Developments in the European Communities—Third Report and Fourth Report: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann takes note of the reports: Developments in the European Communities—Third Report and Fourth Report.

—(Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.)

Mr. Cunningham

I should like to obtain information on a number of matters and to put forward suggestions to the Government and, in particular, to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries on EEC schemes. Under the most recent of these schemes aid will be given to disadvantaged areas, mainly the west, I regret that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is not present because I wish to obtain information from him on a number of matters.

Are the Government, in keeping with the schemes under Directives 159 and 160, chipping in financially on the scheme I have mentioned?

I am aware that under the other schemes, for example the retirement scheme for farmers and the farm modernisation scheme, the Government subvention added to the EEC grants amounts to 75 per cent. In other words, the scheme in operation includes the EEC grants, plus a subvention from the Government of 75 per cent. I should like to know in respect of the disadvantaged farm areas scheme whether any money will be forthcoming and added to the EEC grant in this case and if so what percentage of the moneys for the operation of the scheme will be added by the Government. We are at a disadvantage in not knowing that.

I would suggest a few improvements in the scheme as announced. We know the delineation of the areas concerned but I do not know whether the Government are open to any negotiation as to whether it can be extended or not, but that is not the matter I want to follow up. I am happy that the Minister did include all of County Donegal. We appreciate this because we did make representations to him. Our understanding was that there was a proposal previously that Donegal should be split in two. This has not taken place, but more importantly, now that the county and other disadvantaged areas in the west are included, I would suggest some things we would like to see improved. I have this mainly from Press reports rather than from any information data we have got from the Government or the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

I would suggest a change in the livestock unit versus sheep numbers. I understand that the proposal is that six sheep equal one livestock unit. Seeing that the scheme is meant to cover the particular areas which have been published and agreed, areas where sheep farming is of paramount importance, where large numbers of cattle cannot be reared and brought to full maturity, I think the sheep farmer should be helped and would suggest, not just to think of a number, that the number of sheep to equal one livestock unit be five instead of six.

I have arrived at this figure, first of all, at the request of a farming organisation in Donegal and secondly, from the information I got that this is the case in the Highlands of Scotland and in Britain where this ratio exists. I do not think our farmers should be in any more disadvantaged position than they are. In the matter of grants, they are in a more disadvantaged position as farmers, I think —in regard to distances from ultimate consumption areas of their produce, which has not alone to find its way to the centres of population in this country but in the case of mutton and wool, has to find its way to the centres of population in Britain and the Continent—so it would be logical that our farmers would not be, in the operation of the scheme, in any worse position than their counterparts in Northern Ireland and Britain.

The second point is the income limit of £2,100, up from £1,800. I think this should be lowered and also that the ceiling for the livestock grants should be left open. I must admit that I am not too clear on this suggestion. It was given to me pretty quickly, but the suggestion is that there should be no ceiling, that it should be market value, and also that 40 per cent rather than 30 per cent should be given for fixed units like cattle fixtures and farm buildings fixtures for milk, cattle pens, and so on. These are fairly minor improvements I am suggesting in the scheme, but I would point out to the Government that by and large the farm modernisation scheme in operation since 1st February last year does not suit the small farmers of the regions laid out in the disadvantaged farm areas. We on this side have tabled questions and a motion signed by all the rural Deputies to have improvements made in that scheme. So far the Minister has not agreed with our suggestions and we have the situation where there are three categories of farmers, categories which are such that it is very difficult for the small farmers who are covered by the disadvantaged areas scheme ever to find themselves benefiting under the farm modernisation scheme. This is a loss to the farmers.

This scheme is subsidised to the tune of 75 per cent by the Government, to which is added the 25 per cent financial contribution by the EEC. In respect of small farmers covered by the less-favoured areas scheme about to be put into operation by the Government, through grants from the EEC, I would make the case strongly that the same percentage rate of subsidisation be made by the Government.

The small farmers of the west, who will not be in a position to reach the requisite farm acreage of a development farmer, who is the person who will receive first priority and the largest grants under the farm modernisation scheme, will be left sucking the hind tit. They will not receive priority with regard to grants under the scheme and, secondly, even if they did receive some, they will not be of the same amount as those farmers who will be able to show, if they are transitional, that progressively they can, with aid, reach the development stage. If they have already reached the development stage they will be assisted fairly substantially in grants under the farm modernisation scheme. Therefore, that is my worry and that of all Deputies from the west—especially those in the area delineated by the Government as being that in which the disadvantaged areas scheme will operate, given aid and assistance. This should be an ideal scheme to take up the slack to benefit those farmers who cannot hope ever to reach development status. For that reason I make a special plea to the Government that a fair percentage of money be added to the amount supplied from EEC funds. It is a pity the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach could not say now what is the score here.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

I hope the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries might still contribute to the debate, in which case a more expert voice than mine will deal with the points raised.

