Spokes-persons have 15 minutes, each other speaker has ten minutes.
CAP Reform: Statements.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am delighted to have this opportunity to bring this House up to date with developments on the implementation of the reformed Common Agricultural Policy. Almost a year has passed since the historic agreement was reached by the Council of Agriculture Ministers in May 1992. The change in policy direction was fundamental and marked a new phase in the evolution of the Community's agricultural policy. At the core of the agreement are the twin aims of aligning production more closely to available disposal outlets while at the same time protecting producer incomes. I readily identify with these aims.
We have already had a number of debates in this House on the background to and the reasons why it became necessary to fundamentally reform the Common Agricultural Policy support mechanisms. Therefore, I do not propose to go over that ground again today. Instead, I propose to concentrate on the measures involved for our major sectors and the developments that have taken place since the reform decisions were taken.
Before doing so, I should say that the reform measures taken were radical in nature, involving significant price cuts to be offset by increases in direct income supports especially aimed at extensive producers. The direct support was designed in such a way as to effectively put ceilings on production in the beef, sheep and cereal sectors.
While we in Ireland accepted the need for change, we did not accept the proposals made initially by the Commission. During the long and difficult negotiations which followed, my predecessors — one of whom, Senator O'Kennedy, is present — and I sought to secure the best possible arrangements for our farmers and the economy generally. There were strong forces within the Council with totally opposite views.
While the outcome was not exactly what we wanted in every respect, I am happy I secured the best possible outcome for Ireland and the adjustments I negotiated will be of unique benefit to Irish farmers and consumers. For example, the special beef premium payment arrangements and the new extensification premium are tailor made for the majority of Irish producers given their extensive production methods. In addition, the deseasonalisation slaughter premium, which has already been introduced, will tackle the problem of seasonality in the beef industry in a practical way. This has been consistently identified by experts as one of the main impediments to a more market oriented approach to our beef marketing.
The decisions of the Council in May 1992 set out the broad framework for the new support arrangements. Since then, the detailed rules for the various schemes covered by the reform have been drawn up and the integrated administration and control system has been introduced. This means more bureaucracy but the measures must be operated as intended if the system is to remain credible. A uniform set of rules at Community level are essential if the Common Agricultural Policy is to remain a common policy operating under the same terms in all Twelve member states.
I am keenly aware of the teething problems which have arisen over the last few weeks as the new application forms have been received by farmers. I can understand the reaction; it is similar to my own when I open my income tax form. Nobody likes filling in forms but the proper completion of these forms is essential for the smooth operation of the reformed Common Agricultural Policy. It is also imperative from the individual farmer's point of view to get things right in the first year to secure their entitlements. Once this is done the task will be much more straightforward in future years.
To assist the process, my Department and Teagasc undertook a massive information campaign over the past few months to help individual farmers understand the new and revised schemes from which they will derive an important part of their income over the years ahead.
In the first instance information meetings were held throughout the country and were attended by substantial numbers of farmers. Information booklets have been made available setting out clearly what individual entitlements would be under the new régime. The departmental and Teagasc officials have answered queries and are available to farmers individually or in workshops. More recently, farmers have received their application forms together with help sheets for their correct completion. I am happy that every resource available has been and will continue to be put at the disposal of farmers to ensure the optimum outcome both for them individually and for the country in general. I will refer to the area aid forms in a little more detail later.
I would now like to deal with the new arrangements for the different sectors. The new rules for the cattle and sheep sectors provide for the introduction of quota arrangements, individual quotas for the suckler cow and ewe premium schemes and individual or national quotas in the case of the special beef premium. In the case of suckler cow and ewe premium schemes, we have to set up national reserves from which farmers who fulfil certain criteria may draw. Also, we will have additional reserves for these two schemes equal to 1 per cent of quotas in the disadvantaged areas: this reserve is to be distributed among farmers in the disadvantaged areas in accordance with criteria to be laid down by member states.
As regards the suckler cow premium scheme, individual quotas are to be established on the basis of the number of cows for which a premium was granted in 1990, 1991, or 1992. I decided that 1992 will be the reference year for Ireland because this gave Irish producers an opportunity to build up their herds and establish quotas to best advantage. In effect, therefore, our farmers will be granted quotas based on the number of suckler cows for which they were paid a premium in 1992, less a small deduction for the national reserve. The Department will notify farmers of their quotas when the applications for the premium submitted in November and December 1992 have been processed. This will be done by the deadline which is set down in the relevant Commission regulations.
As regards the ewe premium, all farmers who were paid the premium in 1991 and who submitted an application for the premium in 1992 are automatically entitled to individual quotas based on the number of ewes for which they were paid the ewe premium in 1991, less a deduction for the national reserve on the lines already announced. In the case of both the suckler cow and ewe premium quota systems, the regulations also provide that farmers, whose premium payment in the year chosen was lower than normal because of natural circumstances or the imposition of penalties, may have their quotas based on a different year. This particular provision has created substantial additional work for my Department and has delayed the notification of individual quota entitlements. However, the notification process has now commenced and all sheep farmers should be notified of their quotas by 10 May.
The quota arrangements for both the ewe premium and suckler cow premium provide for the establishment of two types of reserves. The EC regulations set down certain priority categories for allocating from the reserve quotas but member states are free to select from these categories or add additional priority categories. My Department has had detailed discussions with the various farming interests on possible priority categories for the ewe premium and the priority categories will be announced shortly.
As regards the level of the national reserve for the ewe premium scheme, I have decided to set this reserve at about 1.6 per cent of our total national quota. The reserve quota has been established by exempting farmers with less than 100 ewe premium rights from any deduction and by reducing the entitlements of producers with quotas in excess of this number by amounts ranging from 1 per cent to 5 per cent. This gives a reserve quota of about 65,000 ewe premium rights. The special reserve for the disadvantaged areas will add a further 35,000 ewe premium rights to the reserve for distribution to priority categories in the disadvantaged areas.
It will not be possible to establish individual quotas for the suckler cow premium until the November/December applications have been processed. Similarly, it will not be possible to establish reserve quotas or the priority categories until these applications have been dealt with. The reserve quota has been complicated by the decision of the Council of Ministers to increase the milk quota limit for small scale milk producers from 12,619 gallons to 25,638 gallons and to abolish the ten cow limit on applications under this scheme. In the negotiations on this measure, I secured a special reserve quota of 63,400 premium entitlements to cater for these categories and any unused quota will revert to the national reserve. The Department has recently invited applications for premium entitlements from this special reserve quota with the deadline of 17 May for the submission of applications.
Under the arrangements, my Department has to monitor and record all leasing and transfer arrangements. The deadline for notification of transfer/leas-ing arrangements is normally two months prior to the opening date for receipt of applications but for 1993 member states are allowed to fix a later date because of delays in notifying producers of their quota entitlements. In view of this, we have set 28 May as the deadline for receipt of notifications under the ewe premium scheme.
