Vol. 449 No. 3
2 Mr. Cowen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the financial provision he has made in the 1995 Estimates for new and unclassified areas to be approved under the disadvantaged areas scheme appeal which has been submitted to Brussels. [3495/95]
As the Deputy is aware, submissions on the extension of disadvantaged areas and on the reclassification of certain areas from less favoured to more severely handicapped status were made, respectively, in November 1993 and in October 1994. A meeting was held on 16 December 1994 between officials from the Commission and my Department at which the Commission raised a number of technical questions regarding the submissions. These questions have required additional work within my Department. This work is at an advanced stage and will be submitted to the Commission in the near future.
In farming the 1995 Estimates, the previous Government had made no specific provision for extension and reclassification of disadvantaged areas. This decision was taken in the light of: the uncertainty about the length of time which would be required for the EU decision-making process to be completed, involving as it does consultation with the European Parliament in respect of the extension of the areas, as well as the approval of the Council; the fact that until the Commission is able to complete its analysis of the submissions, it is not possible to make a precise estimate of the cost of extending and reclassifying disadvantaged areas.
In view of these two factors, no specific provision for extension and reclassification was made in the 1995 budget.
I share the Deputy's concern about the delay in processing and finalising this matter over the past 18 months. Therefore, at my request, I met Commissioner Fischler last Friday, 10 February to stress the importance which I attached to the Commission completing its examination of the file on disadvantaged areas as soon as possible. The Commissioner was sympathetic to my request and indicated that he hopes to make a formal proposal to the Commission for approval this year, hopefully by the summer. This proposal must then be considered by the European Parliament before a final decision is made by the Council of Agriculture Ministers. If final decisions can be taken designating areas for extension and reclassification in time to allow payment during 1995, I will, of course, seek the necessary resources to implement the decisions.
Is it not clear, based on the fact that the Commissioner stated he will not be ready to make a decision until summer and subsequent Council approval being required, it is highly unlikely that payments will be made in 1995 for new areas coming under the scheme and areas at present under the scheme, which will be reclassified to a more advantageous category? Will the Minister confirm that the areas submitted are the exact same as those recommended by the appeals body under the chairmanship of Professor Sheehy?
I can confirm that the likelihood is that approval will not be given in 1995 but I want to put this matter in context. This was one of the first files I sought because my constituency had a particular interest in the appeals process.The appeals panel completed its work on the extension 18 months ago and I have heard nothing but excuses in terms of the delays on this file — for example, the panel was dealing with the three new member states and considering their disadvantaged areas. I was told by my officials that unless I made this a political issue it would get bogged down in terms of eligibility of island areas.
When I met Commissioner Flynn and Commissioner Fischler about two weeks ago this was my top priority. I told Commissioner Flynn that the one thing I wanted to do was to sort out this file. I was told at one stage that reclassification would be relatively straightforward if I was prepared to compromise on the extension. The appeals panel recommended that an extra 3 per cent of the country would be included, extending the area from 72 per cent to 75 per cent. I have been told it is virtually impossible to get the whole file through, but I am determined to ensure it can all be taken together and the sooner it is put through the better. There were substantive problems in getting approval and those have not been totally resolved yet. The timing is, therefore, a secondary issue; my first goal is to get approval, and the sooner that is done the better.
Will the Minister confirm that the areas submitted by the Department are the exact same as those recommended by the appeals body?
Yes. In the case of extensions the file on the appeal was issued in November 1993 and the file on reclassification from less severely to more severely handicapped was issued in October 1994. The view in the Commission — which I do not share — is that the appeals panel was over-generous in its interpretation of the five critria for the extension. That has to go through the Parliament, the Commission and the Council, as this is the fourth review it is the last bite of the cherry for these areas. The matter was presented to the Commission on the exact same basis as it was presented by the appeals body.
The Minister said the amount of money available would determine the number of areas included. Is he suggesting that the relative success of the application depends on the amount of money that will be made available rather than on strict eligibility criteria?
No. The cost of reclassification is about £5 million and the cost of extension is about £3.2 million per year. The financial aspects have not been considered. It is simply a case of getting the file approved and I imagine that will be relatively straightforward within the overall agricultural Structural Funding for headage. The Commission and others are very anxious to review the disadvantaged areas scheme, but I have been resisting this. I signed off a consultant's report on a review of headage payments, which is a direct way of supporting the maximum number of family farmers in disadvantaged areas. There is a view in the Commission that headage payments are direct income aid in the form of social welfare which gives no rate of return. It wants the appeals proposals included in that review but I want to have them approved first and to deal with the review afterwards.
