Vol. 107 No. 2
I move:
That Seanad Éireann pursuant to the Order of the Seanad of 13th September 1984 takes note of the Report of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities on Disadvantaged Areas which was laid before the Seanad on 12th December 1984 and which contains a request for a debate thereon.
If the Minister of State wishes to speak now, I will defer to him.
I would remind the House that it is agreed there should be a three hour debate on this motion. The opening Senator will have 30 minutes and thereafter each Member of the House will have 15 minutes.
I apologise for the absence of Deputy Connaughton, the Minister of State. This is because of the death of his mother.
I am glad to have this opportunity to put on record the position with regard to the current review of the boundaries of the disadvantaged areas. I would like to remind the House that this is the third review of the boundaries undertaken in Ireland.
The review arose out of local dissatisfaction at the outcome of the second review which the EC authorities finally agreed in January 1981. This third review, however, differs from the two previous reviews in that for the original designations and the two previous reviews the DED, the district electoral division, has been the basic unit in designating areas in Ireland under the Council directive on mountain and hill farming and farming in certain less favoured areas. This directive, designed for extensive and homogeneous areas suffering from permanent natural handicap, previously had been interpreted so far as Ireland is concerned to refer to an area covered by an appreciable number of DEDs. This had effectively ruled out the inclusion of smaller pockets of land below the level of DED and gave rise to much dissatisfaction at local level. The problem was clearly exacerbated by the irregularity of DED boundaries.
A large volume of representations was received from over 60 different areas throughout the country. These came through county committees of agriculture from farming organisations at national and local level, from ad hoc groups, from elected representatives and from individual farmers.
These interests criticised the implementation of the directive in Ireland, and claimed that certain areas were treated inequitably in not having been designated, while being of the same land quality as areas that already are designated. The representations and submissions received were concerned with the following issues:
Designation of new areas in the eastern region;
Reclassification of existing mountain sheep grazing land;
Designation of additional areas within the western region as More Severely Handicapped.
The review carried out has been by far and away the most detailed examination ever undertaken here. Substantial resources from my Department have been involved in examining the situation in more than 600 district electoral divisions comprising a total number of town-lands in excess of 10,000 and covering close to 4 million acres in every county in the country, apart from the four northwesterly counties which are already designated for the full benefits available under the scheme. In addition we have examined in detail a large volume of representations that I referred to above.
Following its examination of the results of the review, the Government made a comprehensive submission to the EC Commission on 2 August 1984 with a view to having the existing Disadvantaged Areas in Ireland extended and in certain cases reclassified. This submission has been followed up by a series of meetings with the Commission to clarify certain aspects of Ireland's application and to supply the material needed by the Commission to enable it to prepare a proposal for presentation to the Council of Ministers. This is the normal procedure followed in applications of this nature. The urgency of the matter has been stressed and the Commission has been pressed to come forward with a proposal as quickly as possible.
I have set this procedure out at some length because I do not want people to have the impression that extending the boundaries of the disadvantaged areas is only a matter of sending in a list to the Commission and that this is the end of the story. Let me remind you that the previous review was begun after the change of Government in 1977 when the new Government decided that a review was necessary. That review was not finally approved in Brussels until January 1981.
I might also mention that recent allegations concerning Ireland's submission on the disadvantaged areas are completely misleading and without foundation. They are unhelpful, and in fact, are damaging to Ireland's case. It has been alleged that our submission is inadequate and has been returned by the Commission due to lack of information. This is simply not true. The content of the present submission reflects what is the most comprehensive review of the boundaries of the disadvantaged areas ever undertaken in Ireland.
The proposals in the Government's submission relating to area reclassification require the approval of the Commission, while the addition of new disadvantaged areas necessitates a decision by the Council of Ministers. At this stage I do not propose to disclose information in relation to particular areas since this could prejudice the final outcome.
With regard to the question of extending the status of mountain areas to certain disadvantaged areas in the west of Ireland under EC Directive 75/268 this has been the subject of separate and specific representations to the EC Commission. I am continuing to press the issue, and it has been raised separately in the context of discussions which are taking place in Brussels at present on the Commission's new proposals on agricultural structures.
I would now like to say a few words on the programme for western development, or the western package as it is most commonly known. This is a particularly suitable time to have a discussion on the package since the first review of the programme is due to take place this year in consultation with the EC Commission. We can, therefore, be greatful to the joint committee not alone for giving us the benefit of their own deliberations, but also for providing an opportunity to have the subject aired more widely in the House. This year's review is very important, since it will most likely be the only chance we will have to make worth while changes in the programme, which is due to run for ten years from 1981.
It is right, of course, to look at the individual elements of the package, at land improvement, roads, afforestation etc. and see how they are progressing, but I think it is important to bear in mind that each measure contained in the package has the same objective, that is the stimulation of agricultural development in the west of Ireland. No one expects that every farmer in the region will avail of every measure in the package, but with each individual making full use of those elements which are best suited to his situation, farmers as a body will benefit and the agricultural economy of the west will be improved.
It cannot be denied that the package was an ambitious piece of legislation. It envisaged taking the whole western region, tackling its infrastructual problems, improving the land, assisting marketing and processing projects, providing better facilities for agricultural training, aiding on-farm investment and giving the farmers an opportunity for an alternative land use by aiding the afforestation of marginal land. By any standards that is an ambitious programme, and its success or failure can only be judged in the long term. Taken in conjunction with the western drainage scheme, under which the uptake exceeded all expectations, the package can confer enormous benefits on the west in the years ahead.