The main changes in the special beef premium scheme involve the introduction of ceilings on the number of animals which can qualify for payment at the full rate, a substantial increase in the rate of the premium and the payment of the premium twice in the lifetime of each male animal instead of once under the old system. As regards the quota system, member states were given the option of implementing a national or individual quota system and of selecting 1990, 1991 or 1992 as the reference year for establishing the quota. In this instance, I opted for a national quota system and have based the quota on 1992 payments because this gives maximum flexibility and the highest possible number of entitlements. We do not yet have final details of the 1992 payments position but I am satisfied that the national quota to be established will be adequate for the needs of the beef industry for the foreseeable future.
The substantial increase in the rate of the special beef premium, combined with the fact that it is payable twice in the lifetime of each male animal and is subject to stocking density provisions, requires the Department to operate this scheme more flexibly than in the past. I have already responded to the changed situation and we have accepted applications during the months of January and February in order to ensure that farmers derive maximum benefit both from this scheme and the deseasonalisation slaughter scheme. There will be two further application periods for this scheme, in June and in the autumn, to facilitate producers in claiming the relevant grants.
A significant element of the Common Agricultural Policy reform package and a measure designed specifically to counter our seasonality problem is the deseasonalisation slaughter premium. Application forms for claiming this premium are available from the local offices of the Department and from Teagasc offices and the closing date for the submission of applications is 28 May 1993.
The new arrangements provide for the introduction of stocking density limits on the payment of the various premia. In other words, premium payments will be capped by stocking density limits, which are to be progressively reduced from 3.5 livestock units per hectare in 1993 to 2.0 livestock units per hectare in 1996. These restrictions should not create significant problems for the majority of our producers given the extensive nature of Irish beef production. Allied to the stocking density limits, an extensification premium of approximately £26.36 per suckler cow and male animal will be payable where the stocking density is less than 1.4 livestock units per hectare. I expect that a substantial number of Irish farmers will quality for the extensification premium, which will be payable at the same time as the final instalment of the suckler cow and special beef premium.
The stocking density limits oblige us to ask farmers to declare the forage area available to them for grazing their livestock. The procuedure for this declaration is the area aid application. In essence, the area aid application is the declaration by the producer of how he intends to use his land for the purposes of the livestock aid schemes and the arable aid schemes. The normal deadline for submitting the area application will be 15 May or 31 March. However, I secured a derogation from these deadlines in the case of farmers whose land has been under permanent pasture since 1 January 1987 whereby such producers may submit their area aid applications along with their first livestock aid applications after 14 May but on later than 1 July. Producers who are submitting applications for livestock aid only do not have to submit a map in support of their area aid applications this year. This concession should substantially reduce the burden on livestock farmers.
There have been complaints from many quarters that the area aid application is unnecessarily complex, particularly for farmers declaring forage area only. All of the information sought in the area aid application is required by Community regulations and is needed to enable the Department to properly process applications for arable aid and forage area declarations. I accept that the area aid applications are complex, and for that reason, I have asked my Department to issue a special help sheet to farmers who are declaring permanent pasture only, in order to assist them in the completion of this form. This help sheet will be issued to all livestock farmers later this month in conjunction with application forms for the various livestock schemes.
I will avail of every possibility to simplify both application and area aid forms. However, we must ensure that simplification does not erode the substantial benefits we secured in the reform package.
As regards payments, the EC regulations provide that 60 per cent of the premium payable on foot of applications for the suckler cow and special beef premium schemes can be paid in 1993 but not before 1 November with the balance to be paid in 1994. The reason for this restriction is due to budgetary factors, the application of stocking density limits on these schemes and the application of the national quota on the special beef premium scheme which effectively means that the final premium payable to producers will not be known until all applications have been processed. The Commission has given a commitment to consider whether a higher percentage could be paid in future years.
The Common Agricultural Policy reform arrangements in the tillage sector provide for area based aid for farmers who grow cereals, oilseeds and protein crops. In the case of larger producers, payment of this aid is conditional on the withdrawal of land from production. Smaller scale farmers do not have to set aside land but they can do so if they wish to avail of higher rates of aid for oilseeds and protein crops.
For this year the total amount of aid payable under the arable crops schemes will be limited to a national base area representing the average of the areas tilled in the years 1989, 1990 and 1991. If the area applied for exceeds the national base area, payments will be reduced proportionately and there will be an additional set-aside requirement, without compensation in the next year. We are actively pursuing the question of individual base areas for cereal farmers for later years.
In order to claim aid for arable crops and for land in set-aside, farmers must also complete an area aid application showing details of all of the land they are farming. This form must be accompanied by a map or maps enabling each field to be located for checking purposes. The relevant regulations provide that the forms be returned together with the relevant maps by 14 May 1993. Applications received after that date will be subject to a deducation of 1 per cent per working day by which it is late and no aid will be payable on applications received after 3 June 1993.
The closing date for receipt of applications is laid down in EC regulations and is aimed at allowing time for processing and verification of claims. No extension of this deadline will be permitted.
However, it has come to my notice that, because of the heavy demand for maps being placed on the Ordnance Survey Office, some farmers who requested their maps in good time may not receive them in time to meet the closing date. In order to address this problem, I have arranged that my Department will accept area aid applications, without maps, up to the closing date, from farmers who made their requests to the Ordnance Survey Office. In such cases, farmers will be given until 31 May to forward the relevant maps.
In the milk sector, the May agreement provided for reductions in the support price for butter and for possible quota cuts in 1993-94 and 1994-95. The Commission has recently proposed that quotas should not be reduced this year but that both price cuts should be applied from 1 July next. I agree that current market conditions do not require quotas to be cut and I have opposed the extent of the butter cut in the on-going negotiations. I am also pursuing a number of quota related issues in these negotiations, including the issues of compensation for the 4.5 per cent suspended quotas and Community aid for restructuring measures.
Apart from the reform of support arrangements, the May 1992 decisions also included a range of accompanying measures related to early retirement, forestry and agri-environment. I have already submitted proposals to the EC Commission in regard to the introduction of the Community's early retirement scheme from farming in Ireland. I believe such a scheme will play a very significant part in ameliorating the main defects in the current structure of Irish farming. The land to be released under the scheme will improve the overall farm structure in the country and facilitate young full-time progressive farmers who need additional land to improve their income.
The proposals which I have submitted provide for a pension scheme open to farmers between 55 and 66 years of age who retire from farming and transfer their farms by gift, lease or sale to farmers who expand their own holdings; a rate of pension which consists of a basic annual payment of £3,515 plus an annual allowance of £219 per hectare subject to an overall maximum annual pension of £8,771; and payment of the pension for a maximum of ten years but in any event not beyond the retired farmer's 70th birthday.
The scheme would apply to farmers who have practised farming for at least ten years immediately prior to giving up farming and who are farming an area of not less than five hectares of agricultural land. Farmers taking over the released land would have to be suitable qualified and would be required to expand their total farm areas by 10 per cent and by at least five hectares. Transfer of land to persons or bodies for non-agricultural, forestry or ecological reserve creation would be permissible in certain limited circumstances.
