Vol. 426 No. 7
9 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the extent to which the appeals in respect of the review of the disadvantaged areas scheme has been completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter
12 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when he intends to declare the remainder of Counties Cavan and Monaghan severely handicapped; and if he has provided for such a declaration in the 1993 budget.
15 Mr. Cullen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when he intends introducing a third category under the disadvantaged areas scheme involving extensions, reclassification and increases in payment rates.
23 Ms. O'Donnell asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when the disadvantaged areas reclassification appeals panel will publish its findings; and if he will give an assurance that retrospective payments of headage grants will be made to those whose appeals result in reclassification.
26 Mr. E. Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the area in County Mayo he proposes to redesignate as being severely disadvantaged under the new EC scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
30 Mr. Boylan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when it is intended to have the remainder of the land in Counties Cavan and Monaghan included under the EC severely handicapped area scheme in order that they are brought in line with neighbouring counties such as Longford and Roscommon; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
33 Mr. Sheehan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the position regarding the reclassification of the disadvantaged areas appeal process; when a final decision will be given on the appeal for the 10,000 townlands concerned; and when he will introduce a third category of disadvantaged area, termed extremely disadvantaged area as promised in the Programme for Partnership Government 1993-1997.
39 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when a decision will be made on the appeal by persons in those areas excluded from the recent reclassification of disadvantaged areas.
47 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if the criteria used for reclassification of disadvantaged areas will be changed especially in relation to the average family farm income.
51 Mr. Cox asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the proposed level of increases in payment rates under the disadvantaged areas schemes referred to in the Programme for Partnership Government 1993-1997.
131 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when the review and reclassification on the disadvantaged areas appeal process will be completed; and if those townlands which are included and reclassified will get the benefits of additional headage and other payments in 1993.
153 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the criteria for the establishment of the new extremely disadvantaged areas as promised in the Programme for Government 1993-1997; and the proportion of land in the country which he envisages will qualify for this category of entitlement.
154 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if, after the current review and reclassification of the disadvantaged areas is complete, the concept of individual disadvantaged farms will be introduced for those who themselves justify the criteria but whose overall area does not.
178 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry whether the information available to the disadvantaged areas appeal panel concerning specific appeals and townlands will be made available to the secretaries or representatives of those groups.
202 Mr. Bradford asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the cost to date of the disadvantaged areas appeal tribunal, the expected cost to complete the work of the tribunal; and when the tribunal will issue its report.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 12, 15, 23, 26, 30, 33, 39, 47, 51, 131, 153, 154, 178 and 202 together.
The Disadvantaged Areas Appeals Panel is carrying out a detailed analysis of data from the survey of 10,000 townlands in Leinster and Munster which appealed their non-inclusion in the disadvantaged areas. When the panel has completed its analysis it will make recommendations to my Department on the townlands under appeal. On the basis of the panel's recommendations the Department will prepare a formal submission to the EC Commission who will make the final decision on the areas to be proposed for ratification by the Council of Ministers. It is important to note that details of the proposed areas are confidential to the appeals panel and my Department and results of the appeals will not be released until the final decision is made in Brussels.
Because of the size and complexity of the task it is not possible to predict when it will be completed and, while it is in everyone's interest to have the job done quickly, it is equally important that the panel should carry out a thorough analysis as a prerequisite to having acceptable recommendations for submission to the Commission in Brussels for ratification. There will be no delay in finalising the issue here and, when the submission is ratified, there will be no undue delay in making payments available to farmers in successful areas.
When the analysis of areas seeking inclusion is completed, the panel will turn its attention to examining the areas seeking reclassification including all remaining areas of Cavan and Monaghan which were raised in specific questions and are under appeal. The review of the criteria for reclassification has been the subject of recent negotiations between my Department and the farming organisations, and I expect a reasonably early positive decision on this matter. The results of the departmental review will, of course, be notified without delay to the appeals panel.
The costs incurred by the disadvantaged areas appeals panel from its commencement in June 1991 to date amount to £330,000. The bulk of the cost is attributable to the survey of 40,000 farms early last year. Fixed costs, such as the salaries of the 200 departmental inspectors involved in the survey and permanent office staff, are not included in the figure; £151,000 has been allocated to the panel in respect of 1993.