As I have said, at this stage we cannot judge the success or failure of the package, but I think we can reach some conclusions as to the targets we set ourselves in the programme. I am talking now, of course, about the agricultural elements of the package. By and large, progress under the other elements — electricity, roads and water — is well up to expectations. Possibly in our enthusiasm for the measure we may have set our sights a little too high on some aspects.
For instance, over the ten years the intention was to divide and improve some 60,000 hectares of commonage, but it is now clear that this target will have to be revised downwards. Similarly we were a bit optimistic about the area of hill and mountain pasture which would be improved. On the other hand, the entire 20,000 hectares of permitted intensive reclamation in the lowlands will be taken up by the middle of 1985. This is the situation which will have to be looked at in the course of this year's review.
The hardest look of all, however, will have to be taken at the on-farm investment element. This was to be the heart of the entire package, the drawing together, as it were, of the benefits of all the other elements. Uptake has been, to say the least, disappointing, with only about 1,000 participants to date. In my view, this is the element of the Western Package which most needs examination and debate because, unlike the other sectors, it is not just a question of the target not being reached but rather a lack of interest by western farmers in general in the whole concept of the orientation of production to beef and sheep.
There are those who say that the conditions of the scheme are too stringent, thus militating against its success. The fact is, however, that the scheme was made as flexible as possible within the terms of the EC regulation. Any move, say, to extend the scheme to part-time farmers would be bound to meet with the stiffest opposition from the Community, whose overall policy is to aid only those farmers for whom farming is their principal occupation. In my own view, the factor most militating against the success of this part of the programme is the traditional farming pattern in the west.
The same situation obtains in regard to private forestry, I suggest. It is not alone the Irish farmer but Irish people in general who have not shown great interest in the matter up to now. The committee have highlighted the potential of afforestation and have expressed their support for a number of proposed pilot projects. My understanding is that the idea of projects such as these was discussed at a recent seminar on private forestry organised by the Forest and Wildlife Service and that the service is very receptive to proposals of this nature and prepared to assist to the fullest possible extent when positive plans are drawn up.
One other point I would like to advert to in the committee's report is their reference to the ratio of Department of Agriculture offices in the west to the number of farm holdings. I can assure the House that the number of offices and the number of officials operating from them is considered to be adequate to provide the service necessary to western farmers and to ensure the promotion of the Western Package to the maximum extent.
As regards agricultural education, the provisions in the package for increased facilities was intended to redress the imbalance in this regard, as far as the west was concerned. Already, 11 of the envisaged 22 training centres have been opened, and it must not be forgotten that these centres also provide modern accommodation from which the ACOT advisory service can operate in the areas concerned.
I am pleased to say that the recommendation in Report No. 12 of the joint committee regarding the raising of the off-farm income limit for headage purposes has already been implemented. When announcing the arrangements for this year's sheep schemes on 18 December, I also announced that the off-farm income restriction was being raised from £3,500 to £6,400. The new limit is, in fact, the western comparable income criterion used in the Farm Modernisation Scheme, and its introduction in effect means that farmers and their spouses can have a combined off-farm income of up to £6,400 in the 1984-85 income tax year and still be eligible for headage grants under the 1985 disadvantaged areas scheme.
Many farmers who supplement their farm income with seasonal earnings from forestry or county council work, etc, and who were excluded from participation under the £3,500 limit rule will now be brought back into the disadvantaged areas scheme. On the other hand professional people and businessmen with farms or farmers with spouses working full time as teachers or nurses will continue to be excluded because of the level at which the new income limit has been set.
Much stress has been laid in the context of lifting restrictions, on the fact that the EC recoup one half of headage grants, but I would like to disabuse commentators of the idea that this confers an unlimited licence on the Government to grant concessions. Indeed I feel that it is appropriate to point out that the 50 per cent recoupment by the EC of headage payments is made in arrear in the year after the expenditure is incurred by a member state. Extra expenditure arising from an increase in rates or in participants must, therefore, be borne in full by our Exchequer in the first year, and this extra cost implied increased national taxation or borrowings in the short term.
To pay for the concession that has been granted and still keep within the Vote allocation for 1985, it has been necessary to make a small reduction of a flat £1 per head in the sheep headage grants for 1985. While the decision to increase the off-farm income limit has been generally welcomed by the farming organisations, there has been some criticism of the reduction in sheep headage rates. This aspect has been likened to "robbing Peter to pay Paul", but given that the option to incur extra Exchequer expenditure was excluded in view of the taxation implications, the only choice open to us was to cut either the sheep or cattle headage rates.
We opted for a small cut in sheep rates because the payments per livestock unit for sheep were almost double the cattle equivalent. In 1985 flockowners with 200 ewes in the disadvantaged areas will receive £1,500 in sheep headage grants whereas herdowners with 30 livestock units, equivalent to 200 ewes, will receive no more than £872 in cattle grants.
I would like to say that because this is not a normal motion being put forward by an individual party Senator Higgins and I have agreed, if the House agrees, to share the time proposed between us. Secondly, I would like to extend my sympathy and the sympathy of the House to the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Connaughton, on the death of his mother. Go ndéanadh Dia trócaire ar a hanam.