I believe that farming transferees should be given up to two years to meet the necessary enlargement and education/skills requirements and this, with the fact that leasing of land is permissible, would greatly alleviate difficulties in meeting the enlargement requirements laid down by the EC. In addition, I am asking the Commission to show some flexibility in the case of farmers who retired from farming since July of last year. I am hopeful that the EC Commission will be able to accept that such farmers, provided they meet the various criteria, will be eligible to apply for pension under the scheme when it is ultimately agreed by the EC. My expectation is that the scheme will be in operation by late summer. The scheme would also provide for pension payments to farm workers who lose their employment as a result of a farmer's early retirement.
While I hope that the EC Commission will be able to go along with all my proposals for the early retirement scheme, some of the details may have to be revised in the context of the normal consultative process between my Department and the Commission. In these proposals I have endeavoured to reflect the views of the various farming bodies. Further discussions on the details of the scheme are taking place with farming representatives and points emerging from these discussions may be taken into account in the consultations with the EC Commission.
Under forestry elements of the reform, member states are obliged to introduce an afforestation programme which provides for Community co-financing of afforestation grants; premium payments, for up to 20 years, to cover loss of income; and woodland improvement grants aimed at improving existing farm woodlands, including upgrading existing woodland, provision of forest roads, shelterbelts and firebreaks.
The objectives of this programme, which complement those of the existing forestry operational programme, seek to provide a credible economic alternative to the agricultural use of land. In addition, the measures are designed to provide a suitable tool for the implementation of an active afforestation policy, to improve agricultural incomes and land use as well as contribute to the improvement of the environment.
The Government in its Programme for a Partnership Government identified forestry as a key sector based on indigenous natural resources with the potential to create sustainable employment and committed itself to an annual planting target of 30,000 hectares and maintain this level to the year 2000.
The achievement of a 30,000 hectare annual planting target would, by the end of the decade, result in a rise in the area under forestry from the current 7 per cent of total land area to 10 per cent.
The achievement of this annual target will also result in the creation of new jobs in planting and maintenance and related activities. It will, furthermore, stimulate rural development and contribute to farmers' welfare by diversifying and improving agricultural incomes.
The agri-environment measure recognises the dual role of farmers as producers of food and guardians and protectors of the countryside. It allows us, for the first time, to put in place a comprehensive scheme which will allow farmers to receive grant assistance for their environmental maintenance and improvement work.
Each member state is required to introduce an agri-environment programme though any scheme under it will be voluntary for farmers. Compensation can be paid to farmers for loss of income and/or increased costs and for the part they play in improving the environment. Subject to positive effects on the environment, aid can be paid to farmers who reduce substantially their use of fertilisers and plant protection products, or introduce or continue with organic farming methods; change to or maintain extensive crop production or convert arable land to grassland; reduce sheep and cattle numbers per forage area; use any other farming methods beneficial to the environment or to rear endangered native breeds; upkeep abandoned farmland and woodland; set aside farmland for 20 years, especially for the establishment of biotype reserves or natural parks; and management of land for public access and leisure activities. Aid can also be made available for training farmers in farming or forestry practices "compatible with the environment".
Each member state must submit its draft scheme to the Commission by 30 July 1993 for approval and I expect to have the draft scheme from Ireland submitted well ahead of that deadline. My Department has had consultations with or received submissions from various organisations in connection with the preparation of our scheme to give effect to their important measure.
I am not yet in a position to give final details of my proposals for the agri-environment scheme but it is envisaged at this stage that there will be a general environmentally sensitive areas type scheme available to farmers throughout the country. Farmers will be paid a basic premium per hectare for work carried out under this scheme, such as maintaining hedgerows, repairing traditional stone walls, fencing water courses and protecting wildlife habitats.
In addition, it is envisaged that farmers who undertake further environmentally friendly farming activities, such as organic farming, tackling overgrazing and water quality problems, and managing land designated as natural heritage areas by the Office of Public Works, will receive additional aid. The EC funding for the scheme will amount to 75 per cent of the cost.
The foregoing gives some indication of the scope and complexity of the new support system, for farmers, departmental official and support organisations like Teagasc. Under the new premia arrangements, we expect to be dealing with almost a million applications, including area aid applications which is more than twice the number received last year. Direct payments to farmers will reach £700 million when the system is fully operational which will be in approximately three years.
There is a very substantial amount of annual payments — £700 million — involved in all these schemes. They are extremely complex but they are new. Assistance is available from the Department, its network of offices and Teagasc. Farmers have responded very well by attending information meetings. I acknowledge that the forms are new to many farmers and are complex and bewildering to a great extent. However, with the assistance and advice that is available, the whole operation can be made to work smoothly.
The Government is committed to ensuring that payments under all these schemes are made as quickly as possible. To this end additional resources were made available to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry in this year's budget. An additional £4.4 million and about 300 additional staff were provided to cope with the complexity of these schemes and the additional work involved. We are currently in the process of putting the necessary staffing resources in place to ensure that we can deliver on the Government's commitment.
The new régime will require a more market oriented approach on the part of farmers and the food industry generally. Senators will be aware that I have recently received a report from the expert group on the food industry which I established in April 1992. This report will now be considered by the Government with a view to taking early decisions. Without prejudicing the Government's decision, I believe the programme outlined by the expert group will enable the industry to develop in a world dominated by Common Agricultural Policy reform, the GATT Round and the Single Market.
I am glad we have a member of the expert group in the House who is an expert on the fruit business. Senator Quinn is at the cutting edge in the retail end of the fruit business where much more of our produce will end up in the coming years.
After this short talk about Common Agricultural Policy reform, and its complexity Senators will have an idea of how difficult and bewildering it is for individual farmers. However, with the goodwill and support services available there are sufficient resources to help farmers. If the process can be further simplified I will be glad to seek Community go ahead to do so without interfering with its basic provisions and the substantial payments that will be available to farmers.
I look forward to hearing the views of individual Senators because they are in close touch with the people. I am sure their comments will be helpful to me in trying to bring about desirable changes in the implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy reforms, which will be the blueprint for the operation of the agricultural industry in the coming years.
I thank the Minister for coming to the Seanad to explain the Common Agricultural Policy reforms. However, the time available to this House — a quarter of an hour per speaker — is not adequate time to respond to this document, in view of the fact that farmers are having serious problems filling in Common Agricultural Policy forms and in some other areas of Common Agricultural Policy.
Much pressure has been put on the Minister and his Department in the past two to three weeks in relation to these forms. I am disappointed that the Minister has only extended the date until 3 June. This will not work: the Department and the Minister know how few forms they have received. I understand the Ordnance Survey office wrote to all the farmers with forms this morning informing them that it may be four or five weeks before the maps are ready. When they get the maps they will have to go to local Teagasc offices for assistance in filling in the forms. Therefore, it is physically impossible to complete the forms in time.
I have one of the forms here and to fill it out a farmer would need an accountant, an engineer to measure the fields and the tracks and to account for the ditches etc., a grade A draughtsperson and above all, a solicitor to make sure everything is right. Sadly, these forms will determine the basis of all grants to farmers for the next four years. What happens if a mistake is made?