The disadvantaged areas scheme is designed to operate on fixed boundaries drawn on the objective basis of the smallest permanent administrative unit, the townland. The present appeals arrangement is, necessarily, being operated in that context. The Programme for Government does, however, commit us, in the light of the outcome of the GATT negotiations, to review the income support effects of EC structural measures for agriculture and to pursue with the Commission necessary improvements. In that context the question of a disadvantaged farms programme will be considered.
A safe pair of hands.
The proposal for a third category is in its very early stages of development. The question of which areas should be included, including County Mayo, is being considered. In this regard discussions are taking place between my Department, the EC Commission and the farming organisations with a view to defining boundaries. Decisions, on the level of payments, will be taken following the reorganisation of the scheme resulting from the work of the appeals panel and the resolution of the third category issue.
Is the Minister of State happy that it is taking so long to complete the review? Is it proposed to publish the date on which the report will be forwarded to Brussels? Will he outline the action the Government proposes to take in the matter following the submission of the proposals to Brussels?
In relation to the time scale involved, I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that an intensive and indepth analysis had to be carried out of all the farms concerned. Ten thousand townlands were surveyed, which would give Deputies some idea of the numbers of farmers involved.
The time scale specified by the Minister in relation to the field work was adhered to. While the task of processing the applications, when submitted to the Department, proved far more difficult than expected, nonetheless, this work was expedited and the appeals panel are now considering the matter. I am satisfied that they will quickly reach a conclusion. While it is difficult to specify a time scale every possible effort is being made to expedite the appeals decision.
Many Deputies have tabled questions on this subject. I propose to call the Deputies in the order they submitted questions to me on the Order Paper.
I have asked exactly when all of Cavan-Monaghan will be included, and I take it that a field survey has not been carried out in the area. The main problem is the 40 per cent income limit which should be raised to 70 per cent. It is absolutely essential that this is done. It is difficult to understand the reason all of Cavan-Monaghan has not been declared handicapped given that all of Longford-Roscommon has been included. Because some of the poorer parts of Cavan-Monaghan have already been included the average income figure has been raised in the remaining parts. When will this matter be dealt with?
May I appeal for brevity?
Perhaps the Minister of State would show us the figures which resulted in Longford-Roscommon being included because it is very difficult for us to understand how parts of Longford-Roscommon could be included while vast areas of Cavan-Monaghan, such as Seeall Mountain and my own parish of Aghabog, have not.
I want to call a number of Deputies, especially those present in the House, but brevity must be the key note.
Sixty-three per cent of the total land area of County Cavan, or 119,000 hectares, is classed as severely handicapped. This compares with a figure of 39 per cent prior to the last review. Forty-three per cent of the total land area of County Monaghan, or 56,000 hectares is classed as severely handicapped and represents an increase of 23 per cent. I am sure the Deputy would agree that it would be sensible to dispose of the appeals first and then move on to review the criteria and the question of disadvantaged farms.
I now call——
How long will that take?
Sorry, I now call Deputy Jimmy Deenihan who has a number of questions tabled on the subject.
Would the Minister of State be more specific about the average figure for family farm income? That is the kernel of the problem in counties such as Kerry. Would the Minister of State give a commitment here today to raise family farm income limit from 40 per cent of the national family farm income figure to at least 70 per cent? Would he also give a commitment to raise the limit in regard to the number of people engaged in agriculture in a townland from 40 per cent to 70 per cent and to include part-time farmers as part of the farming population?
Those matters are being considered at present. We have had discussions with the farming organisations on the 40 per cent limit in relation to income and the number of people engaged in agriculture. I am optimistic that the outcome of the review will be favourable from the farmer's point of view.
I now call Deputy Cox.
I tabled five questions.
I am calling the Deputies as they appear before me on the Order Paper, in sequence.
I have a very brief policy question for the Minister of State who has referred to the smallest unit, the townland. The problem the last time was that townlands had to be contiguous. Will a townland, which meets the criteria but which is not contiguous to other disadvantaged areas, qualify?