The EC Committee on Secondary Legislation were anxious for some time to have a very considered look at how the directives relating to the disadvantaged areas scheme were operating. In the context of the present time when there is a unique opportunity available to the Government as we go into the price negotiations, and with so many limitations on the capacity of individual farmers to extend their enterprises in beef, cereals and in dairying, the question of trying to do something more for the disadvantaged areas throughout the country became all the more acute.
The morale of the small farming community in poor mountainous and marginal land is very low. If one is to consider the impact of the super levy on milk production on small milk producers one will immediately understand where they cannot expand that enterprise. When it is their main enterprise, as it is on a very considerable number of these farms, some additional help, some other structural way, will have to be found to try to maintain the farming population in those regions, because there is not any other alternative employment available to them.
We should, therefore, in consideration of the report, assist the Government in taking whatever initiative they can in persuading the European Commission to not only extend the disadvantaged areas but to reclassify other areas as mountain regions. I will deal with that in more detail later. In the context of the Minister's statement we greatfully acknowledge his belated conversion on the basis of off-farm income. We have been arguing here and in the other House that the imposition, which the Government imposed shortly after coming back into power, in relation to the off-farm income, was very unfair.
The disadvantaged areas scheme and the headage payments in particular are accorded only to areas that meet very strict criteria in depopulation, poor soil and permanent handicapped features. Under that pressure many farmers or their spouses have had to seek employment off the land to try to supplement their income. We could give many examples where major schemes of investment were undertaken on these farms such as in the provision of in-winter facilities, improvement of the land, borrowing for additional stock which the agencies representing the Department of Agriculture, the ACOT advisers over the past ten or 12 years advised these farmers to get involved in and provide in-winter facilities, improve their land, fertilise it more, increase stocking rates and so on. In an effort to meet the commitments, which were greatly increased by rising interest rates in the late seventies and into the eighties, they tried to find alternative employment on a short-time basis and then found themselves in the position where they disqualified themselves as a result of a Government decision.
We welcome the fact that the Government have responded to the representations from the farming organisations and from ourselves in changing this clause. However it has a bite to it, as the Minister referred to. It is a bit like "robbing Peter to pay Paul". It is even a little more serious than that, because while there is scope for an increase in the sheep population, while it is an enterprise which has been gathering momentum, having had a very serious fall back in the late seventies — there seems to be still scope for expansion in that enterprise — nevertheless it is an enterprise which is confined to a great number of farmers who have very difficult terrains to manage. I doubt very much if the decision to reduce the payments to this category of farmers is a very fair one. I am not saying that the financial position in which the Government find themselves is not difficult and that it is not extremely difficult to provide an equitable system which will be fair to everybody but I feel that selecting a group of farmers managing in the main difficult terrain to subsidise the change in the off-farm income clause is very unfair.
To move on to the question of reclassification our committee were fortunate to have a very comprehensive report presented to us by the Connacht farmers and Donegal Co-Op on the question of the reclassification of the severely handicapped areas in Ireland to mountain status. They did, following very extensive research which they carried out on this proposal, make comparisons with the Cantal region in France.
I want to take an issue here briefly, the Minister's statement in relation to the pressure he finds himself under from groups who suggest that you can do what you like with this scheme because you are getting 50 per cent of the money from Europe. I do not think the Minister really understands what the people involved here are trying to say. I do not think that there are unlimited resources. It is that, for some reason, in our approach in Brussels we are prepared to accept what many other regions have not accepted. Here we have a prime example of where the average number of cows per holding in the Cantal region is almost one and a half times that given for County Mayo, where the cost of inputs is dearer there, where the seasonality of milk supply, which is so low in the winter time here and very high in summer, almost evens out in that region giving a consistent income for the whole year and where rationalisation and management of processing industries is so much easier. Almost on every front they have been able to demonstrate that the Cantal region has accorded to it mountain status which has not been possible for many of the areas which are severely handicapped in Ireland. One of the things the Government have got to try to do something about is the reclassification of these particular areas.
That becomes all the more urgent in the context of living in the quota system in agriculture. It is all very fine for somebody who has 100 cows. He may have a 4.6 per cent increase. Perhaps we should be talking about a different percentage, but I am not prepared to admit at this stage that the officials in the Department of Agriculture, having been involved, to some degree, in the earlier cock-up, will not find a way to win that battle, so I am staying with 4.6 per cent. If you can increase by 4.6 per cent on a farm output basis and if you are milking the average cow numbers in the disadvantaged areas, which in the Slieve Felim area of Tipperary is 14 and varies somewhat throughout the west, a 4.6 per cent increase is not worth a damn to a farmer who is developing his farm by borrowings and hoping to maintain some decent standard of living.
Therefore, in the context of the new position relating to the restrictions on output, which will not have the same detrimental affect on larger farming enterprises but is catastrophic in the small farm situation with difficult terrain, lack of facilities and without the capital to get the best out of their enterprise this will throw more people onto the labour market, which is already unable to cope with the many thousands who are coming on stream. The reclassification of that area removes the obligation on farmers to pay the co-responsibility levy, and perhaps in time, when the Commission can be persuaded, may also be a consideration in the context of the super levy situation.