I find the Department inflexible. I do not wish to be critical but there are cases which I cannot have resolved by the Minister's Department. On the Adjournment debate in the Dáil last year, I raised the beef premium and the Minister was persuaded to give certain undertakings, but these were not followed up by his officials. I know of a man with 50 suckler cows who made a mistake registering one and it cost him £7,000. The Department has described the man — he is not from my area, but the west of Ireland — as fraudulent and he has been put out of business. It will be fatal if the intransigence and inflexibility of the Department continues. The Minister claims that, where there is no sign of fraudulence, the Department is prepared to accept mistakes. Yet, the Department has only been reasonable in some cases and this has put the fear of God in many people.
Does the Minister not accept that a simplified form should be provided for farmers with no tillage who do not require any maps? I accept, as the Minister says, that the form is an EC requirement, but for those applying for beef premia or suckler cow premia there should be a simple, one page form which they could fill themselves without advice from a Teagasc office. I appeal to the Minister to provide this and to extend the date for non-tillage farmers to 3 June too. They will be better able to comply with this date than those with tillage.
I read with interest the explanatory leaflet which contains a section on the penalties to be charged: "A reduction of 1 per cent will apply to payments covered by the area aid application for each working day". If, after 20 days, the discrepancy is not remedied the farmer in question will be eliminated from the system of benefits. Such a penalty hardly fits the crime.
The Minister also stated that if a farmer's form is incorrectly filled he will be eliminated. I predict, and I have a good knowledge of farmers, that at least 25 per cent of forms will be wrong. If 25 per cent of farmers are eliminated from all of the schemes it will be a disaster for the Minister and his Department, and will create havoc in the farming community. The Minister will claim that this is outlined in EC regulations. I spent nine months only in the Department of Agriculture, but I know that things can be changed.
Farmers are also being asked to sign a declaration as part of the main form: "I declare that all the information given by me in this application form and/or declared is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge." I attended one of the Teagasc seminars held to explain how to fill out the forms and I was as confused as everybody else until I had read the form three or four times. The Minister must accept that thousands of farmers will have grave difficulty understanding that form and they are being asked to sign a declaration saying that they have clearly understood it. That is serious because in many cases they do not understand it. The EC are strict about enforcing penalties for false declarations. That will cause problems for at least 25 per cent of farmers.
With reference to the deadline for submitting forms I appeal to the Minister to extend the 3 June deadline for people who have no tillage. The Minister has done it for the people with tillage — could be extend the other date to 1 July? In the circumstances prevailing I appeal to the Minister to do so. I am sure if he contacted Brussels they would allow this extension. The forms came out on 15 April, a little over two weeks ago. Seminars then had to be held and unfortunately in many areas the crop was not sown because the month of April was extremely wet. In my area people have been sowing beet and barley over the last week or ten days. They did not have time to look at the forms until now.
When I went home last night several farmers were waiting for me and I told them that I would not fill in the form for anybody in case they were penalised in two months' time for an incorrectly filled in form. That would result in terrible disruption in respect of their enterprise as farmers and they would also lose their grants over the next four or five years. I am appealing to the Minister to extend the first deadline to 3 June and the second deadline to 1 July. It will take that length of time to clear this difficulty. The Ordnance Survey office have informed the farmers that they cannot despatch the maps.
The Minister said in his speech that Teagasc would help people fill in the forms. I asked Teagasc this morning how many were involved in this work and I was told there are about 200 officers throughout the country. Approximately 35,000 farmers need to submit maps with their application forms. Teagasc said that at most, an officer working full time could fill in six or seven forms per day. Multiply that by 200 over the 14 days allowed and it is clear that about 7,000 out of the 35,000 forms will be correctly filled in by the officers. It is physically impossible to fill all the forms on time by the closing date on 3 June with the resources available. That is why I am requesting the Minister to extend that date if possible to 1 July which would give the farmers a further 21 working days. I appeal to the Minister to do that, in view of the circumstances prevailing.
Professional, accountants and people who thought they knew about agriculture have found it impossible to fill in the forms. One man who is an accountant rang me this morning and said that he had six of these forms on his desk and that he did not understand them. The Minister also stated that the people who require maps could send in this form. Two thirds of the information on the form must be taken from the map, so how is it possible to send in the form when the map is not available?
The marking of the map is very difficult, because a section in the regulations in respect of the map states:
A part of the field not tilled between the crops and the centre of the joining boundary of the field not to be included. This includes ditches, dykes, hedges, fences and drains.
I spoke to a man this morning who said that a mile of river flows through his land which erodes one to one and a half acres of land per year. He said that it twists and winds all around the field. He asked me whether he must measure that river and deduct it from the area to be calculated. According to the leaflet, he does. Wet patches and places that are planted also have to be excluded from the form. Nobody can do the calculations needed for this scheme. An error tolerance of about 2 per cent is allowed, but this is not enough.
The scheme does not allow adjustments for stoney areas such as foothills. I would like to know exactly how a person can calculate the area of a foothill and base the calculations on stoney land. Will the owner be allowed to adjust that one way or another or will it be all counted as good land? If the farmer makes a mistake, does he lose out over the four years? These are the questions people ask me and I can only ask the Minister. The Minister is operating the scheme. The ordinary farmers are extremely worried about it.
I am making an earnest appeal to the Minister to allow some flexibility by extending the deadlines to 3 June for the people who do not have to submit maps and 1 July for the people who have to submit maps. I do not think that would be unreasonable.
I know a number of people who had sheep in 1991 but who did not keep sheep in 1992 and did not make an application. Are they now excluded from any headage in respect of sheep? The return from sheep over a two year period has been extremely poor and these people found themselves in financial difficulties. Their bank managers and financial institutions advised them, as did their accountants, at least to pay off some of the capital payments, work for a while and then return to sheep farming. Are these people excluded from any quota whatsoever in respect of the next four years of the programme? Adjustments such as these will have to be made in order to allow people to buy at least the number of sheep they had in the 1991 season. I know other people who had no sheep in 1992 but who sent in the application form. Will they qualify for sheep premia and quotas although they had no sheep in 1992?
The Minister did not specify the position regarding the reference price. The reference price last year was based on prices in Germany, France and Europe in general. Our price was approximately 10 per cent to 15 per cent lower and as a result we lost out on the level of premium. Farmers would favour a national reference in respect of the price of sheep rather than an EC reference price. Our farmers have suffered a reduction in the level of premia.
The qualifying weight for the beef premium is now creating a serious problem. Am I correct in saying that the weight from 1 July 1993 is 380 kilos, that in January 1994 it will be 360 kilos and that in July 1994 it will be 340 kilos? Am I correct in stating that the regulations cover these weights? The Minister did not specify this in his speech. These weights pose a very serious problem for many farmers. What percentage of cattle taking, the July 1994 figure of 340 kilos into consideration, would not qualify for intervention under this scheme?
For the last ten years we have been trying to encourage people to buy continental breeds and now we must tell them to buy Whiteheads and Aberdeen Angus because it is not possible to finish continental cattle within the weight guidelines of 12.5 hundredweight. It is possible to finish heifers at these weights but not steers. I know that heifers are not covered by the scheme yet, but I believe they will be covered at some stage. What percentage of cattle would not qualify taking into account the present difficult circumstances?
