Vol. 511 No. 3
174 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason townlands (details supplied) were not reclassified as more severely handicapped; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24557/99]
The townlands in question were considered by the disadvantaged areas appeals panel as part of its overall examination of areas for reclassification as more severely handicapped. The criteria used to assess areas for more severely handicapped status were agreed between the disadvantaged areas appeals panel, the farming organisations and my Department, as follows: income had to be less than 60 per cent of national average income; land quality had to be four or lower on a scale of zero to nine; the area had to be contiguous to the existing more severely handicapped boundary.
The European Commission made it clear in discussions that the contiguity criterion would not be satisfied by areas which barely touched the existing more severely handicapped boundary and/or extended away from the boundary in long "fingers" of land.
Bannaghane, Bannaghroe and Drumlinney were rejected because the income of each townland exceeded the limit of 60 per cent of national average income. These townlands adjoined the existing more severely handicapped area.