The extension of the disadvantaged areas is a very hot potato. The Minister said that he has been wrongfully criticised, that this criticism has harmed him and the fact that this matter was referred back to his Department last year for additional detail has in some way damaged the situation. If that were the position, nearly every politician should retire immediately, because politicians from every party at different times have tried to highlight problems in order to heighten interest, both at home and abroad. I would not say, as one who at one time, for a very brief period, tried to represent this country in Brussels, that any positive representation in Ireland highlighting the need to make changes could be viewed as a disadvantage. If a civil servant is unable to take that kind of pressure, then I fear for him or her in the years ahead, because these pressures will not decrease. The highlighting, representation and the approach to this matter is no disadvantage to the Government.
It has to be admitted that this report is a very comprehensive review. It has covered a very wide ambit. The change from district electoral divisions to town-lands is a welcome step, because in the previous successes in 1974 and in 1981 when the district electoral division was used farmers with reasonably good land found themselves in the disadvantaged areas and small farmers with poor land adjoining these areas found themselves outside the disadvantaged areas. They obviously had a very serious grievance. The question of operating on a townland basis, while it is not foolproof, is an improvement that could involve very comprehensive investigation, and very detailed examination. I can only hope, not being privy to what has been decided, that a very good job has been done and will have the support of all parties in Ireland and in Brussels in furthering the cause for the extension of these areas. If we have any reasonable success there it will raise the morale of many of our farmers, particularly those in the areas referred to.
We referred in the report, in the context of the western package in particular, to the slow take up on private afforestation. That package, which was a major boost to the western area, has in a number of ways been quite a success. I do not think that we would want to try to indicate that everything in it has been bad. Very good improvements have been made.
In the private afforestation area we have to get over the problem, which seems to be almost peculiar to Ireland by comparison with most European countries of the very small amount of private afforestation. I do not have the figures, but I know that in many of the European countries private afforestation is almost equal to the schemes embarked on by the Government. From surveys carried out recently it would appear that the total cost in gross terms to the country for private afforestation is considerably less. Therefore, from every point of view, we must try to encourage farmers.
I know it is difficult to invest in something that will take perhaps 30 years to mature. Every stimulus must be given. All of us in public life, the Department of Agriculture and ACOT need to encourage this area much more. How we will manage these resources ultimately, the changes that will have to be made and the commercial ethos that has got to be brought into the management of our timber resources, will be much easier if there is an advance in the private area which cuts down the public sector costs and also gets the balance right.
The Minister said that he was disappointed about the commonage development. Perhaps I am living in cuckoo land, but I have a strange recollection that the Government abolished the Land Commission, introduced a potential land tax and asked the people in the Land Commission that they should be responsible for providing the base for the introduction of the land tax. It is difficult to be in two places at one time. If you are dividing a commonage, with all the difficulties in getting farmers to agree on the problems in relation to fencing, roadways, divisions and the problems relating to disease eradication you are expecting these men not only to be in two places at one time but to be magicians. We do not have the men on the ground to do that any more. They are doing a different job. That is probably the reason that is happening. I see the Minister shaking his head, but I will await his reply and I will take some convincing on it on the basis of what I see happening in my own constituency.
We are anxious in the main to support the Government on this question of extending the disadvantaged areas scheme, of the reclassification of the severely handicapped to mountain status, and will be glad over the next few months to highlight everywhere we can the domestic pressure that is on us from small and poor farming territory for improvement of these existing schemes.
I second the motion. I want to thank Senator Smith for agreeing to allocate the balance of his time to me and also the Chair for agreeing to the arrangement. I, like Senator Smith, welcome the report for many reasons, particularly for its sense of timing. Decisions which are vital for agricultural development at all levels are in the process of formulation by the European Commission at this very moment. The consequences of these restructuring decisions will be far-reaching. I would go so far as to say that within the context of these deliberations lies the fate of thousands of small farmers on our western seaboard. It is important, therefore, that this House add its voice, as Senator Smith has said, in support of the twin case now being made by the Minister for Agriculture. Firstly, there is the case for reclassification of certain areas of the west now designated by the EC as severely handicapped, areas meriting similar aids to those classified as mountain areas with the Community. Secondly, — this is the area that we have also a joint interest in — that there be quite a considerable extension of the boundaries of the areas now classified as disadvantaged.
I want to congratulate Deputy Joe Walsh and his agricultural committee for producing a concise but nonetheless comprehensive critical appraisal of the various EC directives under which various disadvantaged areas schemes have operated here. I want particularly to commend the document for substantially reinforcing the case for reclassification on the one hand and extension of the disadvantaged areas on the other.
EC Directive 268/75 is a lifeline for thousands of small farmers in this country. To many it offers the best hope of survival at the present level. To others it is the preservation of their very role in Irish working society. The people whom this directive defends have as much right to the protective mechanisms enshrined in the directive as those farmers who on size element alone can be categorised as commercial. It is appropriate also that the submission for reclassification on the one hand and for the extension of the disadvantaged areas boundaries on the other hand should be made jointly and should be kept side by side right throughout the negotiations. It is quite obvious that if one is conceded then cross-country synchronisation will have to take place in relation to the other.
At present Directive 268 classifies the less favoured areas of the EC into two main categories, those defined as mountain areas under Article 33 from which Ireland is totally excluded, and those defined under Article 34 as hill or lowland areas which are better known as disadvantaged areas and to which this document directly relates. The latter areas merit their status because of the danger of depopulation and the presence of land of limited potential from which economic results are appreciably below average.