The Minister is allowing some small milk producers, under 50,000 gallons, to change over to the suckler cow scheme. They can either lease or sell their quotas in view of the costs of the new regulations for milk production. I agree with that and think it is a very good thing to do. There is a very serious problem regarding the definition of beef cows. Has the Minister made any progress in respect of Friesian cows? The people concerned have Friesian cows, not beef cows. People have been trying to boost their herd numbers and as a result all available beef cows on the market for the past six months have been bought up. These people are being asked to change over rather quickly. I understand that the date is 1 January. Can the Minister not get that definition changed? Many of the people concerned cannot and will not qualify and will thus lose their grants over the next four to five years. I would ask the Minister to outline the number of cows disqualified by definition in the 1992 season as this would indicate the approximate number of farmers affected.
We should spend another day teasing out the Minister's speech and going through it with a fine tooth comb. I am worried about the retirement scheme for farmers which we have been fighting for for ten years. The Minister's proposal today appears somewhat better then earlier schemes but until it is put into operation we will not know what the catches are. Two retirement schemes were introduced and both were disasters. One was during Fine Gael's term in office and I said at the time that it would be a disaster.
It would be a worthwhile exercise to bring in a proper retirement scheme for farmers aged from 55 to 70 to allow young farmers to take over the land. That would be very beneficial to the country and to farming in general and we wait with interest to see how the scheme will operate. I thank the Minister for coming here to explain his proposals. Let us hope we can have another day to sort out the problems attached to them.
I would like to thank the Minister for explaining the Common Agricultural Policy reform measures to the House. When Ireland joined the EC several adjustments had to be made to our agricultural industry. The Common Agricultural Policy has served Irish farmers well and we definitely benefited from a social point of view. As a dairy farmer myself it was a change to see a milk lorry coming into my farmyard to collect milk whereas before we joined the EC we would deliver to the creamery ourselves with a few old tankers. That has all changed for the better. We have a better standard of living in rural Ireland as a result of joining the European Community. The Common Agricultural Policy served the country well because it ensured that weaker or less-developed countries on the periphery of Europe had a chance to develop their agricultural output. In Denmark, for example, the average milk yield per cow was double the Irish average but now Ireland is almost on a par with Denmark to the extent that we have grass-based milk production, not factory production. This is something we should be proud of and we can thank the Common Agricultural Policy for it.
I commend the Minister for his efforts to ensure that Ireland would benefit from his negotiations with other EC Agriculture Ministers on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. My information is that we will receive £500 million from an approximate total of £1.2 billion going directly to farmers. Previously, only 25 per cent of this money went directly to farmers because it was channelled to other areas such as co-ops, and for administrative purposes. Now we are moving close to 50 per cent, and over 60 per cent of this money will go directly to farmers over the next three years up to 1995. I commend the Minister for ensuring that farmers will benefit in this way. It is important that farmers receive the maximum benefits available. This fund is not subsidised by the State but comes directly from the European Community, which is an important point.
Senator D'Arcy mentioned the complexity of the new application forms. They are, however, desirable and people should complete them properly. If they are not completed correctly, will the Minister return them, giving farmers another opportunity to complete them? If I incorrectly completed a tax form for my car, the form would definitely be sent back to me. I appeal to the Minister to allow farmers a second opportunity in such cases so as not to miss the deadlines involved.
I congratulate the Minister for setting up monitoring committees throughout the country involving farming organisations, Teagasc and the Minister's Department. In my own area 14 meetings were held over three days to help farmers. Teagasc is an important advisory organisation. Part of its role is to help farmers complete these forms correctly. I congratulate the Minister for setting up these monitoring committees for the farming organisations. I compliment Teagasc on the service they have provided for farmers over the years, helping them to compete with farmers from other European countries.
Farmers should avail of all the help provided by the advisory services and Teagasc. As a farmer myself I have availed of this valuable advice. With the introduction of the Common Agricultural Policy reform I appeal to farmers to become more closely involved in Europe because farming should be approached in a more business-like manner. We should avail of the professional advice provided, particularly when completing application forms for EC aid.
May I suggest that there be separate forms for grassland farmers and for beef farmers.
I made that point strongly to the Minister.
There should be no need for repetition. Unless the area or ownership of land has changed the farmer should not be asked to complete a form year after year, providing the same information. I also suggest that there be a simple table attached to the forms to help farmers convert acres to hectares.
Under the extensification scheme, there is an extra grant of £26 per beef animal. We have enough land to qualify for the maximum extensification grant and we should ensure that we obtain the maximum grant available. May I suggest that only an application form in duplicate, be issued to farmers so that the farmer could retain one for his records.
We all have photocopies.
I agree with Senator Dardis; any correspondent for the Farmers Journal would have access to one. However, there are many farmers in my part of the country who do not have photocopiers and they need to keep a record if they are to resubmit forms the following year. I suggest, as an alternative to a duplicate form, that the Department photocopies the completed form and sends it back with a receipt so that it may be used the following year.
The Minister referred to the pension scheme for farmers between 55 and 66 years of age. I agree that the pension scheme should be available; I also agree with the transfer of land from father to son at an early age. However, the greatest factor inhibiting this transfer is the inheritance tax on family farms. This should be abolished——
And the probate tax going.
Where the father transfers the farm directly to his son, it should not be subject to inheritance tax. That would be better than introducing any pension scheme.
I welcome the Minister to the House and thank him for his kind comments in regard to the participation of the Expert Group on the Food Industry. I have two points to make and I do not expect either to be popular with farming interests.
First, whenever we discuss the Common Agricultural Policy almost the only voices heard are on the producers side. I listened carefully to the Minister's speech and to that of Senator D'Arcy and Senator R. Kiely but I did not hear them mention the word consumer. We rarely hear a word on behalf of the consumer. It is the consumer who pays at the end of the day. In this country it is assumed that our only interst in Common Agricultural Policy reform is from the producer's point of view, and that our national interest is synonymous with watering down the impact of the reform as much as we can. It is time that we took a much wider view than that and realised that while agriculture is an important part of our economy, it is not the whole economy. When we come to consider GATT reform we should think of the whole economy.
People rarely dare to speak out on behalf of the consumer. In this country, at least, they rarely dare to declare that Common Agricultural Policy is a monster that has swallowed up a totally disproportionate amount of EC resources and distorted the development of the community for the last 20 years. Ireland has certainly benefited greatly from the Common Agricultural Policy which was an effort to make Europe self-sufficient in food and to give reasonable prices to European farmers. However, what was a good idea to begin with has got grotesquely out of hand resulting in food mountains, wine lakes and consumer prices that are much higher than necessary. Furthermore, it resulted in the Third World being squeezed out of one of their most important markets.
I do not see how any European can be proud of the Common Agricultural Policy. As a prime beneficiary of that policy, Ireland should now be to the forefront in realising that the Common Agricultural Policy era has gone forever and should not try to hold onto its remnants or seek to continue it under a different guise. We should support a root and branch reform, one that would reduce the price of food to Irish consumers, put our agriculture on a genuinely market related basis and allow us to foster trade with the deserving countries of the Third World.