It is our goal to ensure that the maximum number of areas are designated under existing regulations and it is for that reason we are using townlands for the purposes of classification. As the Minister has already indicated, we are prepared to extend the criteria to include individual disadvantaged farms. I am satisfied that the appeals board will examine the question posed by the Deputy to maximise the benefit to be gained under the scheme. The Deputy can be assured that the appeals board will endeavour to achieve the best possible result.
May I put it to the Minister of State that he is indulging in waffle, which we have had to listen to for a year on this subject, that the survey was completed last March, that no timetable has been specified and that he has not indicated how many townlands will be included? Would he further agree that his credibility on this matter has been eroded given that not one penny has been provided in the Estimates, not to mention the third category of extremely disadvantaged areas? Would he now give a commitment that those farmers whose lands will be reclassified will benefit in 1993?
Deputy Yates should not accuse me of indulging in waffle in relation to disadvantaged areas——
We are listening to the same old story.
——when both he and his party had an opportunity of doing something positive about disadvantaged areas.
We did.
What I am saying is that we need to be careful in regard to the list of areas submitted to the appeals board.
That will take a long time.
I have the utmost confidence in the appeals board that it will expedite its decision. We must have confidence in the appeals boards, since it is representative of our farming organisations and the Department. I have the utmost confidence that it will expedite the matter as quickly as possible.
Why did the Minister not provide money in the Estimates? That is not the fault of the appeals board; it is the fault of the Minister and his Department.
I want to bring these questions to finality.
No answers are being given to these questions. Will the Minister say whether they will get the benefits in 1993 and why is there no money?
If Deputy Bradford wishes to intervene he may — he has a question tabled — if not, I call Deputy Jimmy Leonard.
To date, the redesignation process has demonstrated that there is a distinction drawn between disadvantaged farms and disadvantaged areas. There have been adequate surveys and figures available to demonstrate clearly it is time disadvantaged farms were taken into account; I stress that the evidence exists. In my constituency the extensions were effected by drawing lines with a pencil, extending existing areas instead of moving into the centre of the county where we had undertaken our own surveys, which proved that the only fair and equitable method or criteria on which to rely would be a farm survey rather than an extension of townlands, as has been done to date.
The point has already been made and accepted by the Minister that disadvantaged farms will be considered in the context of the Programme for Government with the third category of designation, which is also important.
The Minister will be aware that the relevant EC regulations stated that, on appeal, 1.5 per cent only of the national territory could be added to the review. Is that regulation still in place, has the figure of 1.5 per cent been changed or in the process of being changed, because that would merely account for 255,000 acres nationwide and satisfy only about one-tenth of those applications on appeal?
The 1.5 per cent restriction certainly would be a very serious one for Ireland. However, there is a procedure whereby we can go to the Commission to seek approval of a larger increase. We are prepared to do so in terms of the recommendations of the appeals board.
Deputies have been offering for some time, and they must be brief. I call Deputies Hogan, Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) and Yates.
Will the Minister accept that it has taken two years to come to a decision on appeals in respect of disadvantaged areas and that, as other Members stated, he failed to make the necessary finance and staff available to process such applications? Will he give a categoric assurance that all the applicants who successfully appeal will be paid their headage grants in 1993?
I have already indicated that every possible effort is being made to expedite a decision. I know that the appeals board panel will do that as quickly as possible. In relation to funding for 1993 we cannot anticipate in advance the likely outcome of the appeals board but it would not be the first time that we would have brought forward payments. For example, the Minister did so in 1992 in respect of livestock grants. I moved a Vote in the House in the amount of £12 million for that purpose.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister placed great emphasis on the confidentiality of the submissions, etc. Will the Minister guarantee that the results will not be for the information of Fianna Fáil and Labour Oireachtas members only?
I will not comment on Deputy Browne's question because I have no doubt there are quite a number of previous examples of——
I do not think the House needs to be reminded that the Minister brought forward payments for the election but they have been very slow in coming since then. Will the Minister say whether the indication that money has not been provided is because the Estimate for the Department is a gross underestimate of what will be spent this year? Is it because the Minister and the Department think very little land will be approved? Will the benefits be available in 1993 for increased headage payments for those whose lucky number comes up in this appeals process?
I have to await the outcome. The reality is that we want to see the maximum land area of this country designated. That is the guideline issued by the Minister and myself to the appeals board.