From the point of view of grant aid the disadvantaged areas are further subdivided. Counties Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo and Mayo together with parts of Monaghan, Cavan, Longford, Roscommon, West Galway and South Galway, most of Clare, Kerry, West Cork and small areas of West Limerick and Tipperary are called severely handicapped. The joint committee's report does a very thorough assessment of the merits and success of the various schemes relevant to both the severely handicapped and the disadvantaged areas. There is no doubt but that the system of headage payments is the most important single aid in augmenting farmers' incomes in these areas.
I welcome the commitment of the Minister to two facets of the scheme. First, there is the very vexed question of off-farm income, referred to already by Senator Smith, of a derisory £3,500 being the threshold above which payment can be made. I welcome sincerely the pre-Christmas commitment by the Minister to raising the eligibility limit to £6,400. However, I am totally against the idea of penalising part-time farmers if their off-farm incomes are above a certain level. When will people in power in this country and in Europe realise once and for all that there are thousands and thousands of part-time farmers in the west, that these people are part and parcel of the social and economic fabric of rural Ireland, that they work very hard in their off-farm jobs and long hours on the farm before and after their off-farm jobs in order to try to make ends meet? These people do their jobs both on and off the farm efficiently. They do not keep down off-farm jobs simply for greed but because the combination of a job with the running of a small farm is an economic must for thousands of families in the part of Ireland that I come from.
While I welcome the increase in the eligibility limit I am afraid that, unfortunately, by the time the £6,400 threshold actually comes into operation the probability is that the wages of a county council labourer will have actually outstripped that figure, thereby debarring that person once again. I urge the Minister to index-link the limit on an annual basis so that the off-farm entitlement will keep pace with the prevailing and relevant economic conditions of the day. I want to again record my appreciation and indeed that of the people of the west in general to the commitment of the national plan to increase headage payments from £32 to £70 per beef cow. It represents the greatest single income boost that western farmers will have received.
We are now almost at the half way mark in the programme for western development known as the western package implemented under Council Directive No. 1820/80. This ten year programme which was introduced in June 1980 has certainly done a lot of good. Its purpose is the stimulation of agricultural development in the less favoured areas of the west. The scheme has been thoroughly appraised by the Minister of State and has been thoroughly analysed in the joint committee's report. I know from personal contact with people that many people have benefited from the 80 per cent grant aid scheme for the provision of electricity on farms for the installation of three phased supply etc.
Thousands of people in rural Ireland have benefited from a similar level of grant aid for private group water schemes. I fully acknowledge that the grants of up to £600 for domestic supply and £400 for farm supply are generous and that they have enabled a reliable piped water supply scheme to become a reality for the vast majority. However, I submit that there is a minority of somewhere between 10 and possibly 20 per cent who still have not water on tap and will never have such, not because they have refused to participate but because of the remoteness of their dwellings. This makes the level of personal contribution simply too prohibitive for them. I can cite dozens of examples of applicants who would have to pay up to £1,500 on top of the normal grants. I can straight away recall two households with mentally handicapped adults which will never have running water unless the grant levels for extremely disadvantaged areas are dramatically increased.
I would certainly say that the works carried out under the local improvements scheme have benefited rural areas enormously. Accessibility to farm houses has been greatly facilitated. Small drainage schemes benefiting hundreds of farmers, not included in the Office of Public Works scheme, have been carried out. In view of the fact that the FEOGA scheme reimburses the Exchequer by 50 per cent, as has been mentioned by the Minister of State, I would urge that the Government make maximum use of it in view of the limited life-span of the scheme.
The report records its satisfaction at the success of the scheme for commonage division. There are some reservations in relation to follow-up, and I would agree with those. There is also ample evidence that mountain and hill-land pasture improvement work is below target. One of the most disappointing aspects of the package is the orientation of agricultural production. One of the main reasons for its failure is the restriction on investment in dairying; also the obligation to keep accounts and the fact that the calf-to-beef scheme is applicable only where there is borrowing. The chances of success would be greatly enhanced if there was a direct payment and also if a calf-to-store scheme was introduced which undoubtedly would be more suited to conditions prevailing in the west.
As has been mentioned, the level of uptake in afforestation has been disappointing. Grants of 85 per cent for farmers and 75 per cent for others are certainly by any standards attractive. One must conclude, therefore, that there is a need for a massive educational and publicity drive in order to sell the idea once and for all, particularly in areas which are regarded as marginal for agricultural production. These can be among the most productive for tree growth in western Europe.
The prospect is enhanced by the conclusion that there is likely to be an ongoing deficiency of timber within the EC. We have even the potential to develop a substantial export market to other EC countries with the consequential beneficial effects on our balance of payments. The ICOS idea of two pilot projects mentioned in the plan — one for the Leitrim-East Sligo-Donegal area and the other for County Clare — is an excellent idea which, if implemented, should certainly help to eliminate the quite understandable prejudices which people have towards committing their land and their resources to a project which will not see fruition within an average lifetime.