If we take a long term view we must admit that the Common Agricultural Policy has done more harm than good to Irish agriculture. It has allowed us to put on the long finger, over the last 20 years, the vital task of shifting Irish agriculture away from the production of commodities towards the production of value added products. Twenty years after joining the EC we have made painfully little progress in that direction mainly as a result of the cushion afforded by the Common Agricultural Policy. Too much of our agricultural output has little or no added value. At the high end of the value added spectrum, the area of consumer food products, we have failed almost totally.
We talk endlessly about losing jobs in agriculture instead of accepting that loss as inevitable. We could create jobs in food production but for the most part we have failed to do that. Jobs in food production are also in decline now. The Common Agricultural Policy has allowed us to turn our back on the marketplace but we cannot ignore the marketplace any longer. The catching up that we have to do is now a much bigger task than it might have been. It is time that point was made and the ordinary consumer and taxpayer had a voice in this important Common Agricultural Policy debate.
Since joining the EC about 20 years ago we have lost, at a conservative estimate, 7,500 farmers per year, making a total of 150,000 which, incidentally, is half the number of people unemployed at present. That would be the equivalent of closing down a factory employing 150 people every week since we entered the EC. It is no wonder, therefore, that Mr. Ray MacSharry set about reforming the Common Agricultural Policy. When he set about doing so he said a couple of things that I agree with totally, and Mr. MacSharry was in a position to know what he was talking about. He said that 20 per cent of the larger farmers got 80 per cent of the Common Agricultural Policy transfers and the reason for that was that money was paid on the basis of animal numbers and production. The bigger the holding the more animals and the greater the production. In that way the biggest farmers got the most.
Mr. MacSharry also said that he was going to re-direct some of that income towards the 80 per cent who were only getting 20 per cent of the transfers. That seemed the right thing to do but, unfortunately, when he set about it all the vested interests closed in on him immediately — the political parties, the farming organisations and the banks all objected. The result was that Mr. MacSharry had to back down with his proposals. He was praised loudly by Mr. John Gummer, the British agriculture secretary, for his efforts and that is not a good sign for Irish small farmers.
The new Common Agricultural Policy, in so far as small family farmers are concerned, is much worse than what was in place before.
I will give two examples to highlight what I am talking about. First, let us consider a 200 acre grain farmer operating under the set-aside scheme. People from urban areas who do not understand the scheme might think it ridiculous but nevertheless there is a lot of money in it for big farmers. A grain farmer with 200 acres would get about £13,400 per year from the scheme, so it is not too ridiculous for him.
The Senator did not tell us how much less he is going to get.
He would get a cheque for about £13,400 in the post. The second example relates to the suckler cow premium. A large farmer who, in 1992, had a lot of land and could purchase 100 suckler cows might receive a cheque for £20,000 per year. Many of the small farmers I represent were not even able to buy one cow and they will not get much benefit.
It can be seen from the two examples I have given that the revised Common Agricultural Policy will, in fact, be disastrous for small farmers and the demise of rural Ireland will be speeded up. That will be the position since Mr. MacSharry's fundamental point was that indirect income would be paid relative to production and animal numbers and there has been no change in that. He was right to try to do something about the 80 per cent of farmers who would not be able to acquire extra animals or have the extra production. A new system should be put in place which will direct income to that 80 per cent in order to keep them on their holdings. They should receive a cheque in the post providing them with a family income supplement. I have heard farming organisations say that farmers would not accept and did not want a cheque in the post. I have yet to meet a farmer who sent a cheque back but I have met several who thought they did not get enough.
What I have in mind would be a direct income aid, put in place for small farmers based on their acreage and family size, in other words, give money to people with families. There may be a way by which this can be achieved. In the 1970s and early 1980s intensification resulted in the accumulation of surpluses of wine and other agricultural products. In the 1990s the EC is discussing extensification. A proper extensification programme, coupled with an indirect or family income supplement for small farmers, would enable them to stay on their holdings. This would also help tourism promotion. People could be paid to stay on their holdings and advised to carry out certain environmental works. I am not sure whether the Common Agricultural Policy can be revised because the EC Agriculture Commissioner stated last week that the revised Common Agricultural Policy is in place and cannot be renegotiated.
The EC area aid application for arable and livestock schemes consists of four pages of terms and conditions and eight pages of explanatory notes. A woman who contacted me during the week said she went to a solicitor for help in completing this application. He was unable to do so and suggested that she go to politicians for help as it was they who drew up the form. The Teagasc staff in Carlow are working around the clock and will work next Saturday and Sunday to help farmers complete these forms. I and other small farmers would be unable to fill in this form.
The procedures are strict, detailed and complicated. All tillage farmers must submit either a six or a 25 inch ordnance survey map. Perimeter boundaries must be highlighted in red, boundaries of individual fields or blocks in green and separate crops within a field must be indicated by a dotted line in black felt. Areas for each individual tillage crop must be given in hectares rounded to two decimal places. The width of each headland must be measured to the centre of the ditch. In the case of grass farms there is no need for a map but every farmer has to provide the townland address and district electoral division for each field or block of land. The area aid application is the key requirement for all European Community premia. Unless the form is completed and sent to the Department a farmer will not qualify for premia. Many of them may not be aware of this and may not send in the form.
An area aid application performs a number of functions. It is a declaration of land use. One must state what crops, including grass, one is growing in each field or block of land in 1993. In the case of tillage it is an actual application for European Community tillage aid. For livestock farmers the forage area declared in the area aid form will be used to calculate stocking densities for cattle premia and extensification, but the area aid form is not in itself an application for any livestock schemes. One must still have to apply separately for suckler and beef premia. This could cause confusion.
For tillage and mixed tillage dry stock farms the completed form must reach the Department by 14 May. Also, farmers who tilled any of their land since 1 January 1987 must submit the form by 14 May even though these farmers may have no tillage in 1993. All grass farmers with no land in tillage since 1987 must submit their completed forms with the first livestock aid application after 14 May but in any event not later than 1 July. There are penalties for late declarations. Aid will be reduced by 1 per cent for each working day that an application/declaration is late, up to a maximum of 20 days after the closing date. No aid will be paid if it is received after 3 June which is 20 days after the closing date. It is not surprising that the solicitor to whom I referred earlier would not fill in the form.
Accuracy in crop and forage acreage declaration is crucial. Acreage declarations up to 2 per cent in excess of actual acreage will incur no penalty. Excess declarations of between 2 and 10 per cent will result in aid not being paid for twice the number of acres falsely declared. Excess declarations of between 10 and 20 per cent will lead to a 30 per cent penalty. No aid will be paid where the difference between declared and actual acreage is greater than 20 per cent.
Forage area aid is complicated because it includes fences, hedgerows, drains and excludes buldings, woods, ponds, paths, rock outcrop and bogs not grazed. Tillage crops entered for set aside and tillage areas as well as permanent horticultural crops are also excluded. It is important to note that differences of more than 2 per cent between declared and actual forage area will lead to severe reductions or a complete withdrawal of aid. If the time granted for submitting applications is not extended many people will not qualify for aid.
