Vol. 492 No. 1
13 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the submissions, if any, he has made to date to the EU Commission in relation to the abolition of the enlargement clause of the farm retirement scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13459/98]
It is a requirement of Council Regulation 2079/92, under which the scheme of early retirement from farming is implemented, that a person eligible to become a farming transferee, must:
(a) succeed the transferor/owner as the head of the agricultural holding which must be at least five hectares of utilisable agricultural area and subsequently expand the area of the holding by at least five hectares or 10 per cent, whichever is the greater, or;
(b) hold either in full ownership or under lease, at least five hectares of agricultural land, which was not the subject of a transfer from the transferor/owner on or after 30 July 1992, and take over at least five hectares or 10 per cent of the land released by the transferor/owner, whichever is the greater, in order to expand the area of his/her holding.
I am aware that this enlargement provision is a cause of concern among the various farming interests. Accordingly, I have spoken with Commissioner Fischler in relation to the matter on a number of occasions. In February this year I formally wrote to the Commissioner to express my concern in relation to this provision. I requested that, in the context of a replacement measure, the enlargement requirement be dropped in favour of a viability criterion.
I am glad to report that Commissioner Fischler responded positively to my request. The new draft regulation on agriculture and rural development proposed by the Commission, which is currently being considered in the appropriate EU fora, replaces the enlargement provision with a viability criterion.
I thank the Minister for his reply and I am glad the Commissioner has acceded to his request. That was the most nonsensical provision ever implemented. It was one of the problems that arose with a number of EU schemes that have been introduced. While I know that EU regulations have a direct effect and, for the most part, are directly applicable, nevertheless we should not accept all of them lock, stock and barrel because some are not suited to conditions here. That was one such provision. I am glad the Minister has been successful in — to use an agricultural term — eradicating it from the farm retirement scheme once and for all.
EU regulation 2079/92 has a number of other horrendous anomalies. One of them is that the income derived from and the time devoted to farming activities has to be at least 50 per cent in each case for each of the previous ten years.
A question please, Deputy.
I know how to pose a question but, to be fair to the Minister, one must provide the background.
No, it is not necessary to make a statement. We want to get through as many questions as possible.
This is a very important question for farmers and I will persist with it. At least 50 per cent of the time must be allocated. In the application of this scheme, would the Minister deem it unfair if a person who was in receipt of a social welfare payment which was £600 over the limit for one particular year in the previous ten years was deemed to be ineligible? Is it fair that he is thrown out of the scheme because of that? The matter should be looked at in terms of renegotiating regulation 2079/92. Will the Minister consider advocating some change within his Department? I know that his departmental officials are concerned about this matter and the Minister is aware of it.
In the past two months I have met three farmers who have been catapulted out of the scheme because of this anomalous regulation which brings social welfare payments into play. The Minister of State, Deputy Davern, spoke about excluding the first £2,000 of income.
A question please, Deputy.
Would the Minister consider that the same £2,000 criterion as the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, applied in relation to the REPS payments could be used in relation to any renegotiation of this income barrier, where money is derived from social welfare? This is a social welfare case and obviously one has to be poor to qualify for receipt of social welfare.
I would ask Deputy Penrose to resume his seat. I asked you not to make a statement. There are other Deputies who have tabled questions and they are entitled to have an opportunity to have them answered.
It is my question.
The farm retirement scheme is a good one. For many years we made attempts to introduce such schemes but none of them worked because of shortcomings. This particular scheme works and it is being availed of by a sizeable number of people. However, in the implementation of the scheme a number of shortcomings or anomalies have appeared. One of those was the enlargement clause, which was absolutely ridiculous. It was supposed to consolidate holdings but the real effect was to fragment them.
That is correct.
People were buying parcels of land in different parts of the country just for eligibility purposes. In some cases they could ill afford to do that and it reduced the viability of the whole operation.
Another anomaly was the off-farm income. In many parts of the country, including the west, if there is any future at all it has to be in part-time farming. I also put that matter to the Commissioner when I wrote to him formally. I told him that all restrictions in regard to off-farm income should be deleted. Those were the words I used. I would expect and hope from the discussions with the Commissioner's cabinet that we will make progress in that particular regard as well.
I expect that the current scheme will end at the end of this year, so there are only a few months left in it. From 1 January 1999 we hope to have removed those irritants and anomalies from the scheme which, we expect, will then be far more attractive.
Commissioner Fischler comes from Austria, a country which in many parts has a farming system quite similar to the west of Ireland. The Commissioner has a deep appreciation of what is involved here.
I welcome the Minister's involvement in this matter and his attitude that the enlargement clause did not work as intended. It caused more fragmentation than it solved. I would, however, ask the Minister to be extraordinarily careful about the viability issue.
A question please.
By viability, does the Minister mean being able to make a living from the farm or that part of the income might have to be obtained outside the farm? If there is a strict viability clause as a replacement, a great number of small farmers might not qualify at all.
I accept the point Deputy Connaughton has made. We want to make a good scheme which is funded by the EU. The philosophy of the scheme is to put farms and their management into the hands of younger people, give those who have not had a good cash flow during most of their lifetime a decent pension and to ensure the farming enterprise is viable. If the farming enterprise is not viable and off farm income is available, it should maintain a family on a farm. That is the objective of our negotiating position.
Will the scheme be reintroduced on 1 January? Will the Minister advise people to wait for a better scheme?
Agenda 2000 proposals include a provision for the continuation of the scheme. I understand from the Commission and the Commissioner, in particular, that the amendments for which we have looked will be part of the new scheme which will come into operation at the beginning of next year.
