Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Feb 1986

Vol. 111 No. 6

Report of Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EC—Crisis in Farming, Summer 1985: Motion.

Mr. McDonald

I move:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of Report No. 21 of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities: Crisis in Farming Summer 1985.

Last year we had quite an unusual situation whereby, in the main, adverse weather conditions caused a crisis in farming. The effectiveness of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the EC was demonstrated by their being able to address themselves to a problem that was causing severe financial hardship and a considerable amount of worry to large numbers of farmers in every part of the country. It was encouraging and quite an experience to find that the Joint Committee proved so successful in highlighting the worries of many people and being able to marshal the support and the advice of the many different interest groups and, at the same time, to channel their combined views not only to the appropriate Government Department but to the European Community as well.

The joint committee, when considering this subject, were conscious of the circumscribing limitations of their order of reference. While some of the areas covered can justifiably be held to be on the periphery of the Joint Committee's mandate, nevertheless, Community measures, particularly the Directive No. 268 of 1975 on mountain and hill farming and farming in less favoured areas, must place the subject well within the ambit of the orders of reference of the Joint Committee. This contention is fortified by the fact that the European Parliament itself considered motions on the Irish farming crisis from four political groups and adopted a compromise resolution that was subscribed to by all the Irish MEPs, from both North and South. I wish to place that resolution on the record of the House because it is very much tied up with the work of the joint committee.

I should like to quote Resolution No. 1 on Bad Weather in Ireland, as placed before the European Parliament:

(a) Having regard to the unparalleled crisis situation facing the farming community in Ireland, both North and South, following the disastrous summer weather of unprecedented rainfalls and storms,

(b) Conscious that a very high proportion of the Irish economy is directly dependent on agriculture — more so than in any other Member State,

(c) Aware also of the unprecedented devastation in many parts of the country to tillage crops and hundreds of animals killed following freak thunder, lightning and hail storms in July,

(d) Conscious that these disastrous weather conditions have led to the wholesale destruction of vital winter feed which cannot now be retrieved and to the drastic fall in livestock prices due to inevitable glut market conditions for cattle,

(e) Aware also of the disastrous losses in the cereal harvest, the destruction of the potato crop due to severe blight conditions and major losses suffered in the horticultural industry, all of which have resulted in significant reductions in farm incomes which cannot now be recovered,

(f) Whereas some individual farmers have suffered total loss of crops,

(g) Aware that Irish farmers are on average amongst the poorest in the Community and that this disaster will continue to aggravate their position for the coming years,

(1) Urges both the Commission and the Council to recognise the seriousness of the present farming crisis in Ireland;

(2) Calls on other Member States to demonstrate their solidarity by supporting special measures of assistance to Irish farmers both North and South;

(3) Urgently requests the Commission and the Council to grant emergency aid to the affected areas and to propose appropriate measures to reduce the social and economic consequences of the disaster;

(4) Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council and the Irish and UK Governments.

This resolution was subscribed to by all the Irish MEPs, both North and South, and in its own way it underlined the serious view that so many people took of the situation and the desire of so many people to ensure that the infrastructures and the legislation that is available, not only in the home country but in Europe also, should be brought to bear to come to the rescue of so many people who suffered the consequences of last summer.

The report before the House was prepared for the Joint Committee by our sub-committee on agriculture and fishery matters. It certainly measures up to the high standard of expertise we are able to assemble on all our reports. We must be very conscious of the co-operation which we received from all the interested parties. The Joint Committee in this report have expressed their thanks to ACOT, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association, the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society and the Irish Farmers' Association. These bodies also made written submissions to the Joint Committee which were very helpful and useful in the compilation of the report.

The Joint Committee had the benefit of both oral and written submissions from the Department of Agriculture. We are very appreciative of the Department's and the Minister's co-operation right through the entire problem.

The loss of greatest concern was that of fodder for livestock due to the prolonged heavy rainfall. While hay constitutes a decreasing proportion of winter fodder supply — currently about 40 per cent as against 60 per cent for silage — last year's widespread loss of hay and to a much lesser extent of silage quality, which was not so dependent on good weather for successful harvesting, poses a very real threat of a severe loss of winter fodder this year. Almost all of the larger, more progressive farmers across the country, have changed in recent times to silage making. But a large number of farmers, particularly the smaller ones, perhaps especially in the western counties, adhere to haymaking. In the south-western counties only about 20 per cent of the hay crop was secured and much of this proved to be of very poor quality.

Even in the midlands, where these losses were not as catastrophic, they have been severe. It is my experience that this year's quality of hay is very poor. One of the most alarming side-effects of this is the number of farmers who in the normal course of handling hay and feeding it to cattle are suffering severe bouts of influenza or respiratory diseases. This over the last number of weeks has been causing quite a problem on many farms. This has not been as bad since the difficult harvest of 1948, when hay was mouldy. It was not baled at that time and it was not so obvious a problem.

The north-western counties would be the most severely affected. In counties Mayo, Leitrim and Donegal about 70 per cent of the forage is hay. Weather conditions there are particularly bad. For the many farmers affected the loss of hay last year was, indeed, of crisis proportions. The lack of adequate fodder means they are having to sell off stock earlier than usual with consequent loss to farmers.

In an effort to relieve this serious situation the Minister for Agriculture announced, on 8 August last, a nitrogen fertiliser subsidy scheme and a subsidy for first-time silage makers at a total estimated cost last year in excess of £2.5 million which was met, we are told, from savings in the agricultural Vote. Given better weather, it was envisaged that the fertiliser would induce growth of grass sufficient to enable the farmers concerned to take a late cut of silage. That happened in some areas, but it was not possible in many others.

In the case of the cereal harvest, damage to grain from sprouting due to humid conditions in wheat was widespread. However, an improvement in weather conditions towards the end of the season enabled crops to be harvested. Yields were well below normal and grain quality was generally poor, especially in the case of wheat. There was, indeed, very little wheat paid for at the milling price. In all, 1985 was not a profitable year for tillage farmers. Most families engaged in tillage have carried severe losses into 1986.

The subsidies and grants for first-time silage were estimated to have attracted 15,000 to 20,000 farmers. I understand with regard to the fertiliser subsidy that about 10,000 farmers might have benefited from it. That is of significant help with the entire problem. We must be conscious of the prompt response of the Minister for Agriculture and the Government in this regard. It certainly softens the blow in most quarters. Of course, no matter how much money can be given on a national scale like that, it could never be sufficient to compensate for the losses and destruction. Nevertheless, it was well worthwhile. The Department's representatives gave the Joint Committee details of the rescue measures for the farmers in the Shannon valley. There are cash payments based on livestock units, with a maximum payment of £500 in any one case. The offer of Community grain was considered by the Government and organised. It has been of considerable benefit in the disadvantaged areas as well.