Mr. Cunningham

Yes. But it could shorten the debate very much for me and others who may follow me were the Parliamentary Secretary to say: "All right, it is 50 per cent, or 75 per cent of the total grant". In other words, that they would be adding a similar amount to that of the EEC or that they would be doubling it or trebling it, as in the case of the other two directives in regard to the farm retirement scheme and the farm modernisation scheme.

Speaking about the farm retirement scheme, when spokesman for Lands, as I was when it was introduced, I welcomed it. The Government were wise to go along, add not alone to the finance but not have it exactly as Brussels decided. In other words, the Minister for Lands decided that the scheme, as envisaged by Brussels, was not one that suited Irish conditions, and decided to go one better. That is why I welcome the scheme. I did sound a warning that there was the danger it might be used to get too many people off small farms. In this country, where we have a mixed farming economy, the small farmer is a must. Provided we can enable the small farmer to have an off-farm income, there is nothing wrong with being a small farmer because economically it is good business. The extreme advocated by Europeans is not one with which I would go along.

When I was speaking on the farm retirement scheme, when announced by the Minister and broadcast afterwards, I warned that farmers should not be pressurised. It is a scheme which suits farmers who have reached the end of their farming career, who may not have anyone coming after them to take over. It is an ideal scheme under which payment is made in respect of the land and a pension of£400 or £600 granted. Because I had complaints from two separate counties that Land Commission officials were going around urging farmers to avail of the scheme, which is fair enough, and that those officials were accompanied in each case by an auctioneer. During the debate I asked whether the Department of Lands had any recognised auctioneer appointed for the operation of that scheme. The answer I received was "No". The Minister, rightly, said he would deprecate very much any auctioneer taking a Land Commission official around by the hand. I thought the practice would stop.

I find now in the case of farmers who thought they were eligible under the scheme, who wrote to the Department of Lands for the necessary application form and data, completed such forms, or who went to their local councillor, schoolmaster or somebody else, an official from the Land Commission arrived with that person, accompanied by an auctioneer, who said: "I can get this through more quickly for you and I can get a better price if you leave it to me". In a number of cases such applicants gave no instructions at all to the auctioneer. Yet such an applicant received the auctioneer's bill for services rendered. I understand the Land Commission will pay some auctioneers' bills and, worse still, the auctioneer phones, once he finds out the money has been paid to the solicitor acting for the vendor and says: "hold on, do not pay all that; I have a share in it". That practice is damnable and I would ask the Minister to have it investigated. I know it is happening in Donegal. I know it happens in other counties also because I have had letters to that effect. Unless an applicant commissions an auctioneer to do the job for him, the Land Commission official should not arrive, out of the blue, with an auctioneer at that applicant's premises or dwelling and I hope that in that area from which I come and which I represent this practice will cease. I have had many farmers with me recently who outlined the story as I have told it now and who have asked my advice whether they are liable for 5 per cent auctioneer's fees or not. My advice to them is: "If you are morally certain that you did not commission the auctioneer to do it, then you are not morally bound to pay". I should like that to get across. Unfortunately it is happening not in one or two but in a number of counties. Finally, I should very much appreciate if we could get some of the information for which I have asked on the disadvantaged areas scheme.

Mr. Callanan

It is a shame that more time is not given in this House to discussing the business of the European Parliament. From now on, whether we like it or not, the Council of Ministers are the people who will decide our lives for us. The whole system of the EEC should be changed and an agenda should be drawn up of what the Council of Ministers intend to discuss in the next six months, and one day should be set aside in this Parliament and in every other national parliament of the EEC to discuss that agenda. It is very hard for a Minister who lives in one part of the country to have to decide what would be good for the whole of this island, small and all as it is, without being briefed by this Parliament. Consultation after the decisions have been made is not consultation at all.

If you want to know what is happening in Europe you must find out by way of question and answer across the floor of this House. If you ask a question about a directive you are told— and rightly so because the rules are laid down—that it is a directive sent from Europe and it must be accepted. This is a most undemocratic way to run any community. What I am asking is that our Minister in Brussels and our members of the European Parliament should be briefed on the wishes of our National Parliament in regard to matters to be discussed at EEC meetings. As I say, one day should be set aside for such a discussion, and it should not be in an empty House. I was appalled when I came here first to find that we had very little say. Everything in connection with everyday life of the people, in agriculture and in industry is decided in Brussels.

There are a few points which I would like to discuss, and I hope anything I say will be considered constructive. As I have said on various occasions, I would say the same thing no matter what Minister, my own or that of any other party, was in power. I do not use this House for political purposes, particularly when we are dealing with the lives of people and with the economy.

When a number of directives came from the EEC some of us living down the country knew that these directives were unsuitable to our needs but we were criticised and told we were trying to throw a spanner into the works. I will quote from a report in The Irish Press of yesterday, 8th April, which stated:

An immediate review by the Government and the Irish Farmer's Association of the three directives concerning the structure of farming which is coming into operation was demanded last night by the IFA Secretary.