I will not delay the House very long because I know other Members wish to speak. I never thought I would see the day that Gay Byrne would be the saviour of the Irish farmer. This morning he agreed that the forms which have to be completed, the arable crop lands which have to be measured and the timescale within which the forms must be returned are posing an impossible task for 36,000 farmers. By this morning 125 applications throughout the country were returned. The Land Registry maps will not be available in most cases for about three weeks or more. The Minister informed the House today that he is extending the closing date for receipt of applications until 31 May. On the basis of the information made available through the airwaves and Gay Byrne, farmers will be delighted that an extension of two weeks was granted but it is insufficient.
One speaker after another referred to the serious problems many farmers are facing. Would the Minister not agree that it is in the national interest that each of these forms is filled in properly so that the maximum aid transfers are received from Europe? I ask the Minister for an extension of time on the lines that Senator D'Arcy mentioned. Even if the forms were not as complicated as they are, more time would still be needed. When Deputy Deasy was Minister for Agriculture forms were issued to farmers to enable them to apply for financial assistance to cope with problems they faced as a result of bad weather in 1986. Although this form consisted of two pages, many people had difficulties completing it.
I ask the Minister for a change in attitude. It should not be the Department against 170,000 farmers. We should be helping them. If the 200 field staff worked 24 hours a day from now until the closing date, they would not get the work finished. Some 50 per cent of the people who have received those forms will require help. People are out measuring with tape — it takes two family members to do so — the bits and pieces of farms that cannot be included and there can only be a 2 per cent error tolerance. I ask the Minister to help rather than hinder the process. It is fine for the people in Europe to ask that this be done within a certain period but it is for the Minister to ask Europe for an extension to ensure we receive the maximum benefit.
There is another issue in relation to GATT and the other reforms taking place which should be addressed. There was an average of 460,000 suckler cows here over the last number of years. That has increased to a million. Are there any contingency plans to ensure markets for the extra stock that we will have in the next six, 12 or 18 months? We do not want to return to the problem we had in 1974 when the cattle market collapsed. Long term plans for solving and preparing for that problem are required. Many people will start to think about this when these forms are filled, but we should not have it until then.
I wish to share my time with Senator Naughten.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Mr. Naughten
I welcome the Minister to the House. This is an important subject which is undoubtedly affecting every farm in the country. I thank Senator Farrelly for sharing his time with me.
There is major concern about this form as there is little time available for getting maps or assistance when filling it out. Senator D'Arcy dealt with that part earlier. The form is causing concern to farmers because of the problem of obtaining maps. Could the Minister confirm that only tillage farmers have to get maps this year? There is confusion in the minds of farmers seeking extensification grants who think they also have to furnish maps.
Land leasing is another area of difficulty, particularly in the west, where maps are being sought for land that has been leased. I ask the Minister, with regard to extensification and the leasing of land, to waive the requirement to send in maps. I cannot understand why it is not possible for farmers to go into their local county council office and get maps, thereby generating much needed revenue for the local authority. It is possible for each local authority to provide detailed maps of acreages on the 25-inch square map. That would be of major assistance to farmers who will have to send in maps next year.
The ewe premium scheme is causing many problems for farmers. Many farmers in my country had more sheep in 1992 than they had in 1991. The quota is based on the 1991 figures and farmers who had more sheep in 1992 are losing out on grants as a result. Perhaps it would be possible for farmers who had more sheep in 1992 to get a premium based on an average over the two years. This would be of major assistance to many farmers.
The sheep meat regime and the reference price, which is now based on a price throughout the EC is unfortunate as far as the Irish farmer is concerned. Ireland is very far away from the market, which is mainly in Paris, and we have received no allowance or special recognition of that fact. The reference price, which has effectively reduced the ewe subsidies by 15 per cent, is affecting every Irish sheep farmer at a time when the sheep meat regime is going through a difficult period. We should have fought our case to be treated differently from the rest of the EC. We are treated as if we were farming in France or adjacent to the main market and that has caused major problems for many sheep farmers throughout this country.
I welcome the Minister's efforts with regard to the pension scheme for farmers. That will be an interesting and exciting development. Farmers, on reaching 55 years can lease their land to their sons and introduce them to farming. I welcome the scheme and ask the Minister to press ahead with it. It will make major changes in the face of Irish farming. Farms can generate only one income. The introduction of this scheme may bring many young people into farming as the retiring farmer will have a income by way of pension.
I welcome the Minister to the House and compliment him on his speech which covered practically all aspects of Common Agricultural Policy reform. It is important to put Common Agricultural Policy and Common Agricultural Policy reform in context. We joined the EC on the cornerstone of the Common Agricultural Policy and it has served us well. As Senator Kiely said, we have had our hiccups along the way but the new cornerstone for farming is the reform of that package and its implementation. I am somewhat surprised by the fact that farmers are upset about being asked to fill out a form that will guarantee them an income over the next number of years. We must look at the positive side. There is now an opportunity for direct payment to farmers. Forms have to be filled and farmers will have to be discommoded to some extent in that they have to get maps and so on. I ask the Minister to allow them time to do that. We are setting down a new system of direct payment to farmers from Brussels and it is important that it is set down properly and that every farmer fully avails of the opportunity presented by the new package.
I wish to deal with two specific areas of Common Agricultural Policy and Common Agricultural Policy reform. I welcome the retirement scheme but I have one major problem with it. It is wrong to exclude part-time farmers; the Government should include them in the early retirement scheme under the Common Agricultural Policy. Part-time farmers should not and must not be discriminated against in this scheme if economic circumstances force them to take employment off the farm to maintain and develop their holdings and to provide for their families. It would be a national disgrace if progressive part-time farmers were penalised while farmers who resort to the farmers' dole will benefit. I have received numerous representations about this retirement scheme over the last number of months.
I want to explain what is involved for thousands of farmers in the west, the midlands, and elsewhere. There are areas where almost every farm cannot provide an adequate income for a family due to its size, bad land or flood damage and if the farmer does not have an off-farm income he may have to leave his farm. Are the farmers who have upgraded their farms, their stocking levels and building, reclaimed land and provided for their families to be excluded from this scheme because of their initiative? That would be wrong.
I ask the Minister to include these farmers in this scheme. We have a duty to them. They have been good workers as can be seen from the statistics for store cattle, sheep, milk production, etc., since we joined the EC. We cannot turn our backs on them and exclude them from a national scheme providing an opportunity to hand over those lands to somebody that could join a number of such farms together to farm in a progressive way.
The Minister should create a third tier of disadvantage in the catchment area of the Shannon and its tributaries. Parts of the disadvantaged area can be classified as extremely disadvantaged. This description would allow for higher headage payments and would improve farmers' incomes. Many farms in this area are affected by severe and persistent flooding. The area of the Shannon could be classified with the peripheral areas in the west.
I was afraid the Senator was going to ask the Minister to drain the Shannon.