I would like to put on the record that I very much appreciate the fact that last year was the first time any Government came with financial aid to farmers who have been affected by persistent flooding in the Shannon valley. Regarding the flooding in the Shannon valley, on the western bank, where the farmers are all in the disadvantaged areas, they have whatever benefits can be taken from the larger grants. On the eastern bank, in Offaly, people do not see their land for at least five months of every year. That is no exaggeration. It just disappears in October and November, and with a little bit of luck it might reappear at the end of April or May. I want to compliment Deputy Deasy, the Minister for Agriculture, and the Government in general for recognising for the first time the plight of so many farmers, large and small, in that area. Up to a few years ago these people got absolutely no compensation or redress for the fact that they still paid rates on every one of those acres, while the rates were in force.

It has been well established that as a result of the bad weather the situation in Irish farming reached disaster proportions. That has been accepted, both nationally and internationally. The delegation from the Joint Committee who visited Brussels came away with the impression that this view was also shared at Community level. The case was copperfastened by the visit of the Commission's Director General for Agriculture when he visited Ireland on 11 September to make an on the spot assessment for Commissioner Andriessen. The delegates who visited Brussels came quickly to the conclusion that the Community Disaster Fund was not the appropriate vehicle to rescue Irish farmers, being limited in resources to approximately IR £2 million. Our delegation learned from Commission officials that the idea behind the disaster fund was mainly compensation for personal injuries arising from natural disasters. While it could be argued that the Irish farming situation, particularly in the Shannon valley, could justifiably be classified under this heading, the size of the fund ruled it out as being very effective.

Intervention is another area that could be invoked to aid the beef sector. Many farmers, when they did not have grass to continue on gazing their stock, were forced, in the earlier part of the summer or the earlier part of the autumn, to sell out. The joint committee understood that in the past intervention rules have been adopted on a regional basis in the Community to deal with specific problems. They urged that a similar course be sought for this country, as it was felt that at that time this could, perhaps, help to halt the side in beef prices and stabilise farm incomes. Most fair-minded people will recognise the achievements of our Minister for Agriculture in negotiating a helpful deal in that regard towards the end of the autumn and in making the testing regulations a little easier on the ordinary farmer.

The Joint Committee, acknowledged the advantage of intervention grain from the Community both as a relief measure to Irish farming and as a solution to mounting surpluses in the Community. This scheme could be very effective if low-interest Euro-loans were made available to purchase it. Underwriting of exchange risks and the waiving of handling charges by the banks would sharpen the impact of the scheme. The Joint Committee welcome the intention of the Government not to limit the application of Community grain to any one area, but hopes that this scheme will not be the only response to the farmers' problem. The release of the grain in the Irish market was something which the committee thought should be carefully controlled.

As regards the operation of the scheme, the Department, the Minister and his officials deserve the thanks of all concerned. They have done an excellent job in a very short time. It demonstrates the flexibility within the Department to be able to handle and take on board fairly substantial schemes at the shortest of notice. Our thanks are due to the Minister and his officials both at headquarters and, indeed, at county and regional levels. At Community level the grant of FEOGA schemes should be examined with a view to seeking a balanced solution to the problems in farming, which has fallen victim to unprecedented weather conditions.

The joint committee are convinced that no single measure will provide an adequate remedy. The problem must be attacked on several fronts. The Irish economy, as an integral part of the Community economy, is still heavily dependent on agriculture, accounting for up to 40 per cent of our exports. Confidence in Irish agriculture has been badly shaken. The Community should do all it can to restore this confidence. A big problem in Irish agriculture has been the shrinking profit margins, and with a disaster such as the weather imposed on the industry last year nobody can be blamed for this problem. Since farming in the main is in the realm of the self-employed, medium term policies should be introduced to give the industry the lift-off it needs. One of the greatest problems with aid in a disastrous situation such as this — and one the Department handled quite adequately — was being in a position to pinpoint the enormity of the situation. Despite the magnitude of the problem facing farmers last summer many managed to save their crops and provide fodder. The problem is that in looking at the situation now a considerable percentage of fodder is of an inferior quality. The experience of many farmers is that the cattle prefer the barley straw being used for bedding purposes in preference to the hay. That is an indication of the losses farmers will suffer because straw is only providing fibre. Farmers who cannot feed adequate fodder this year will not achieve satisfactory weight gains in their herds.

The Joint Committee feels that there are many lessons to be learned from the experiences of last summer. The farmers over-relying on hay instead of switching to a higher percentage of silage and the outwintering of cattle caused serious problems. While the farmers could not have anticipated the unusual severity of the weather, it must be acknowledged that many farmers are ill-equipped to deal with it. Group and co-operative fodder schemes must now be a high priority. Drainage schemes with the aid of Community funds must also be considered in the long term, and extended and pursued with renewed vigor in order to prevent or lessen the impact of disasters such as that which befell the Shannon valley. The drainage of the Shannon valley is a subject I do not wish to go into, because elections have been won and lost on it for the last 50 years. Nevertheless, there is an underlying problem. At least the farmers do not have to pay rates on those lands. We look forward to a very fair and understanding system when the officials come to adjust the acres for the proposed land tax. The fact that this land is submerged for several months of every year will, indeed, be taken into account.

The committee have noted the galvanising effect that the farming crisis has had on farming organisations and are reassured by their unity of approach to the problem. They agree that the measures to deal with the problem were well co-ordinated through the ACOT offices. Our committee, while not wishing to stray outside the terms of reference, think that it would not be injudicious to refer summarily to the non-Community measures which were advocated by farming bodies in their submission. Those included the social welfare payments and the use of unoccupied factory space for fodder storage. Perhaps when all the agencies are not under pressure, as they were at the end of 1985, it might be an idea at some stage to look at the problems and see how all those infrastructural facilities could be put to use in the interest of the community as a whole.

