The second report is on agricultural structures.
Proposals Relating to Agricultural Structures.
This draft report deals with the agricultural structures policy of the Community. The Commission are proposing amendments to the directives dealing with (a) the modernisation of farms, (b) mountain and hill farming and farming in the less-favoured areas and (c) measures to encourage the cessation of farming and the reallocation of land for the purposes of structural developments. Also, there are proposals aimed at accelerating drainage in the West of Ireland. Perhaps the most important parts of the draft report are Paragraphs 20 and 21 which deal with the provision of public facilities to which the Chairman has already referred.
I think that is the only new one. There are alterations proposed to the existing directives resulting in some improvements. But by far the most important proposal is in relation to the provision of public facilities and I hope it will be possible, by applying pressure and refusing to agree to the proposed directive for the Mediterranean areas, that we will be able to get at least the disadvantaged areas of this country included in that directive, because we really need that. I think a 50 per cent grant is a good grant by any measure.
With reference to the Commission's proposal, that is, the new Council directly dealing only with drainage in the West of Ireland, I want to refer to a file which has been in the Department of Agriculture for a considerable time past. It deals with a portion of my constituency which, for all purposes, geographically should be in County Galway and is at present in the Diocese of Clonfert. It is the small parish of Lusmagh, where land in the parish can be used for only four months of each year. Unfortunately the prospects of improving the land in the parish of Lusmagh by drainage from our own resources appears to be slim. There has been agitation in the area for the best part of 50 years to have the lands in the parish completely drained so that the landowners can use the land. For that reason I have been impressed by the amendment submitted by Deputy Brendan Daly which has been circulated.
There is a large part of the west of Ireland where the land is much better than in the parish of Lusmagh and for that reason I should like to know what procedure can be adopted so that this isolated case can benefit from this proposal. Is there anything the Committee can do in relation to this matter?
If we go outside what is recognised as disadvantaged areas it is going to be extremely difficult to get pockets here and there included. I am sure there is not a rural Deputy who could not produce an area in his constituency that would benefit substantially from drainage of this kind or from funds being poured in for this purpose. I do not know how the Deputy can make his case—Deputy Flanagan is a good man to make a case—but if he can think of a way whereby we can make a convincing case in Brussels on this, I think we would all support him. I agree that the amendment put forward by Deputy Daly is a worth-while one and that we should include it. If Deputy Flanagan has a specific amendment he should move it verbally or submit it in writing afterwards.
I will submit my amendment in writing.
Paragraphs 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW PARAGRAPHS.
I move:
" After paragraph 17 to insert a new paragraph as follows:
‘ As far as arterial drainage is concerned the proposed Directive envisages the work being carried out on the basis of a programme to be submitted by the Irish Government for the approval of the Commission. The Joint Committee has been informed by the Office of Public Works that three catchments have been provisionally selected for the programme, namely, Corrib-Mask, Boyle and Bonet. The Committee would welcome the extension of the programme to the Fergus and some minor catchment areas of rivers flowing directly into the sea in County Clare. Clare is included in the area comprehended by the proposed Directive and is a region where agriculture is seriously hampered by flooding. A speeding up of drainage operations in the county would, in the Joint-Committee's opinion, contribute substantially to the achievement of the objectives of the Commission's proposal.'"
The suggested areas mentioned, Corrib-Mask, Boyle and Bonet, are to restricted and confined. The areas need to be broadened a little. We have a very serious problem in County Clare where the Fergus, which has a catchment area of over 100,000 acres, has done serious damage to agricultural land and has caused serious flooding in towns. There are some minor catchments—about 20 in all—in the county but these are not even included in the minor catchment priority list of the Office of Public Works. Some of these will never be done; some of them commenced previously under the old Local Authority (Works) Act but were never completed. A special case can be made for these and that is why I move this amendment.
I inquired on our deputation if it would be necessary, to satisfy the Commission or the Council, to produce a cost-benefit analysis as we do here in arranging priorities and " yes " was the answer given. If we have to produce a cost-benefit analysis the scheme will not get off the ground for quite some time. Whether that could be speeded up or not I do not know. The shortage of money, rather than the shortage of personnel, sometimes holds up a cost-benefit analysis. I do not know whether a cost-benefit analysis has been done on this particular catchment.
Some work was done under the old Local Authority (Works) Act.
There may be something that would make it easy to have a cost-benefit analysis carried out speedily.
I second the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Would the Chair agree to take my amendment?
It would of course help if it were brought in as a disadvantaged area, but I do not think it is necessary, if we are making a case in Brussels, to point out that it is not a disadvantaged area. It is an area that would benefit substantially from drainage. I do not think it is going to weaken our chances. Some of the areas we have included will be excluded. They will form their own priorities because they will provide a certain amount of money.
I visited the area on Friday and I spent all day with IFA representatives and I am satisfied that it is a case of great merit, otherwise I would not mention it here.
I move:
" After paragraph 17 to insert a new paragraph as follows:
‘ The Joint Committee also recommends that the areas to benefit from the Commission's proposals should include the parish of Lusmagh near Banagher, County Offaly, adjoining County Galway, and beside the River Shannon where land can be used for only four months of each year. In the Committee's view the speeding up of drainage operations in this parish will contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the Commission's proposals.'"
I second that amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
On page 3 the report reads:
" (b) the aid may be granted only in respect of maximum investment of 10,000 units of account (£7,390)."
That would be a new development. In our talk with Dr. John Scully it emerged that the average grant paid under the farm modernisation scheme to that category of farmer over the past three years was £2,500, which certainly would give the impression that this would be a significant increase all round. Since our meeting representations were made to me, particularly from farmers engaged in pig farming that that type of grant, even for a small farmer, was totally insignificant.
Before I leave for the division in the Seanad I should like to put a question. Do I take it from the statement made that future drainage schemes will be all based on the results of a cost-benefit analysis?
I asked this specific question: would it require a cost-benefit analysis to make a case? They said " yes ". I did it specifically to see how quickly we could get the thing off the ground. There is no serious friction. Does any other Member wish to say anything in relation to the agricultural structure draft?
Before we finish completely, in case there might be a hitch in connection with the amendment that the Committee have accepted and that the Commission may say that Lusmagh is not a disadvantaged area under the disadvantaged area scheme, would you be prepared to accept an amendment from me to the effect that Lumagh should be included in the disadvantaged areas so that we can have it both ways?
I think the Deputy would have to work on that through the Departments.
I am already at it.
It would strengthen the Deputy's case if it was recognised as a disadvantaged area.
I wonder if the Committee would ask them——
Not to have a limit or, if they have one, to have a greater amount.
It seems to me, having considered it since I returned from Brussels, that there is not a tremendous lot of sense in it. In the case of the farmer who is transitional and aiming to get into the development category, we encourage him to spend the maximum amount of money possible to get into that category.
On page 4 of the draft report we have said exactly that. In paragraph 9 the Joint Committee agrees with the Irish Farmers' Association that an investment limit of 10,000 units of account is totally unacceptable when the aid is being financed solely from national resources. We have covered it. Does that meet with the Deputy's approval? Can I take it that this is approved?
That is grand.
Draft report, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered: To report accordingly.