Helen Keogh
Question:22 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry his Department's proposals for funding under the proposed Structural Funds.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Structural Funds.
Mary Harney
Question:90 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry his views on the recommendations in relation to the agricultural industry in the recent ESRI report on Structural Funds.
Michael Creed
Question:98 Mr. Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he has satisfied himself that his Department and the agricultural sector generally will maintain its fair share of Structural Funds; and if he will make a statement on the ESRI report commissioned by the Government on this matter.
P. J. Sheehan
Question:197 Mr. Sheehan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if his attention has been drawn to the threat to headage payments in the recent ESRI report; and the steps, if any, he intends to take to counteract recommendations contained in the report and thereby guarantee the continuation of headage payments which are vital for the survival of Irish farmers, particularly in disadvantaged areas of the country.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 22, 90, 98 and 197 together.
The position is that my Department has forwarded broad proposals to the Department of Finance in relation to the next round of the Structural Funds covering the agriculture, rural development, food and forestry areas. These proposals are still being considered in the context of finalising Ireland's National Development Plan. The Government will shortly make decisions on the allocations of funds for each Department. No decisions on individual measures to be aided can be made until allocations for each Department are known. However, I am confident that the provision of funding for the agriculture, food and forestry sectors will adequately reflect the importance of agriculture, food and forestry and the rural economy generally in Irish life.
As regards the ESRI report, the position is that the ESRI carried out the task for which they were commissioned. It is up to the Government to decide whether all or any of the recommendations should be taken on board. My task is not to argue about the contents of this independent report, which is but one element in our overall consideration of what should be finally included in the National Development Plan, but to put proposals to Government which will ensure my objectives for the agriculture, food, rural development and forestry sectors are achieved. These objectives are, first, to secure a modern efficient and competitive agriculture and food industry attuned to added value content and to the needs of the market; and second, to capitalise on our green image as a producer of high quality agricultural and food products through the achievement of high standards in terms of the environment, food quality and safety and third, to secure a vibrant rural society through maintenance of the maximum number of viable farm households and the development of the wider rural economy, including forestry.
As regards headage payments in particular, I have outlined the position on several occasions — the objectives of this scheme are clearly set out in the EC Council Directive 75/268 on mountain and hill farming in certain less favoured areas, that is to maintain a reasonable level of income for farmers; to conserve the countryside from an environmental aspect and to prevent further depopulation in rural areas.
These objectives apply throughout the disadvantaged areas of the Community and have been agreed at the level of the Council of Ministers which is representative of all member states. In my view, and in the views of the EC Council of Ministers and the EC Commission, these payments make a very valuable contribution to the maintenance of populations in rural areas and, as such, will continue to be funded from the guidance side of the FEOGA Fund. I am confident that decisions by the Government in the context of the overall allocation of Structural Funds will reflect these views.
Finally, they have got the message.
May I take it from what the Minister said that he is totally disregarding the proposals of the ESRI report in regard to the use of Structural Funds for headage grants? Is the Minister confirming that the Structural Funds will be used to continue to contribute to headage payments to farmers? In particular, what percentage of the Structural Funds is his Department asking the Department of Finance and the Government to approve? When will the proposals the Minister is submitting to the Department of Finance be placed before the general public and the farming and other interested organisations? What degree of consultation will take place with the public and the relevant organisation before any plans or proposals are forwarded by the Government to Brussels?
Negotiations are continuing. I am confident that the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry will have sufficient allocation under these funds to reflect the importance of those sectors and, in particular, headage payments will continue to be an extremely valuable instrument in securing a reasonable standard of living for those in rural areas. On the question of dialogue and discussions with various organisations, I have discussions on a regular basis with relevant organisations, including those to which we gave a commitment to have discussions in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. As late as last week I met a range of farming organisations who expressed their happiness that I am making a sufficiently good case to secure an appropriate allocation of funds.
I understood the Minister to say that no decisions on any of these proposals could be made until the total package was agreed. That being the case, will the Minister comment on the undertaking which the Taoiseach is reported to have given to the IFA recently that not only would headage payments be maintained but they would be increased? Can the Minister tell us whether the Taoiseach is flying a kite or whether he knows something that the Minister does not?
I attended the meeting in question with the farming organisations under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. Headage payments will continue to be paid and the commitments given in the Programme for Government and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress will be honoured.
Will headage payments be increased?
Question No. 23——
I am sorry but I asked the Minister to comment on the promise the Taoiseach is reported to have given to the farming organisations at that meeting. I am delighted to hear that he attended that meeting where it is reported the Taoiseach said to the IFA that not only would headage payments be maintained they would be increased, that is, that they would be bigger than they are now and that farmers would be given more money. Can the Minister tell us whether that is true? Did the Taoiseach say that and, if so, has it any foundation?
First, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry has not received its overall allocation but I assure the House that when it is made headage payments will continue to be made at the relevant level. I have told the House that headage payments will be increased under the disadvantaged areas schemes. It follows, therefore, that the allocation for headage payments will be increased.
Was the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, present at the meeting which the Minister and the Taoiseach had with the farming organisations? Has she any role to play in determining where the Structural Funds will be spent?
The Minister should set our minds at rest.
Let us move on to question——
I do not know why the Chair should seek——
It is a serious question.
——to anticipate that the Minister will not answer. I would expect the Chair——
That question is rather extraneous.
The Chair should not show bias in these matters; it should remain neutral.
We will move on to Question No. 3.
We are hoping that the Minister of State is extraneous.
I call on Deputy McManus for a final supplementary.
I hate to break up the consensus——
There is none yet.
——but I wonder if professional reports, such as that produced by the ESRI, can be questioned given that the recommendations of the ESRI which were well-thought out are being disregarded. Would the Minister accept that rural communities can be supported in ways other than through headage payments for farmers? The rural community is much larger and more diverse than just the farming community.
The ESRI report is a valuable one but it is only one of the elements considered in the preparation of the national development plan. Of course, rural areas can be helped in other ways. For instance, there is an operational programme for rural development and various other schemes such as the Leader programme. It is the intention that these will continue to support rural communities.
They are not as generous.