I compliment and thank the Minister for Agriculture and the Government for addressing this problem and recognising the plight of so many farmers last year and for allocating considerable funds to alleviate the hardship. Government measures were successfully introduced last year. On 8 August, the nitrogen fertiliser subsidy was introduced at the rate of £35 per tonne of high nitrogen fertiliser. This was made available to farmers who purchased the fertiliser between the first week in August and the end of August. The only restriction in the scheme was to limit it to farmers with not more than 30 cows or 50 cattle. Despite some gloomy forecasts, 24,000 applications for the subsidy were received. The vast bulk were paid at a cost of over £600,000 to the

Exchequer. The second national measure was the silage subsidy at a rate of £4 per tonne, subject to a maximum of 50 tonnes per farmer in respect of silage made before 8 November on farms where silage had not been previously made.

The response to the scheme exceeded the expectations of the Minister and his officials. Over 30,000 farmers applied for the subsidy. Over 9,000 applicants were paid before the end of the year. The cost of that scheme exceeded £6 million. The original estimate was very much smaller. On 6 September arrangements were announced for the payment to farmers in the Shannon valley affected by the floods of the sum of £20 per livestock unit up to a maximum of 25 livestock units per farmer, with a maximum payment of £500. These payments were very welcome. It was the first time that any Government recognised the problem of the long-suffering farmers in the Shannon valley. They certainly proved helpful to many of them. I am not saying that the amount of money provided met the cost of the losses, but at least it was a help. It certainly showed that the Minister and the Government recognised the difficulties of those farmers. Payments were confined to people mainly dependent on farming with not more than 60 livestock units. Special arrangements were made for those who suffered crop losses from flooding, so that they too obtained payment subject to an overall maximum of £500. I understand that around 1,700 applicants under the scheme have been paid a total of over £500,000. Those applicants will also be eligible to participate in the feed voucher scheme. The Government also made special arrangements to bring forward last year's payments of the headage grants under the various sheep and cattle schemes. These arrangements resulted in a total of £26 million more being paid in 1985 than in 1984.

The most important measure, however, was the introduction of the feed voucher scheme over the whole country which enabled farmers who have a serious shortage of winter feed to buy feeding stuffs. This scheme has worked exceptionally well in my constituency. It was based on £13,250 million from the Exchequer and 125,000 tonnes of intervention grain at 75 per cent of the intervention price from the EC, which was valued at £4 million. Under the scheme farmers have received cash in grain vouchers which were exchangeable against the purchase of animal feeding stuffs from grain and feed merchants, subject to a value of £400 in any one case. Almost 100,000 farmers applied under this scheme. Most of them were proved eligible.

The Minister extended the 30 day bovine TB test to 60 days. That in itself greatly faciliated many farmers who were anxious to sell bullocks in the marts and it gave them the opportunity of showing their cattle at more than one mart.

I welcome the announcement by the Minister just last week of the introduction of a scheme for tillage farmers under which loans subsidised at the rate of 5 per cent will be made available to tillage farmers who suffered severe losses as a result of the bad weather. This will cost around £2 million. What compounds the losses of the grain farmers and tillage farmers is the fact that such a high percentage of them borrow or, as was always traditional, purchase their grain and fertilisers on account. Last year when the harvest itself was not able to pay off the initial cost of sowing, that expense comes through. While this latest facility being offered by the Minister is not really a direct cash grant, it will ease the burden of farmers who have to again this year borrow in order to sow tillage crops on their farms.

I should like to compliment the Minister on his powers of negotiations and on the continuation for a further year of the interest subsidy scheme which has proved so beneficial for thousands of farmers over the past number of years. One thing evident in regard to the work of the Minister for Agriculture is the persistence of some farming organisations who do not seem to be able to quantify the amount of aid going into agriculture under the various headings. The total Exchequer expenditure on agriculture, if we take 1980 as a base, amounted to

£3,752 million, whereas this year under the same heading we find that £6,827 million represents the total Exchequer expenditure on agriculture. That figure has gone up. Looking at the hand outs that the IFA have been distributing at recent meetings one would think that there were diabolical cut-backs all the way. I would like to avail of this opportunity to invite colleagues in the farming industry to look at the actual figures and to ascertain the true facts for themselves, because, by and large, I think the response of the Minister for Agriculture and the Government in the difficult year just gone by for Irish farmers has been positive, helpful and has shown plenty of understanding. It has been accompanied by a great personal response and understanding from the Department officials, whether the farm development service officers or the officers employed by ACOT. Together they worked exceptionally well to provide as much aid and encouragement as possible to assist farmers in every way they could. The difficulty last year, as a result of the adverse weather conditions, brought about a situation in our country that no Government, by Irish standards anyway, could afford to underwrite 100 per cent. Nevertheless, the amount of funds made available without the introduction of a mini-budget was remarkable. I would like to put on record my thanks and appreciation to the Minister and his colleagues in Government for the efforts they made.

Mr. T. Hussey

I should like to thank the Joint Committee for the work they did on this report, highlighting some of the problems faced by the farming community during the disastrous year of 1985. Never before have such weather conditions been experienced by the farmers as in 1985. The prolonged bad weather created many problems for the agricultural sector. It created problems not alone for people involved in dairying but also for the tillage farmers, the horticultural farmers and, indeed, everybody connected with agriculture. I only hope, for all our sakes, that we do not have a repetition of that kind of weather again in our time. It had one useful effect in that it succeeded in uniting all those people, all those agencies interested in the agricultural scene, because they all responded to the call and they all united in their efforts to try to help the farmers who were in trouble because of the disastrous weather conditions. I should like to thank all those agencies, the farming organisations, the ICOS, the ACOT offices, the Department of Agriculture themselves who were to the forefront and everybody else who in any way helped the farmers over this particularly difficult year.

We have seen terrible losses all over the country. The biggest losses were experienced by farmers along the western seaboard. They have got heavier rainfall in those parts of the country than they did in the midlands or in the east or south. In that part of the country they rely for their winter feed mainly on hay, which as far as I can see because of the weather conditions that we have experienced in 1985 is something that should be discouraged from here on in. I think the day of the haymaking is gone and farmers along the western seaboard where the hay is still being made should be encouraged to get into silage making because I believe it is the safest way of providing adequate winter feed for stock.

They should be encouraged by, first of all, providing grants for silage slabs, providing grants for the erection of cheap housing for their cattle. I understand that this may have been included in the recent grants announced by the Department of Agriculture, although I have not studied those yet and I am not sure whether it does include grants for cheap housing of this kind. It is something that I have advocated for a long time and I believe it is very necessary because the day is gone when cattle should be allowed to trample on land during the winter months, poaching it and causing all kinds of problems for the farmer when it comes to the springtime again. I should like to see those grants provided for cheap housing so that farmers could house their cattle during the winter months and take them in off the land.