The western package has been making £5.2 million available each year since 1980 under the FEOGA scheme for improving facilities for marketing and the processing of agricultural products. The bulk of this money has gone to the meat industry. The grant level applies at 50 per cent as against 25 per cent elsewhere. Unfortunately, the scheme ends this year. I want to be critical here, because I venture to suggest that only a fraction of this money has been spent in actual processing. Meat factories seem, by and large, to concentrate on the preparation for export of carcase beef and lamb as against the actual development of the processing of the meat itself. While a substantial number of jobs have been created in meat plants, which are certainly welcome, they are minimal in comparison to the potential to be derived from jointing, vacuum package, canning and other areas of processing.
As I said earlier, this element of the package expires this year with a vast processing potential largely unrealised. I would urge that every effort should be made to obtain a further extension of the scheme but with a commitment to the tightening of the application of the criteria in order to maximise job creation.
One of the outstanding successes of our EC participation has been the operation of the western drainage scheme under Directive 78/628. I re-echo the joint committee's satisfaction at the bringing into agricultural production of 150,000 hectares of land which was waterlogged, useless and would be there for posterity. Marvellous work has been done under this scheme. I welcome the commitment by the Minister to, at last, deal with the 2,000 cases which are now on file and which have not been dealt with.
One of the ongoing arguments about our participation in the European Community has been, undoubtedly, that large sections of Ireland have been wrongly classified. Two previous boundary examinations took place and no change was effected. As has been stated by the Minister of State, in June 1981, the Government announced a third review. It is pretty comprehensive. Six hundred district electoral areas had been thoroughly examined. On 2 August 1984 the Government made a comprehensive submission to the EC with a view to having two objectives met, first, the existing disadvantaged areas extended and, secondly, certain disadvantaged areas reclassified, the former requiring the consent of the Council of Ministers and the latter the consent of the Commission.
The Commission sought further data, and this has been forwarded and is now under consideration. There is little doubt that there is every justification for extending the disadvantaged area boundaries. There are large tracts of unclassified land. Some of these tracts are contiguous to very good land and should have been classified as disadvantaged areas initially but because they embraced the handicaps and disadvantages which apply to western areas and are shown as green in the back of the report, for some reason or other these have been left out.
I want to underline my total commitment to this case. I also want to emphasise that as somebody representing the area classified as severely handicapped — I think it is shown in brown on the back of the report — I would be dismayed and disappointed if our negotiators succeed in having the boundaries extended and if they fail to convince the people of Brussels of the justification of reclassifying severely handicapped areas of the west for special aid purposes. I believe that both cases are inexplicably bound together.
Earlier, I referred to article 3.3 of Directive 268 which conferred mountain areas status with all its consequent benefits on substantial areas of our EC allied countries. The Pyrenees slopes are so classified, the Auvergne plateau in France, the Alpine slopes, the entire stretch of the Appenines in Italy into Sicily, the entire island of Corsica, substantial portions of Sardinia, the slopes of the Vosges and Jura mountains of France, the Black Forest slopes in Germany. These mountain areas are so defined because there are considerable limitations on the possibility of using the land and an appreciable increase in the cost of working it due to altitude. There are difficult climatic conditions, shorter growing seasons, slopes too steep for machinery or any special machinery. Altitude quite clearly, therefore, took precedence even though climatic conditions and the potential for grass-production are quite clearly superior in many areas with a high altitude than those applying to the severely handicapped areas of this country.
In October, 1980, as Senator Smith has stated, the North Connacht Farmers Cooperative Society together with Donegal creamery visited the Cantal area of France, which is a mountain area as defined under, Directive 75/268EEC. The purpose of the visit was to examine the measures which had been taken there to develop agriculture so that these measures could be implemented in the severely handicapped areas of Ireland. The Cantal is almost identical to Country Mayo, which is typical of our severely handicapped areas, so that direct, valid comparisons are possible.
The study arrives at some startling conclusions which serve to highlight further the case for reclassification. The Cantal has a higher population density of 74.7 per square mile as against 54.7 in Country Mayo. Sixty-seven per cent of the land in the Cantal area can be utilised as against 46 per cent in Mayo. The annual rainfall in the Cantal region is 48 inches as against 55 inches in Mayo. The average mean temperature in the Cantal is 9.35 centigrade as against 9 centigrade in Mayo. Cantal has 2,061 mean sunshine hours against 1,202 hours in County Mayo. The Cantal growing season is five and a half months as against six months in County Mayo, a mere 15 days difference. The average size of a holding in the Cantal region is 90 acres as against 36 acres in County Mayo. A figure of 77.2 per cent of farmers in the Cantal region produce milk as against 22.7 per cent in Mayo. The average milk per supplier in 1980 was 9,397 gallons in the Cantal region as against 4,573 in County Mayo, the average yield per cow in the Cantal region is 550 gallons as against 480 gallons in County Mayo. The total cow herd in the Cantal region is 220,000 as against 100,000 in County Mayo.
Finally, the gross agricultural output of the Cantal is £100 million as against £55 million in County Mayo. This figure was obtained three years ago and the ratio I believe still obtains. It is patently obvious, therefore, that the French province is far ahead in virtually every respect of its west of Ireland counterpart county and that the EC has a case to answer on this question. I do not begrudge the farmers of the Cantal their benefits and success; indeed, long may they continue to arrive at such very impressive targets, goals and yields and to set headlines for the rest of us. Those French farmers would readily admit that the primary stimuli which have aided their development have been the combination of grants and interest subsidies which have placed them in a special category. In 1980 farm buildings were grant-aided to the extent of 25 per cent; loans were made available for buildings and equipment at a mere 3¼ per cent over a 15-year period; loans for livestock were given at 4 per cent over nine years and for machinery at 4 per cent over seven years. Compare these figures with the prevailing interest rates which are being charged by the lending agencies here and one will understand the level of development that has taken place there.
