It is about four times more than what was contemplated by Deputy Deasy. If we can now do something that was not done before, namely, change the regulation that was put in place in the time of Deputy Deasy, I would be glad to do that.
Why not?
It needs 11 other member states to change the regulations that were put in place during Deputy Deasy's time as Minister. Deputy Deasy knows, and the House must know, that that matter takes a very considerable amount of time.
Agriculture was on the crest of the waves when Deputy Deasy was Minister; now it is in the doldrums.
I ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food to consider my question in the context of disadvantaged areas. In Ireland there are 170,000 commercial farmers and under the proposals being considered at EC level by Commissioner MacSharry it is envisaged that only 40,000 of them will survive as commercial farmers. Therefore, availability of benefits under the disadvantaged areas will become more and more essential if we are serious as a country about maintaining numbers of people on the land. Those benefits are no longer a perk, they are essential to survival for many farmers. Will the Minister, therefore, give a categoric assurance, which he has been asked for on numerous occasions in the House, that he will pursue at EC Commission level the removal of the 80 per cent income criterion? We accept that that will take time, but it will eventually open the door for an extension of disadvantaged area status to the whole of the country. Will the Minister initiate that process?
I do not need to be asked by those who did nothing to do what I am firmly committed to do.
Deputy O'Kennedy has been Minister for four years.
May I make my point?
We will move on to the next question if there is not order.
The Government added up to 72 per cent of the country, that was not done by the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government and it was not requested by Opposition Members. When the Government increased the headage payments that was not requested by Fine Gael; when the Government reclassified the whole area I was not requested for that by Fine Gael; when the Government got rid of the off-farm income limit I was not asked by Fine Gael to do that. The Government took that action because that was our conviction and my decision. That is the way the Government will proceed, because if we were to wait for requests from the Opposition we would certainly be waiting for a long time.
I call on Deputy Leonard.
Order. If the interventions do not cease I will proceed to another question.
In view of the criterion under which the designation took place, I ask the Minister to bring to the notice of the EC that the Economic and Social Committee of the EC draw up a very detailed report on the counties on each side of the Border. They recommended that the entire area should be designated as severely handicapped. I would ask that cognisance be taken of these reports in Brussels in future. These reports are drawn up at great cost and their recommendations are ignored. I would ask that in future they be taken notice of when reviews are held.
Would the Minister not now accept that because of the policies being pursued by the Government all of this country will meet the regulations because of the dramatic collapse in farm incomes from the time this application for extension was made?
I explained that it was a mathematical impossibility that the whole country would have less than 85 per cent of the national average income. Deputy Boylan does not seem to understand that. There is nothing else I can say at this stage that will change the facts.
Is the Minister not aware of the dramatic collapse? Many farmers are on the poverty line because of the policies of this Government.
We welcome the extension of 72 per cent. It is not fair to go back to the past when farm incomes were completely different. We all know there is a crisis now. The Minister must realise that in relation to the appeals system we are going through the whole process again. How can the Minister explain that a farmer with a field of rushes cannot get into the disadvantaged areas scheme while a farmer down the road with 100 cows can get in? Will the Minister agree that the only way to resolve what appears to be a diverse issue in agricultural circles is to look for the 100 per cent inclusion? The Minister has given us a categoric assurance that within two years we will have that.
While this note of commendation is entirely out of tone with this debate, I hope Deputy Finucane does not misrepresent what I said. I did not say that. I said that the change in that regulation would take at least two years. There is no point in the Deputy misrepresenting what I said. In the meantime I recognised that the disadvantaged areas scheme which was there for a long time under Deputy Deasy——
Will the Minister seek the change?
Listen to me while I answer. A disadvantaged areas scheme is not a disadvantaged farmers scheme. I do recognise that there are some farmers outside the disadvantaged areas who are worse off than some individual farmers inside.
At last the message has got through.
I have said that many times but the Deputy was not listening. Obviously, I am very concerned to ensure, by way of income supports for low income farmers outside the disadvantaged areas or an overall review of the regulations, that such farmers are helped as much as possible.
Where there is a will there is a way. The Minister can act immediately.
The Teagasc report and the farm management survey last week showed that farm income in Ireland would have dropped by 8 per cent more were it not for the subsidies we are talking about. Does that not make the argument absolute for the extension of disadvantaged areas? In addition, will negotiations which are ongoing to reclassify certain areas in County Galway from less severely handicapped to more severely handicapped be completed this year?
It is certainly very urgent. I agree that the benefit of the headage payments must be applied to much more of the country and that is why there can be no further delay in doing that. I do not want to postpone that by two or three years until we get a whole new definition under the European regulations. I have done what can be done to maximise them immediately. I have no reservations at all about raising the question of income support for farmers outside disadvantaged areas and if possible reviewing the regulation that Deputy Deasy failed to have reviewed. I would be happy to do that.