As well as the bad weather along the western seaboard, we have seen — and it is recorded here in the report — that there have been instances of severe losses of livestock due to lightning while unusually heavy hail on 27 July caused damage to grain and horticultural crops in a narrow corridor extending from County Kilkenny to County Louth. The high humidity caused some serious blight losses in potato crops mainly in north Leinster, north County Dublin in particular. So the whole country was affected by this unusual type of weather. It is very unusual, I must say, to see hailstones in the month of July and yet that downfall of hail created havoc in those horticultural crops in County Kilkenny and County Louth. Those farmers must have seen their livelihoods or their profits for that year wiped out in one hour by that hailstorm. It is a very unfortunate situation.

Many proposals have been made over the years by the various organisations as to how farmers could be helped. The reintroduction of the group fodder scheme has been mentioned as a means of helping farmers, particularly in the west again, to go into silage making. Community measures were advocated by the farming organisations such as the bringing forward of intervention arrangements for calf carcase beef; the payment of the maximum rates of headage grants to farmers in disadvantaged areas and the bringing forward of payments for the newly designated areas; Euro loans at low interest rates for cereal farmers particularly to help them to reseed, with the Government underwriting exchange rate fluctuations and the banks waiving handling charges; and in the long term effective arterial drainage schemes.

Those were some of the recommendations made by the various organisations during the year to help the farmers get over their immediate problems. The one I thought the Government would have acted on without setting up any other additional agencies to help them in was the increase in the headage payments. This was recommended by county committees of agriculture all over the country, by the farming organisations and by everybody else interested in the welfare of the farmers. At present headage grants of up to £75 per livestock unit are allowable, whereas here in Ireland the cut-off time ranges from £32 down to £28. If that were increased, it is estimated that it would cost about £34 million, half of which would be borne by FEOGA.

This would have been a great capital injection into the agri-economy and would, indeed, have downstream benefits. Unfortunately, for one reason or another it has not been done by the Government and I think they missed an excellent opportunity there of putting additional money into the areas that really needed it by increasing those headage grants. When you consider the amount of extra money that we would have got from Europe, from the FEOGA section, it is obvious that that money would have been spent very wisely in the areas of the country most in need of it.

It is hard to accept that the money was not there, that the Government were not prepared to put up the money, when you see a situation in which, as I understand, the amount of money allocated to the Department of Agriculture last year has not been spent. I do not know if that is correct or not, but I would like some clarification on it because I understand that money that was allocated to the Department has not been spent, and I would be surprised if that is the case, particularly in a year when there was so much demand from the hard-pressed farmers for additional moneys under the various schemes.

The grants paid to farmers for first time silage making were very useful and I am happy that farmers responded in such great numbers to the scheme, because it shows that in a very bad weather situation farmers realise that silage making is the only way forward. Seeing that they have got into silage this year in such great numbers, I believe that they will continue. If it were not for that scheme I believe that a lot more cattle would have to be sold off or else they would have to be maintained on very small rations on the farms. The scheme encouraged farmers at the very back end of the year to close in a few acres extra, to put on the nitrogen and make the silage. There is hardly a small farm in the west of Ireland on which you do not see a small heap of silage made in some part of the field because of that scheme. That is very important because if that scheme were not there, they would not have made the silage and, as I said, cattle would have been very hungry for the past couple of months.

The Shannon scheme, too, is really a short term scheme because the £500 paid per farmer under this scheme is not going to compensate the farmer for the terrible loss that farmers along the Shannon valley have suffered as a result of the flooding of the Shannon. I think Senator McDonald mentioned this about the drainage of the Shannon and I think it is something that we have to keep plugging at even though some people might laugh at it and say there is no possibility and it is only election propaganda. It has been used as election propaganda for years and years; nevertheless, politicians and Governments must keep striving towards that end and eventually it is the long term solution for those farmers to drain the Shannon. I see no reason at all why it could not be done and why it should not be done. There are acres and acres of good land along the Shannon basin that could be put into far more productive use if farmers were sure that their crops were not going to be washed away overnight because of the flooding of the Shannon basin as has happened this year.

I believe the long term solution is the drainage of the Shannon and regardless of what criticism is made of politicians, I still believe that we must try to aim towards that objective at some stage. It is going to cost a lot of money. It is going to cost a lot of money even to prepare a report on the feasibility of the drainage of the Shannon but we should be working towards that. I hope that the Government of the day or, indeed, any other Government will not throw in the towel on this project because there is too much at stake here. When you consider that the Shannon valley is extending back into the Suck valley right back into County Galway, it would be unfortunate if that project were to be written off. I believe that at some stage some Government will tackle it. While I say that the £500 grant per farmer that is paid this time is short-term — and I am sure it it appreciated by the farmers who suffered from the tragic flooding of their lands in 1985 — it is not the long-term solution and only the drainage of that river is the solution to the whole matter.

I should like to see more money put into field drainage, land reclamation and so on. A lot more could be done in that area. I consider the western drainage scheme to be a very successful scheme. For the first time, grants of 70 per cent were paid to farmers to drain their land in the western region. The farmers responded in no uncertain manner because a lot of red tape that normally applies to grant applications was cut out in that scheme. The farmers responded and very large tracts of land along the western seaboard have been drained under that scheme. I should like to see an extension of it and a continuation of it. I hope that the Minister will examine the feasibility of doing that and continue with that very worth while scheme.

We could go on and on about the different aspects of agriculture, but here we are confined mainly to the report before us and I do not intend to depart from that. But I hope that in our lifetime at least we never witness the weather conditions we had in 1985. It is hard to put an estimate on what it has cost Irish agriculture. Some of the farming organisations have put an estimate of something like £50 million or £51 million on it for the losses suffered by Irish agriculture. It could even be more. But agriculture is our main industry and the one thing that came out of all this was that all the organisations and all the agencies responded and united in their efforts to help the farmers to get over a very difficult situation. The losses would have been much greater were it not for the response from the Government and, indeed, I wish to acknowledge that here today. It would be very wrong of me if I did not. I know that we are going through very difficult times and that money is very hard got, but nevertheless, the response from the Government is appreciated by the farming community. If it were not for that response, the losses would have been much greater.

We can learn a lot from the year under review. We can help to make sure that those kind of losses never occur again and in particular we can work towards providing a situation where farmers will by their own means have adequate fodder to provide for their cattle during the winter months. That was the scare that abounded last August and September because at that time farmers were getting very worried. They could see no change in the weather. In fact, August must have been one of the worst months of the year. There was very little prospect of sufficient foodstuff being provided. But because of all the schemes introduced the farmers responded and they did provide a nearly adequate supply for their cattle.