Every single farm in the Cantal has accessibility and has a tarred road leading into it. Compare this with County Mayo where each county councillor sees an allocation for this type of work which will tar a princely one and a quarter miles per annum and where long winding paths are still the only means of access to a large number of farms. I do not know the exact statistics, but not more than 25 per cent of farmers in County Mayo have telephones; in the Cantal every single farm has one, again, as a result of grant-aid. I do not doubt that the remoteness, isolation and the absence of telephones for emergency contacts is a major contributory factor in the escalation of the number of attacks on people in rural areas of my county and of our province. Surely telephones should rank in equal importance to any other form of infrastructural development.
I have before me the 1984 December edition of the North Connacht Farmers Magazine. Again, the heading is: “Time to Cut Back”. In the Cantal they have no super levy and no co-responsibility levy. I do not begrudge those farmers their benefits, but we have every moral justification in seeking an equal category for the farmers of County Mayo and the western seaboard in general.
I should like to compliment the Minister of State and the Minister for the various initiatives which they have taken in relation to land policy, such as land leasing and so on. However, the farm retirement scheme has not worked; it has been an abysmal failure because the rules were too rigid and the level of flexibility was inadequate. The result has been in County Mayo, for example, and indeed throughout the whole country, we have an aging farm population with no encouragement whatever for people to transfer their land. In the Cantal, on the other hand, they themselves managed to supplement the existing EC farm retirement scheme with the result that the entire age structure and farm demographic structure has changed very favourably.
There is only one way in which the benefits of the Cantal can be applied to County Mayo and the western seaboard, and that is by the EC Commission agreeing to extend Article 3 of Directive 75.268 by adding the following paragraph:
That the severely handicapped areas which have similar limitations of the possibilities of use as mountain areas due to a combination of climatological factors, of high precipitation and in wind speed, low air temperature, rapid transpiration, with soils of low permeability, the effect of which is to substantially shorten the growing season and to limit the possibilities for using the land.
If this insert or addendum is put into the existing directive, then areas of the west of Ireland can be so classified and designated and can benefit from it. I urge the Minister of State to do so. I sincerely hope that this is the general thrust of the submission which has been made by the Minister and his officials and that it is being pursued vigorously by them. There is no moral justifiable reason, as I have stated earlier, for denying those special aids which have been given to the Cantal to the areas which are on the furthermost insular perimiter of the Community. We await the outcome.
It is not now that we should be crying and shouting about the disadvantaged areas: it is ten years too late. If anybody looks back to the time when we entered the EC when these areas were designated, these were the areas that were agreed by the then Minister for Agriculture. It is a pity that at that stage there was not as much concern expressed by members on Senator J. Higgins' side of the House as there is today.
When we examine the various incentives that are available in the disadvantaged areas we see that as a country we are not making full use of what is already available to us. It is sad that we have not been in a position to take up the maximum headage grants that are available.
I am surprised to hear Senator Higgins talk so much about the restrictions that were imposed on farmers with regard to income limits: he must have a very short memory; he should remember that these limits were imposed by his own party — they reduced the income limit to £3,500, and now they have seen the light at last and have realised that for people to survive in the disadvantaged areas they need at least to receive the maximum that they can be paid and that the income limits had to be raised. There is no reason why they were reduced except that it was Government policy. It has been Government policy for the past two years to downgrade the status of the west of Ireland and to regard the disadvantaged areas as areas not to be bothered about in electoral terms and therefore those areas will suffer as time goes on.
There is great praise for what is going to be done; we hear that the beef-cow grant will be increased to £70. It will be increased in 1986 if this Government are still in office and before that time I would hope if there is a change of Government. That incentive is coming at a time when the suckler cows will have been long hanging by their heels, long tanned and exported. In other words, it is a case of closing the stable door when the horse has gone. The farmers who depended on this type of income, depended on sucklings for a living are no longer in business. There is nothing to blame for this except the Government's inability for the past two years to do anything about this and their lack of concern.
We hear about increases in headage payments, and changes in the sheep headage payments. Does the Minister of State realise that the last increases that were given in the headage payments were given in 1981? Yet, we see farmers now receiving half of what their maximum entitlement would be under the disadvantaged areas headage payment scheme. I call on the Minister to ask the Government to make available the necessary funds to back-up what is available from the EC through the Common Agricultural Policy for the payment of headage grants. We heard platitudes about the various schemes that are there. Farmers are not in a position in many cases to take up these schemes; they have not got the financial resources, and until such time as farmers in the disadvantaged areas have money available to them at the same rate as that which is available to their counterparts in Europe, there is no way in which they can develop or borrow money to develop.
Agriculture cannot afford to borrow at 15 per cent or 16 per cent, which are the rates that are being charged by the lending institutions today. There is no hope for farming in any part of the country — disadvantaged or otherwise — until such time as agriculture has available to it finance at no more than 10 per cent: that is the economic barrier. After that, as far as agriculture is concerned, money is a burden on the farmer who borrows it over those rates. The Government have decided that they may not renew the hardship funds scheme which was available to farmers who are in need of a rescue package.
