Vol. 458 No. 4
4 Mr. Cowen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will confirm that the application for extension of the disadvantaged areas scheme that was submitted on foot of the appeal panel criteria will be 100 per cent approved in view of the recently approved reclassification application. [17118/95]
13 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the reason it was necessary to resubmit Ireland's application for the extension of the disadvantages areas to the EU Commission; the new criteria introduced that might influence the designation of disadvantaged areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17043/95]
17 Mr. Kenneally asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when the extension of the disadvantaged areas scheme will be approved; the steps, if any, he is taking to bring this matter to finality; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15876/95]
19 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the current position regarding the review of disadvantaged areas. [14667/95]
45 Mr. Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when he will announce the results of Ireland's application for the extension of land area under the disadvantaged areas scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17000/95]
74 Mr. Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when he proposes announcing the extension of the disadvantaged areas. [17081/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 13, 17, 19, 45 and 74 together.
The disadvantaged areas appeals panel was appointed in 1991 to examine appeals from groups in areas dissatisfied with the results of the fourth review of disadvantaged areas. A survey of all farmers in areas under appeal was undertaken early in 1992, and the results were examined by the panel, culminating in a recommendation in respect of certain areas which met the criteria as laid down by the EU Commission. The panel's recommendations were submitted to the EU Commission in November 1993.
Due to pressure of work, the Commission services did not complete its examination of the data before the end of 1994. Indeed, at a meeting in December 1994 between the Department and the Commission, further information was sought in respect of both the extension and reclassification proposals and this was provided in April 1995.
At this time, I had a number of meetings with Commissioner Fischler, at which I impressed on him the urgency of having this matter concluded quickly and he agreed to expedite matters in the hope that both the extension and reclassification submissions could be concluded as soon as possible in 1995. Since then, work on the reclassification dossier was completed with Commission approval of the newly reclassified areas on 27 October. Work on the extension has, however, been more difficult with the Commission services looking for further data, which had to be collected during the summer. More importantly, the Commission indicated that it had a major difficulty with the interpretation of the stocking density criterion which had been given to the appeals panel. This issue has still to be resolved but I am pushing very hard to have this done at a very early date and appropriate Commission proposals made to the Council.
Following approval by the Commission, the extension proposals then have to be approved by both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, so it is not possible to be precise as to when the list of new areas will be released.
Will the Minister outline in more detail the Commission's queries regarding the stocking density criterion? Will he confirm the criteria for considering the further extension of the scheme in 1991 was agreed with the Commission when the appeals panel was set up?
I could provide details but I do not wish to do anything which would show that I accept the Commission's perspective on this matter. They relate to a legal interpretation of a stocking density and a rounding off, either upwards or downwards, of figures. Following a meeting in January with Commissioner Flynn and detailed correspondence, I spoke on the telephone to the Commissioner this morning to acknowledge that the position cannot be resolved at a technical level. For a number of reasons I have made a political appeal to have this approved.
There are essentially two problems, the first of which relates to the non-contiguous elements of island sites about which there has never been much optimism and the other to stocking density. We are considering reaggregation and maximising it. One of the factors is that sheep headage applications are due in December. The matter is, therefore, urgent. We need to move ahead so that those being included for the first time can gain the benefits in 1996. That was always my intention. I am trying to secure the right result as quickly as possible.
Will the Minister confirm that the criteria laid down when the appeals panel was established were agreed with the Commission? At what stage will we see a result which will ensure that the integrity of the application is respected? Will the Minister confirm that he will deliver on the commitment to secure a rate of 100 per cent in the same way as it was secured in the case of the application for reclassification?
To avoid ambiguity and being accused of being disingenuous I am not in a position to give any guarantees, much as I would like to do so, about securing a rate of 100 per cent. It will be extremely difficult to secure this figure in the case of island areas. Where someone is unsuccessful in their appeal the area secretary will be notified as to the reasons, be it on tillage, income or stocking density grounds.
I have trawled through the files relating to the fourth review undertaken in 1991 to try to find the documentation to which the Deputy has referred, but unfortunately clear-cut documentation of that nature does not exist. If, however, the Deputy can adduce any evidence to that effect, it will prove most helpful in our current arguments. I cannot find any documentation relating to the interpretation of stocking density which would establish beyond doubt, to the satisfaction of the Commission, that clearance was given. It refutes this. That is one of the points of difficulty.
Will the Minister confirm that the criteria applied by the appeals panel were precisely the same as those applied pre-1991 and that that was a fair and honest assumption upon which to proceed? Will he confirm that Mr. Sheehy, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. McCarthy and others members of the panel were fully au fait with the scheme and that the submission made is on all fours with the criteria previously accepted by the Commission? Is it not the case that its legal and technical objections are merely a smokescreen to deny those areas which meet the criteria inclusion on appeal? An attempt is being made to dilute our entitlements. I expect the Minister to be more aggressive in rejecting and refuting this.
I attribute no blame to the appeals panel which applied the criteria laid down by the Department. I have indicated to the Commission that there is no extra cost involved as the total allocation of Structural Funds in respect of headage payments has already been agreed. It is not, therefore, a question of money but legal interpretation. The Commission has stated that the stocking rule is one livestock unit or less per hectare. In the interpretation the figure of 1.04 was rounded off. This means that anything above the figure of one livestock unit is excluded. This is extremely unfair given that the parcel of land involved is very small in the overall context. Either way, as the total amount of land involved will be in excess of 1.5 per cent the matter will have to be dealt with by the Parliament and Commission.
On the question of reclassification, we could have signed off earlier, but I insisted that the two be taken together. All that was required was a Commission decision.
I am not happy with this outcome, and I am still not accepting it. I have asked Commissioner Flynn to make a special effort within the next week.
The time available for dealing with priority questions is exhausted. I can, however, dispose of question No. 5 in ordinary time by reason of the recent changes in Standing Orders.