The one scheme in which I was disappointed was the "grain for rain" scheme. In my area this amounts to about £20 per tonne. Farmers were allocated two or three tonnes. They were allowed £20 per tonnes and I believe that that has dropped to £12 per tonnes this week. That is very bad. I do not know where the rest of that money has gone. Has it gone on administration or what? However that is all it is worth to the farmers at present. I was very disappointed in that scheme and so were many farmers who qualified for it and who found that they were only being given £20 off the tonne or two tonnes of meal they were allocated. That has now dropped to £12 per tonne. I do not know why that is so. Perhaps the Minister would be able to give us some reason for it. I do hope that, in our time at least, we will never again witness the weather situation we witnessed during 1985.

Mr. Hourigan

I should like to add my voice to the points already made and to make some additional comments. Firstly, we must not underestimate the severity of what happened in 1985 and in conjunction with that I would stress very strongly that the undercapitalised situation of agriculture had a very major effect in the position of farmers in not being able to cope with this blow. If farming as it was, and, indeed, as it is, is so severely undercapitalised, it is a major factor as to why persons were so severely hit by the crisis of 1985. In my view farming organisations and others failed to lay the sort of emphasis on that aspect it deserves.

The question of the lack of capital and lack of finance in farming, coupled with rapidly reducing margins, has led to a situation where people are just about holding on in the farming sector. That is very serious. It leaves no room for manoeuvre. It leaves no room whatever for any calamity such as the one that took place in 1985 and this is something which we must not overlook or, indeed, underestimate. We have no guarantee whatsoever that we might not have a repetition weatherwise of what happened in 1985. That is something we must be very mindful of. If people who have come through 1985 and the winter of 1985-86 were to be confronted with any kind of similar situation in 1986 it would put them in a very difficult financial position. It is only at this stage that the effects of that disastrous season have manifested themselves. In many instances fodder, which was regarded as being of reasonable quality, will be totally and utterly inadequate in its nutritional content and incapable of sustaining animals during the current winter, which fortunately up to Christmas was mild. From Christmas onwards we have had a severe winter period. I hope we do not have a recurrence of the situation to which I referred earlier. It behoves us all to make sure that farming is given the support necessary to withstand a calamity that could at any stage befall it. That is one point that must not be overlooked.

In 1985 almost every front in the farming sector was very severely hit. From mid-1985 onwards we saw a situation in which the part of the hay crop the farmers attempted to conserve was being destroyed day by day and we saw it worsening and deteriorating in value and in nutritional content. We have at present a very unhappy inbalance between grass conserved for hay and for silage. We have approximately 60 per cent of total grass for conservation made into silage and about 40 per cent into hay; this is very inappropriate. We must strive to have a higher proportion of grass conserved in silage. The recent introduction of the farm modernisation scheme lays a lot of emphasis on the whole area of cattle housing, and wintering of cattle generally is a great step in that direction. It helps to bring about a situation where we will have more silage and more of our cattle in-wintered rather than at present when we have 50 per cent of the total livestock herd still out-wintered. This is a situation we must endeavour through all means at our disposal to get away from.

In addition to our hay and silage problems farmers who had not made silage early found themselves in a situation that they could not travel the silage fields and could not make silage. In many cases silage was made under very bad conditions, conditions in which the level of moisture or water was so high that good silage was not made even earlier in the year. In desperation farmers tried to save hay in September or later for winter feed and also endeavoured to make silage as best they could. The Government's intervention in this whole area was very helpful, but it could not meet or cover the losses that people had sustained. It is important to recall that during a time when finance was in such scarce supply our Government found it possible to contribute in excess of £22 million to the rescue package for farmers and succeeded in getting an additional £4½ million from Europe, a total of £27 million assistance for 1985.

The rescue package alleviated problems but left a number remaining. The picture looked very gloomy in August. We had a situation in which many farmers, due to the waterlogged condition of their land, were forced on to the market with their livestock, forced to take very low prices. Many small farmers from the west were affected where they could least afford this major loss. There were many cases in which farmers had eight or ten livestock units for sale, which they would have for sale on an annual basis in the late autumn or early winter. These were sold in August at very reduced prices. Farmers lost at least between £100 and £150 per livestock unit. On the basis of ten livestock units one is talking about a substantial amount of the income of many farmers throughout the country and more especially in the north-western area. That is a point that should not go unnoticed.

The bad weather was an act of God; there is nothing anyone could have done about it apart from the remedies the Government put into motion to try to lessen the severity of the blow that farmers were suffering. However, there are some measures the Government could take on board for the future and usefully pursue. One is arterial drainage as distinct from field drainage. Reference was made to the drainage of the Shannon. Many major rivers backed up and caused extensive flooding and waterlogging in 1985, which was the reason why farmers had to take their stock off the land. This stock was then sold at the marts at giveaway prices or put into yards and fed winterfeed that they would normally be starting to consume around November-December depending on the climatic conditions of a normal year. That position could have been alleviated if we had a better arterial drainage programme carried out in previous years.

I would exhort the Government to pursue arterial drainage to the fullest extent. There are rivers that would yield enormous benefits to the economy if they were drained at this stage. One example that comes to mind in the Limerick-Tipperary region is the Mulcaire River, which has been talked about a number of times. There are thousands of very fertile acres there which were waterlogged and unusable last summer and autumn or, if they were used, they were being used to the detriment of the future use of the land. That is just one example. There are other areas which require attention also.

We must bear in mind that, in the report which we are examining today, the position was indeed clearly and positively identified by the committee. On an ongoing basis the committee did very good work. There were several meetings which culminated in this report. At the meeting on 3 September the following resolution was passed by the committee, and I quote from report No. 21 of the Joint Committee on The Secondary Legislation of the European Communities which gives a summary of the entire situation:

That the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities recognises the special position of all landowners in the Shannon Valley and calls on the European Community to provide financial assistance from the Community Disaster Fund as a matter of extreme urgency; urges that the Shannon Valley in its entirety be regarded as completely disadvantaged; requests the Government to take steps to ensure that no farmer will have to dispose of his livestock under value; requests that the grave emergency in the area be fully recognised; requests that farmers throughout the country who are in difficulties with regard to Winter fodder be given an immediate subsidy to help them overcome their difficulties; and requests that the price being paid for the barley crop be subsidised to bring it up to a realistic level and to offset the increased costs, associated with reducing its moisture content.