I should like to ask the Minister of State to ask the Minister to allow that package to carry on for the next three to five years. If we do not take those farmers out of a rut they will not be there to produce or to give of their best. They will go bankrupt because they will not be in a position to carry on. We hear great platitudes about many of the things that are available, farm grants for buildings; 35 per cent is ridiculous as far as farm grants are concerned. I ask that an earnest attempt be made to introduce a realistic grant for farm buildings in the disadvantaged areas. All the subsidies that are now being paid are of very little benefit to them. When one sees the cuts that have come on the other side such as the cuts in the budget for ACOT, you realise that many farmers in the disadvantaged areas will not be able to get the advice of their ACOT advisers because of the reduction in the numbers of advisers and the reduction in the funds that have been made available to ACOT.
Then we wonder how we can improve the lot of the farmers in the disadvantaged areas and in the country in general. These farmers are not in a position to provide from their own resources the necessary advice which they need. I should like to ask the Minister of State to prepare a special package for farmers in the disadvantaged areas, to provide them with the necessary back-up facilities and know-how to allow them to develop their farms. Maximum use of the EC has not been made in the past ten years; it has not been fully exploited as far as farming is concerned. We have seen bits of schemes which have been used as hand-outs — I call them supplementary incomes — to try to keep them rather than have them forced on to the dole or forced into a position well below the breadline.
With regard to EC schemes in connection with the ESB, those schemes should be made available to anybody who builds a house within the disadvantaged areas irrespective of whether they are farmers or not. If the area is disadvantaged it is disadvantaged in every way, in regard to roads, and its inhabitants, many of whom are much older than those living in the eastern part of the country. Incentives will have to be given to people to set up homes and to make their living in the disadvantaged areas.
Much of the money which was earmarked by the EC for direct income to farmers in the west was lost in transit. We have seen EC schemes operate totally differently north and south of the Border. I live close enough to the Border to see that farmers in Northern Ireland have fared much better in the disadvantaged areas than have farmers in the west. Farmers in the North have concrete roads to their houses provided practically free due to EC aid. Yet a farmer here who wants a road to his house will have to wait for the LIS aid. This is the last year for money being channelled in that direction, so I would ask the Minister to see to it that this scheme is renewed, but also to see to it that the money that is provided for farm roadways goes directly to farm roadways and is not used to subvent the national budget for county roads as is being done at the moment. The money which is made available to the Department of Forestry for forestry roads is coming through the EC but it is not finishing up where it is meant to finish, namely, in providing forest roads.
The water scheme grants of 80 per cent are available at the moment in the disadvantaged areas, but the cost of providing the average group scheme is much higher than it would be in other parts of the country due to lack of population. The maximum of £600 per house or £400 per potential farm supply should be increased, because there is a definite need for this money to be made available in larger quantities. If we can have 90 per cent in the Gaeltacht why can we not have 90 per cent in the total area? I agree totally with Senator Higgins' idea that the disadvantaged areas should be reclassified. The disadvantages we have in comparison with our counterparts in Europe are enormous: we are at the furthest point as far as Europe is concerned and everything we produce must carry the extra expense of being transported to the markets right across Europe. We also have very poor land which is just about able to give one-third to one-fifth of what good land is able to give. Yet the farmers are not being given the necessary help to develop it, to provide the infrastructure that is required if we are to develop it.
With regard to the prospect of afforestation, I hope it will be controlled in the disadvantaged areas and not be allowed to run wild, as is happening at the moment, where private forestry is taking up land which could be used much better by farmers in the area. The net result will be that there will be a decline in the farming population in the disadvantaged areas. Also, the sons of farmers who enter agricultural colleges should be given the same facilities as were available down the years, which meant that they were given free grants to educate them to farm. After all, if the parents come within the means for a third level grant they will be given the grant; yet if a farmer decides that his son should attend an agricultural college, he has to pay. It is sad that this should be the position.
I hope the Government will see to it that money which is designated for the disadvantaged areas goes in its entirety to the disadvantaged areas. The western package must be continued. With regard to drainage, we hear that the western drainage scheme will come back into play in 1986. We all know that delaying tactics of this kind will hinder the development of a disadvantaged area. If there is to be any real development there we must have it classified in the same way as the Cantal region in France. The preparation that was done by north Connacht farmers is very good, but why cannot the Minister sell this package to his colleagues in Europe to allow for the reclassification of this area? If he was able to do that he would then be able to sell a case for having up to 80 per cent of the country classified as disadvantaged so that many parts of it not classified at present as disadvantaged would be included.
I hope the Minister of State will convey to his colleague, Deputy Connaughton, Minister of State, some of the points of view which I have expressed. It is regrettable that Senator Connaughton cannot be here due to a family bereavement. It is a pity that this has to be taken in his absence, but I hope the Minister will convey to him some of the points made here. After all, if we do not decide now to do something with the disadvantaged areas of the west the opportunity will be lost. They have been classed as being disadvantaged by all Governments because they introduced unemployment assistance in those areas years ago to supplement farmers' incomes. This is now being taken away from them on the pretext that the incomes from Europe under headage schemes — which are being paid at half rate — and other schemes will supplement their income. We should press here for the reclassification of the present area and press for the classification of the entire country possibly as disadvantaged. Whether we like it or not we are disadvantaged in comparison with our counterparts in Europe.