No. Too many promises to do that were made over the years. The farmers in the Shannon catchment area could also benefit through the EC agricultural environment scheme which has been agreed under the Common Agricultural Policy reform. This scheme will reward farmers through area payments for environmental management agreement. Such schemes already exist in Northern Ireland, Britain and Germany. There could be £25 million in income over five years for farmers in that catchment area. These figures are mentioned by the Shannon forum and the IFA who have done a detailed investigation into this matter. This would ensure the area was used in an environmentally friendly way and the Shannon callows could be preserved.
People in those areas live under threat of flood at all times. This spring all the carrot farmers in the south Roscommon area, lost their crops due to flooding. About £1,000 an acre has been lost in seed, fertilizer and replacing the crop. This has caused great hardship for these people.
I am pleased with the 18 per cent share of the £8.4 million Structural Funds going to agriculture and rural development. We must support farming, which is still the backbone of Irish industry. I disagree with Senator Quinn who castigated and downgraded the Common Agricultural Policy over the last 20 years. The Common Agricultural Policy gave Irish farmers a reasonable standard of living. Urban and rural representatives must ensure the farmers make a reasonable livelihood from the Common Agricultural Policy reform.
A great opportunity now exists for an integrated package of measures for the development of the Shannon catchment area for tourism, agriculture, etc. I ask the Minister when looking at designated area for the EC agri-environmental scheme to consider this area because a reasonable income will help farmers to stay in that area and a natural habitat will be preserved. I hope the Minister will consider some of the points I have made.
I, too, welcome the Minister. I thank him for attending throughout the debate. A valuable aspect of his speech is that he listed in chronological order the various schemes available to us and how they operate.
It is an indication of how we have developed as a society in Europe that we spend two hours discussing not where agriculture is going, not how farming is progressing, not how the food industry should respond to the changes that are upon us, but discussing the detail of how particular schemes operate, deficiencies in forms being circulated and how farmers can deal with those forms. This is a form of madness. In 200 or 300 years time historians studying this period will not understand how our industry was ruled by a bureaucracy which is suffocating progress and our ability to compete.
Of course farm surpluses had to be contained and we had to devise different systems. However, it is illogical to worry about the detail of forms, to put in commas and full stops and how to measure our land. This has nothing to do with farming.
There is a field on my farm where only weeds are growing. Mr. Pat O'Neill, Group Managing Director of Avonmore, said that it is difficult to defend the fact that the only source of protein in Irish fields is the grasshoppers. How can I defend the fact that I have a field on my farm which is lying idle, or that some of the best productive land in the world is growing nothing, when each evening we see on our television screens the starving people of Somalia and the Sudan? What sort of madness has led us to a point where we have created this Hydra — when one head is chopped off another grows in its place? I do not understand how we can defend this.
I accept that in the practical world we must devise procedures which respond to the pressures imposed on us because of the way the Common Agricultural Policy has developed. It defies logic that we do it this way. A great Irishman, Jonathan Swift, said that the value of a man who could make two blades of grass grow where one formerly grew was worth more than a group of politicians. That precept has existed for almost 300 years, but we have stood it on its head.
Psychologically, every farmer recoils from seeing land lying idle. We were brought up in the tradition that we should work our land properly, we should work hard and we should produce for the benefit of the country. Yet, we leave our most productive asset lying idle. This does not make sense.
The MacSharry reforms represent the most fundamental change in the way our agricultural economy has been managed since the foundation of the State. We are moving from a system of price support to one of income support where we are controlling surpluses and limiting intervention. However, is it achieving anything, and, if so, at what price? The latest FÁS ESRI report, "Occupational Employment Forecast 1996", says that farming employment is expected to resume its long term decline after a brief period of stability in 1986-90.
Senator R. Kiely said that we now have a better standard of living. Those of us who remain have a better standard of living. But at what price? There were 189,000 people working in agriculture in 1981, 167,000 in 1990 and, if this forecast is correct, that number will be reduced to 138,000 by 1996. We talk about great job creation prospects in the food industy and I accept that this is an area where progress must take place. We have an indigenous resource we must exploit to national advantage. However, even in that area, the forecast says the number employed will decrease from 36,000 in 1990 to 32,000 in 1996. How can this policy achieve results when we are experiencing a severe unemployment crisis? Where will the people who are leaving the land go? How will they make a living to support their families? Europe must respond to these problems.
I accept that the people who framed the changes in this policy did so because they hoped to secure the future of the rural population. As I said, I am sceptical that it will achieve this objective. Everything that has happened has convinced me that that objective will not be achieved. Where is the merit in what has been done?
I declare that I have a vested interest in this matter. I have to complete an EC area aid application form which I received in the last ten days. I accept that procedures must be put in place to ensure that people do not become involved in fraudulent activities and that they regulate their affairs properly. In fairness to the Minister and his officials, the explanatory memorandum which accompanies the EC area aid application form translates the language of bureaucracy and makes it easier to understand. However, we are still too concerned with the procedure of red, green and black pencils and Ordnance Survey maps. How will we defend this situation? What will be said about us in 100 years time? Future generations will not understand our actions.
Reference was made to how we regulate the existing area and how we ensure it is in accordance with the conditions of the arable and livestock schemes. I have land which is eroded by a river; I do not know the area of that land. It is not on the Ordnance Survey map. A motorway was built across the middle of my farm within the last few years and that is not on any Ordnance Survey map. These are the practical difficulties I see in the scheme.
If this scheme is imposed on us, the onus will be on the bureaucrats to facilitate farmers. If it was possible to send officials to inspect land in every county for taxation purposes, then it is possible to send them to help farmers. The Minister referred to the amount of money allocated in the budget and the fact that there are 300 extra staff involved. Where are they? I do not know, I have dealt with a few individuals in the Department who perform miracles to try to help farmers and individuals who have queries. Every case is different. I do not know how those officials maintain their sanity because they are so busy; it is a victory even to get through to them. The fact that they remain calm and answer the questions put to them says a lot for their good sense and the quality of our public service.
Reference was made to £700 million and the one million applications from farmers. That is a considerable number of applications; it would suggest that each farmer is making six or seven applications. I question that statistic.
I wanted to make a few points about fulfilling the conditions for applications and the need for proper research and development; I also intended to speak on the report of the expert group on the food industry mentioned by Senator Quinn, but time is not on my side. I ask the Minister to ensure that the report is circulated to every Member. I have not seen it and I would like to. We are reaching a point where those who are left on the land will have to try to make a living from filling in these application forms.
In view of the interest in this issue, it is important that we continue this debate on another occasion. Therefore, my comments will be brief.
I welcome the Minister's extensive and well researched presentation on how the reform programme will be implemented. The Senators who have already spoken pointed out a number of difficulties and anomalies which arise in the fulfilment of this programme. It is important to note that the Minister and the Department have been commended for the support and assistance they have given in introducing a new EC scheme.
Senator Dardis mentioned the problem of rural depopulation. The Senator will be aware that this problem underlined the need for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. The pattern of rural depopulation in Europe, was vigorously under way at a rate we did not experience, during the last 15 to 20 years. Senator Dardis is aware that the rural population in the Paris basin was devastated and for that reason the reform we are discussing at present is long overdue.
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit again at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 May 1993.