In addition, the Joint Committee stated in this report that a subcommittee on agriculture and fisheries would prepare a draft report on the Community measures that could be invoked to alleviate the serious position of Irish farmers brought about by the bad weather and storms over the summer months. It was decided that a delegation of the sub-committee would visit the European Commission for discussions in connection with the preparation of the draft report. A delegation did meet with the European Commission and reported back to the committee in due course.

On that resolution, it shows quite clearly the consciousness and awareness of the Joint Committee at that time of the severity of the problem. The committee also had discussions with and written submissions from the Irish Farmers' Association, the ICMSA, the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society and ACOT. All these various agencies coincided in their views with regard to the severity of the problem. There may have been a slighly different level of emphasis as to how the problem could be overcome, but everybody clearly saw that there was a major problem.

The Joint Committee sent a delegation to Brussels. There was strong emphasis laid by the representatives of the Joint Committee in Brussels on the need for assistance. The disaster fund which exists within the Community is for personal disaster purposes and there was no way that we were going to get any sort of alleviation or help of significance from that fund. It could be argued that a certain amount of our problems came under those headings but in all, in that fund there was only £2 million and so it did not meet the situation with which we were confronted.

On page 14 of their report the Joint Committee have clearly referred to this question of lack of cash within farming. A number of suggestions were put forward by the Joint Committee as means by which a solution could be found, such as the bringing forward of the intervention date of payment to early September rather than the end of September, and also that it should apply to a wider section of the cattle input into factories. Regrettably, we did not have the sort of success that was hoped for by the Joint Committee. We had a pretty restricted period of intervention operation. It is important that we bear in mind that to all intents and purposes, intervention is now being wound down to such a degree that it is of little or no relevance in an Irish context. This is extremely serious. Intervention buying of beef is a necessary fundamental ingredient for an effective marketing of our beef supply.

We have aid for private storage and we have MCAs and so on for exports to third countries. I believe that intervention in itself will now apply only in very limited cases during 1986 and for the next two years, and my understanding of it is that it will not continue from there on. That is a matter that has to be viewed very, very seriously. I stated in this House before, and I will restate now, that as an island on the periphery of the mainland of Europe, locationally disadvantaged in many respects — disadvantaged in the sense that our economy has not been developed to the extent that the Dutch, United Kingdom, German, French and other such economies have been developed over a long number of years, we are entitled to get special measures to meet our particular needs. I do not believe that in the context of an overall EC policy we are going to survive within the EC. We are at a moment when a whole revision of CAP is about to be made. I state very emphatically that we must get very special measures to meet our case.

While it is historical in one sense but yet very much related to the question of intervention mentioned in this report, we joined the EC in 1972 in the clear expectancy that we would have unlimited potential to develop our agriculture. We also knew that our industries would be in very serious difficulty with regard to competition from various quarters. We accepted the EC with its good points and its bad points, its good points being the capacity that it offered to us to develop agriculture and its bad points being the competitive aspects with regard to industry with which we knew we would have trouble. However 12 years later we clearly got the message in the context of the super-levy that the freedom we anticipated to expand in the agricultural sector no longer existed. While very special concessions were granted to us on that occasion, we have seen since time restrictions envisaged in the beef sector, the cereal sector, indeed right across the board. This is extremely serious but I shall say no more now only that we must press on to ensure that we get special measures as a nation.

The Joint Committee put forward a very good report. It covered the very salient points that exist as a result of 1985. This report was written in September 1985. We have dealt with the period up to that and since then. As I said earlier, I believe that it is the consequential effects of 1985 that are relevant, not just 1985per se. During the whole of 1985 we had a drop of income in the farming world of 10 per cent. Approximately 4 per cent of that drop was directly related to the weather. That clearly indicates the severity of the weather in 1985 from our point of view.

A lot of good work was done by many agencies during 1985 right up to the end of the year to ensure that the blow was lessened. We had many of the co-operative societies arranging for the transportation of straw, as a replacement for hay, from the eastern seaboard to the western seaboard. We had much good effort put into solving an extremely difficult problem. I believe that the Government — and I have already referred to the magnificent contribution made by the Government in 1985 towards bringing about a solution here — acted very constructively and effectively in reducing greatly what would have been a disaster situation for many people. This could not be over-stated or over-emphasised. Were it not for Government intervention we would have had a major de-stocking on farms, and many farms would have been denuded of stock completely. Unfortunately, the rebuilding of the herds in those instances would have been unlikely.

A number of points with which the Government were presented could, I believe be looked at again. I am talking in particular about low interest Euro loans. As I mentioned at the beginning, we are talking about an industry severely and seriously starved of capital. The Government in its wisdom thus far have not found it appropriate to continue the low interest Euro loans that have operated in recent times. Granted there are extremely good reasons why the Government have temporarily, I hope, left aside such arrangements, awaiting the realignment of the European currencies. I would urge that when that situation has stabilised and settled down there will be the possibility of introducing cheaper money for agriculture. Quite honestly, agriculture, because of the nature of its operations cannot sustain the interest rates that apply to it. The turnover in agriculture is a very long-drawn-out process, whether it is livestock farming or whatever else — livestock farming being the predominant concern of farming in this country. You are talking about a four- or five-year cycle. For that reason there is no hope that without cheap money the industry can progress as we would like.

The extension of the 30 day test to 60 days during this crisis period is to be lauded. The Government acted very intelligently in this regard. It was regrettable however, that due to Brussels restrictions — and I want to make it very clear that it was because of Brussels restrictions — the 60 days did not apply to cows and heifers and female animals generally in the bovine world. One would hope that in the future, we would have this 30 day test extended to 60 days on a permanent basis, not just until some date in the future and they revert back again. If the whole country is declared brucellosis free we would have no problem of course but in the event of that not being so, I hope we would be able to negotiate with the EC authorities to bring in line 60 day tests for all cattle tested, because the difficulties for farmers as far as the female stock are concerned are far greater than that for testing of steers in so far as that there is a blood test involved. Instead of the 30 day test that is talked about one is effectively talking about 20 days because it is ten days before results are returned to the farmer. I believe that that measure introduced right in the middle of this crisis period should be continued on the 60 day basis and should be extended to include all livestock.

The in-wintering or out-wintering of cattle which I referred to a few moments ago has to be tackled very seriously because over the last few months people are seeing now as never before — perhaps because of the quality of fodder saved in 1985 — that cattle cannot be effectively out-wintered. They are being damaged in so far as they are not thriving; they are damaging land and there are many very serious side effects of that policy.

