Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Jun 1996

Vol. 467 No. 6

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Disadvantaged Areas Classification.

Brian Cowen

Question:

4 Mr. Cowen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry whether approximately 40 per cent of the application collated by the appeals panel was not considered by the EU as part of the application for the extension of disadvantaged areas; if so, the reason therefor; if an omission of this magnitude was ever made on previous applications; the opportunities, if any, farmers from those excluded areas now have to have their cases re-opened; if he will make available the data submitted in respect of those townlands that have been excluded to farmers in those areas on request; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13920/96]

Mr. Deenihan

The Irish submission to the Commission on the extension of the disadvantaged areas was made in November 1993. The submission included all the areas which had been recommended by the appeals panel. Following examination of the Irish submission, the Commission indicated that some 37 per cent of the area proposed was not considered eligible for disadvantaged status, as defined by the relevant regulation. The main reasons given by the Commission related to areas which exceeded the stocking density criteria of 0.99 livestock units per forage hectare, and areas which were not homogeneous areas, e.g. so-called "island" sites which were not contiguous to existing disadvantaged areas. On 23 May 1996, the Commission accepted the proposal made by the Commission services that some 128,000 hectares be classified as disadvantaged. I am glad to confirm that the Council of Agriculture Ministers and the European Parliament will soon complete the formal decision making process.

I do not envisage that any further review of areas for the purpose of designation as disadvantaged will take place. With the completion of the fifth review, some 75 per cent of Ireland is classified as disadvantaged, less favoured area status. The Minister has already given an assurance that farmers who were unsuccessful in their efforts to achieve disadvantaged area status for their land would be given detailed information on the reasons for EU rejection of their appeal. The Department has been engaged in this exercise since I announced the extension of the areas on 23 May.

Mr. Cowen

I thank the Minister of State for confirming the first part of my question that 39 per cent of the application collated by the appeals panel was rejected by the Commission. The Minister did not answer the other part of the question, whether an omission of this magnitude had been made on previous occasions. The Minister replied to my second question asking whether farmers would have the opportunity to have their case reopened when he said there will be no further review.

The Minister will realise that this is a central issue for many farmers because higher premium payments are paid to those in disadvantaged areas. I am sure the Minister of State is aware of the large measure of discontent and bafflement that many farmers are experiencing as to how this matter was handled. Does he agree it is quite extraordinary that the appeals panel under the chairmanship of Professor Sheehy which included the president of the IFA, Mr. John Donnelly, looked at all these areas which had been excluded up to now and submitted to the Minister the areas that should be included as a result of this review?

Will he explain why, although the Department felt that the stocking density criteria were met and submitted the application to Brussels, 40 per cent of it has been thrown out? Many farmers are trying to find out how an application under an independent appeals panel who are acquainted with the criteria of the scheme was vetted and agreed to by the Department, submitted to Brussels and rejected. Is the Minister suggesting that only 60 per cent of the application was sent to Brussels?

Mr. Deenihan

The application was made in November 1993 by the then Fianna Fáil Minister. Initially, a much higher percentage of applications were rejected.

Mr. Cowen

When was that notified?

Mr. Deenihan

That was notified well before this Coalition Government came to power. In November 1993 the extension proposals were submitted to the EU Commission but additional data on farming numbers, livestock and population was requested by the Commission in January 1994. The Commission immediately queried the application.

Mr. Cowen

That is usual.

Mr. Deenihan

The additional data requested was provided in April that year. Due to resource pressures in the Commission connected with the designation of disadvantaged areas in the new member states — Austria, Sweden and Finland which joined the European Union in January 1995 — little progress was made on the Irish case during 1994.

Mr. Cowen

The Government entered office in November that year.

Mr. Deenihan

Progress has been made since.

Mr. Cowen

A total of 40 per cent was excluded. Does that constitute progress?

Mr. Deenihan

The initial figure was far higher. The Commission would only accept a figure of 66,000 hectares but we succeeded in having it increased to 120,000.

Mr. Cowen

When was the Department notified that the figure would be 66,000 hectares?

Mr. Deenihan

It was informed of this initially.

Mr. Cowen

It challenged it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister of State should be permitted to make his reply without constant interruption.

Mr. Deenihan

For whatever reason the figure of 66,500 hectares was accepted. The remainder was rejected. Following intense negotiations in which the Minister was involved——

Mr. Cowen

And his predecessor.

Mr. Deenihan

——the final figure came to 127,800 hectares.

Mr. Cowen

On a point of order——

An Ceann Comhairle

No, the Deputy has put questions. He should be good enough to listen to the replies without constant interruption. It is not in order and I will not tolerate it.

Mr. Cowen

This is unacceptable. The Minister of State is seeking to make a political point.

Mr. Deenihan

I am being honest. When one takes the Commission's initial response into consideration we did well to achieve a figure of 127,800 hectares, for which I compliment the Minister and the Department. Many areas were rejected because of the stocking density.

Mr. Cowen

I compliment the Minister on having the figure increased to 128,000 hectares. The fact remains, however, that a total of 40 per cent was rejected. This means there are thousands of farmers whose lands have not been included, despite the fact that the appeals panel thought otherwise. I presume there was a difference of opinion between the appeals panel and the Commission on the interpretation of stocking density — less than one livestock unit per forage hectare. Will the Minister of State clarify the difference and indicate if in any previous application 40 per cent of areas submitted were rejected? That simple question has not been answered.

Rather than telling farmers in the townlands which have been excluded that they did not meet the stocking density criteria, will the Department make available the detailed data on which the decisions of the appeals panel were based? Farmers are baffled as to how the appeals panel felt they were eligible for inclusion whereas the Commission did not. Has the definition of the stocking density been changed?

An Ceann Comhairle

That should be adequate, Deputy.

Mr. Cowen

We need an explanation and a straight answer which we can give to farmers.

Mr. Deenihan

The Commission interpreted the directive strictly and suggested that if the proposal was not accepted the decisions made in 1991 might be reopened. This may have resulted in the removal of some areas from the scheme. The appeals panel submitted areas with a stocking density close to the specified figure in the hope they would be accepted. It also tried to have some non-homogeneous areas accepted. It submitted these in good faith in the hope the Commission would be flexible. When the matter was pressed the Commission suggested the decisions made in 1991 might be reopened.

Mr. Cowen

Will the details be made available?

Mr. Deenihan

They are available to anyone who wants them.

Mr. Cowen

It appears the Commission suggested that if the proposal was not accepted, areas already included in the scheme might be excluded. Based on this admission, will the Minister of State agree that the reason a total of 40 per cent was rejected was that there was a more narrow interpretation on this occasion of the stocking density criteria? Will he recognise that this represented a political failure on the part of the Minister who allowed the Commission to come up with a new interpretation? Will he agree that had the Commission kept to the interpretation used previously perhaps 10 per cent would have been rejected? If the Commission had not been allowed to interpret the criteria strictly there would be more farmers in the scheme.

Mr. Deenihan

I disagree totally with the Deputy. It is the Commission which decides, not the Minister. He fought a strong battle and succeeded in having the initial figure doubled. He pushed the boat out as far as he could. He used all the expertise at his disposal to ensure that as many areas as possible were designated as less severely handicapped.