One could go on and on and I do not intend to do that; there are others who want to speak on this report. All I want to say finally on it is that the Joint Committee is to be commended for such a comprehensive report. They have identified the various problems quite clearly and quite well. It brings to our notice the importance of our homing-in on this situation to ensure that if such a disastrous year were to come again we would be in a better position to counteract it. I know of many instances during the current winter where farmers in relatively small operations, farmers of 40 or 50 acres, found that their feed bill for maintaining their stock over the winter was £5,000 higher than it was last year. That, coupled with a very severely reducing income position is something that could not be sustained if such a disaster were to occur again.

Again I want to commend the Government and in particular the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Deasy, and the two Ministers of State, Deputy Hegarty, whom we are glad to have with us this evening, and Deputy Connaughton, for their absolutely magnificent input into this. Deputy Hegarty and Deputy Connaughton together with the Minister, Deputy Deasy formed a very formidable team in securing assistance and relief for people. I do know that the Minister of State, Deputy Hegarty, visited quite a lot of the areas of the country which suffered grain and general crop damage.

I inadvertently omitted to mention a major point in regard to tillage crops — the losses were enormous. We have had abnormally low yields of barley, wheat, oilseed rape and potatoes. Then there was the very unusual hailstorm on 27 July which extended from County Kilkenny to County Louth and caused major losses. The Minister of State visited a number of areas and saw at firsthand the severity of the damage. This is the type of thing which led us to a position where the Government eventually gave such a massive injection of support. The one disappointing feature was the contribution we got from the EC. It was low in comparison with what the Government put into the scheme. In terms of the total proportion, what we received from the EC should have been several million pounds more.

I commend the committee on an excellent report. I also commend the Government for excellent handling of a severely difficult situation. I appeal in the strongest possible terms for agriculture to be given the sort of injection of capital it deserves.

Mr. Ellis

It is a pity that we are debating this report in the middle of February whereas the report was presented to the House on 25 September last. I do not blame the Minister or the Chair. It would be much better if reports of an urgent nature were taken within a given period of, say, 21 or 28 days from the time they are produced by the committee.

We will be paying for many years for what happened in 1985 as far as the agricultural sector is concerned. Already we are seeing the effects of it in 1986. It now appears that there will be a shortage of supplies of cattle for slaughter. There is already a short supply of lamb. At present many of the meat processing plants, especially those involved in sheep, are either closed or working short time. That is the effect of the premature slaughtering which took place in both sectors in the latter half of 1985. Many of the cattle which were slaughtered between September and December 1985 would not normally have been slaughtered until the summer of this year. Not alone were they slaughtered prematurely, but they were also slaughtered with a great financial loss to the farmers who had produced them. They were not in a position to keep them over the winter months or to buy feed to maintain them. The schemes we had to deal with the crisis were not adequate and did not give sufficient compensation to the farmers who were affected. The maximum benefit was not got from the finances made available by the Department.

I note that the chief recommendation of the committee, for the disadvantaged areas, was that the headage payments should have been increased and that the maximum level should have been paid in 1985. The Minister felt that was inappropriate. He introduced his own schemes— the fodder scheme, the fertiliser subsidy and the Shannon flooding scheme. Prior to Christmas, I had reason to raise on the Adjournment the problems caused by the feed voucher scheme which was adopted to meet the crises. It is still causing those same problems. The vouchers have now been issued. Many farmers are discovering that what they thought would have been quite sizeable amounts are turning out to be rather small.

There is also no appeal system available to any farmer who has been excluded for any reason. I have received a large number of representations from farmers whe were told they were disqualified because they had 75 per cent of their feed. It has now turned out that the feed they thought they had prior to the opening of their silage is as low as 20 per cent in many cases. The feed value of those silage clamps is very low. I appeal to the Minister of State to ask the Minister to try to introduce some sort of mechanism to allow those farmers to have their cases reassessed. Many farmers who may have made mistakes when filling in the forms are now being excluded, while some of those who may have been a little more crafty in the filling in of forms may have got more than their share as far as the feed voucher scheme was concerned. The original idea of paying extra headage would have meant that nobody would have been able to abuse the system and everybody would have received a fair crack of the whip.

We should see what type of grant aid scheme can be introduced for winter fodder in the future by means of State aids and the use of EC aids to prevent people being at the mercy of the elements, especially in the west. I ask the Minister of State to examine the possibility of bringing in increased grants for farmers who are purchasing silage equipment and also silage feeding facilities in the west. Many small farmers in the west will not be in a position to provide them from their own resources. If a sizeable grant were made available, they would set about trying to alleviate the problems. This money would be well spent. It would increase the viability of some of those small holdings in the west. It would give many farmers the opportunity to get one or two extra livestock units which they are not in a position to do now with the facilities they have available to them. While that might not seem much of an increase spread across the small farming community it would make a considerable impact.

The committee also considered the intervention beef buying section as far as the EC method of safeguarding the situation is concerned. There should be an examination of the way this is now operated. At the moment hindquarters are being allowed into intervention. For three weeks at the end of the year full beef carcases were allowed into intervention. Then there was a glut. Many of the factories were in a position to use the intervention system whereas those who had sold their product were handicapped in that they had to fulfil their contracts while some of the sunshine operators were able to take full advantage of intervention during that period. Any further intervention schemes should be operated on a percentage of kill rather than on a full kill allowed into intervention.

There were also suggestions with regard to low interest Euro loans. In recent weeks the Minister announced that he is providing cash from that source for the grain farmers who were badly hit in 1985. Agriculture in general must now be given an injection of those same Euro loans which would be guaranteed with regard to the rate of interest and the exchange rate. If farmers do not get working capital at a realistic price, they will not be in a position to stay in business. The recent hike in bank interest rates will be felt by the agricultural sector.

The lesson of 1985 should be that farming can no longer depend upon the weather to be its saviour. We must devise a system whereby winter feed can be provided cheaply and also ensure that feed will not be dependent on the weather. We must examine the possibility of providing schemes which are more beneficial to those affected by a disaster. I still believe that, as far as the 1985 crisis was concerned, the best way to help farmers in the disadvantaged areas would have been by means of headage payments. We are told that the Government spent between £14 million and £18 million on subsidies and on help to alleviate the problems caused by the bad weather. That amount would have been sufficient if it had been put in by means of a direct cash injection. The disadvantaged areas were most affected and we already had a scheme which was readymade, which would not have entailed any extra cost in processing and would not have caused the problems created by the feed voucher scheme as it operated.

I ask the Minister of State to ask his Minister to please form some type of tribunal or some type of appeal system to which those farmers who now find they are debarred from the feed voucher scheme, despite the fact that they should have been entitled to participate in it, could apply.

Mr. J. Higgins

I should like to join with other speakers in paying a sincere compliment to the team involved, the Minister for Agriculture and his two very able and experienced Ministers of State, on the manner in which they addressed themselves to the fodder crisis. It was obvious from mid-June that we were facing a crisis. By early July there was criticism that the Minister was not doing anything about it. People seemed to be attributing to him the powers of a deity to control the elements. In fairness to the Minister for Agriculture, together with his Ministers of State, he was monitoring and gauging and metering the problem on an on-going basis. I do not know what holidays any Minister or Ministers of State had, but certainly the three people vested with the power and the responsibility to look after agriculture could not have had very much spare time in the summer holiday period. They were on the ball on a daily basis at all stages trying to monitor and deal with the up-to-date situation.

While the situation was bad in June, it was worse in July and nobody could have anticipated the absolute deluge which occurred after August 14, when things really took a turn for the worst. Ten good days at that time would have helped to redress the situation. The Minister and Ministers of State are due our compliments and our congratulations as, indeed are the members of the committee for the manner in which they have drawn up the report. I share Senator Ellis's reservation that we should have debated this report at that time. However, if my memory serves me correctly, at that time we discussed the crisis in this House.

There is always a higher rainfall in the west than in the rest of the country. Certainly that was shown on this occasion, particularly in the seaboard counties of Galway, Mayo and Donegal. As has been pointed out in the report, the very high dependence of the west on hay for fodder left us even more vulnerable than the rest of the country. When you couple with that the lightning, the hail and all the other freak climatic elements to which we were subjected, they set in stark perspective the problems with which the farmers in the west were confronted. The hay we eventually got in the west was of extremely poor quality.

I share with Senator Ellis also his reservation in relation to the quality of the silage. As people uncover silage they are discovering to their dismay that the quality, the nutrient and the food value leave much to be desired. At this stage it is a fait accompli. The book has been closed and they are not in a position to appeal for further aid at this time. I support Senator Ellis's advocacy of the introduction of some form of appeal for those people who either (a) did not fill up the forms properly or (b) discovered subsequently that the silage that seemed to be there in bulk was not there in terms of quality.

In the west we did benefit from a number of the short term remedial actions taken by the Minister and his Ministers of State. We welcomed the introduction of the acceptance of mart receipts as bona fide evidence that the cattle were eligible for headage payment purposes. The Minister was very well intentioned when he introduced the nitrogen subsidy in August. Unfortunately, because of the wet weather it was of little benefit. Again while some people have made derisory comments about the £500 for the farmers in the Shannon basin, in fairness it was the maximum that could be afforded at the time. Nobody can say the Minister did not have up-to-date knowledge of the situation there as he visited the area on several occasions to monitor the problem on land and in the air. The speeding up of the headage payments and the extension of the pre-movement test period were developments which, although individually small, contributed in their own way to alleviating the hardship being experienced by farmers, particularly by western farmers. While people have made derisory comments about the rescue package and people have gone out of their way to try to prove that the headage payments system would have been fairer, I do not think it would have been fairer in that it would have applied right across the board and irrespective of the fact that the majority of farmers were affected we do know, each and everyone of us, farmers did succeed in cutting hay in that first and only fine week in July and got good quality hay at that.

I would refer to a remark made by the Minister in this House and made to the Irish Farmers Association and the ICMSA and in the Dáil that we are not in the business of compensating people. Senator Ellis talked about compensation. The Minister was at pains to point out that all we could do here was offer relief to people, that it was a holding operation to help people to keep their heads above water. The number of people who have benefited has been quite considerable. There have been some people, no doubt, who have been disappointed because they did not fill in the form correctly or, as Senator Ellis said, maybe filled the form too correctly or too conscientiously. We all know this can happen in certain cases when you are trying to rush through a scheme. You are trying to have random samples here and there in order to try to gauge the cross-sectional representative view of what is actually happening in the locality. By and large the majority of people are relatively happy with what occurred. It has managed, in fact, to get people over the hump. It has been largely well received by individual farmers but some farming organisations and leaders, no matter what is introduced seem to take a delight in the crude bludgeoning of the Minister. One farming organisation stands out in this respect. I really believe that such people, by constantly hammering the Minister and the Minister of State and every initiative and innovation that is introduced, in the long term do more damage than good to the cause of the farmers.

I would, however, take issue on one point. It is a point that western representatives of all parties make continually. That is the failure of bureaucrats at European and at national levels to take into consideration the position of part time farmers in the west of Ireland. These people are part and parcel of the social fabric. If you took them out you could close, in many towns, one bank. You could close down one church. You could close down many of the schools in rural areas. I honestly believe that the time is long overdue to recognise this from the point of view of headage payments and to be offering them an off-farm income limit of £6,400 is simply not on. For the number who are over the £10,000 bracket I honestly do not think it is worth having an off-farm income limit at all with regard to headage.

The same thing happened on this occasion with regard to the feed voucher scheme. The same thing is now happening with regard to the establishment grants. Somebody, some day, not too far down the line, will have to come up with a plan specifically geared to enable part time farmers who are so much part and parcel, by necessity, of the economic life of rural Ireland to play a full role and to be recognised for what they are — valuable contributors to the economy not alone of the west of Ireland but to the economy as a whole.

Again, I made the point here before in relation to the case made to Brussels for special recognition for regarding the status of the west of Ireland. The Cantal region has been instanced as a region that has got enormous benefit because of reclassification. While they have it on altitude grounds we have more than compensating debilitating grounds in terms of high rainfall, low permeability of soils, low number of sunshine hours, high winds etc. I urge the Minister to put his muscle again behind the document that already lies gathering dust in Brussels making a compelling case for the west to be regarded or upgraded to that of mountain status.

Again I want to thank the Minister and the Minister of State for the manner in which they have acquitted themselves in this regard. I think they have kept the heads of the farmers literally above water and in doing so will have the gratitude of the people involved. Again I want to pay my compliments to the committee for bringing the document before the House.

Acting Chairman (Séamus de Brún)

I understand it was agreed that the debate would be adjourned at 4 o'clock.

Mr. McDonald

It is proposed that the debate be adjourned until next Thursday and that the House be adjourned until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 19 February.

Debate adjourned.