We know these directives are completely unsuited to this country. Deputy Cunningham went into fair detail about the disadvantaged areas. I am not very clear on this latest directive, but I understand that Brussels will put 25 per cent into the scheme. I think the Government can give a subvention of 50 per cent, and if the Government are really interested in the survival of these farmers, they will give the maximum amount which is allowable by the EEC. I am sorry the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is not here to enlighten us about this.

Another thing I was very disappointed about is that the published location of the disadvantaged areas are very deceptive. It is stated that the 12 western counties are in the disadvantaged areas. I have a map in front of me of my own county of Galway, and there is very little east of the Corrib. Though we are in theoretically, practically we are not in at all, because the only advantage of being in is getting the headage payment. There are designated areas, but desperately poor areas like east of Glenamaddy, Mountbellew and Newbridge are outside the scheme. There are only a couple of areas in at the northern end of the county, south of Lough Rea and the mountains between Clare and Galway. It is ridiculous to publish that the 12 western counties are in when they will not get the full benefit of the scheme. It may be said you are in if you are a developing farmer. To be in a disadvantaged area is to be at a disadvantage. In regard to County Galway I stated on one occasion that 8 per cent would qualify, but I am sorry to say that at the moment only between 3 and 4 per cent of the farmers will qualify as development farmers. If it is not a disadvantaged area when that low number qualify, what is a disadvantaged area? I do not know whether the Minister knows County Galway, but before he came in I referred to Ballygar and Newbridge as not being in. He might be entitled to exclude the area around Eyrecourt and Ballinasloe, which is my own area but it is a shame not to include some other areas.

I understood that those who were in the beef incentive scheme in the disadvantaged areas would be grouped with the present headage payment. It might be a disadvantage to a farmer to be in the beef scheme at the moment but it is certainly an advantage to people to be classed in disadvantaged areas. I object to finding it set out on a sheet of paper that we are theoretically in a disadvantaged area but practically we are not.

When I criticised some of the directives I was told by some people that I was throwing a spanner in the works. I read a summary of a speech by the General Secretary of the IFA in yesterday's Irish Press asking the Government to seriously consider altering the three directives which came from Brussels. The most important matter of all is if the EEC put in 25 per cent and we can go to 50 per cent. Is the State prepared to put in the money that would bring it up to the maximum allowed within the context of the EEC?

In relation to the areas within the areas that theoretically are supposed to be in the disadvantaged areas, who was consulted? Was anybody at county level consulted? In relation to my own county who decided on the areas? I thought that at least the CAOs and the advisers would be asked for their opinions but apparently they were not. I resent the fact that all the 12 western counties are not in the disadvantaged areas scheme, although theoretically they are supposed to be in. The fund is also too small.

I do not like repeating myself but I have to in relation to Directive 159. I said this was unsuitable on various occasions. I was told that there were very few people who would not qualify. I know of a man who has 100 acres of land, some of which is furze. He has 30 cows and their calves, six young cattle, six calves, 40 ewes and he does not qualify. If he was in dairying he would qualify with 20 cows. That type of farmer is considdered a big farmer in my area. There is something wrong when a man like that does not qualify. This will have a demoralising effect on the people who will feel there is no future for them except social welfare. If the Minister does not want to bring down the maximum income I suggest that an intermediate scheme should be introduced with a target such as in the small farm incentive scheme which we had. Those farmers would be given a target to work to and told that if they reached that target they could eventually become developing farmers.

The Minister has promised, when this matter comes under review again, that those people will not be cut out. Under the directive they are cut out at a certain time. They are left at the bottom of the road and feel they will never make the grade. Some of them no longer have initiative to go ahead.

I know a few farmers in my area, who are in debt with the bank for large sums of money, who have up to 400 acres and can take advantage of some of the directives. I thought those people would be classed as commercial farmers. The Minister should try to get the people in Brussels to agree to having an intermediate scheme introduced for some of those farmers I have been speaking about. I do not agree with the set up in Brussels because if I were Minister and went to Brussels I would not be able to talk for all the country without being briefed by somebody. We never have an agenda from Brussels stating that within the next three months we will discuss Directive 159, 160 or any other directive.

If we spent one day discussing one of those directives and briefing our Minister on the type of directive which would suit the country, then he could go to Brussels with full knowledge of what is best for the country and would know what he was talking about. The Minister cannot have this knowledge without a full debate here on those directives. On one occasion I asked the Minister if we could have a discussion on a particular directive but he told me we could not because this was something to be done by the Council of Ministers. Why should we not discuss the agenda here? This would be the best day's work this Parliament ever did. I again ask the Minister to have a look at that.

The next point I want to make is in connection with Directive 160 which of course is married to Directive 159. While Directive 160 is a good scheme it is too selective. Most of the people who are anxious to retire under Directive 160 are people who have land rented. I know the Minister for Lands is anxious to change this. I want to make it clear that we are knocking at an open door. It should be changed. It is ridiculous to retire a man who is working his land well at 55 years of age when a man who may be crippled and who is drawing disability benefit and who has to set his land cannot retire. The person who should retire is the man who is not able to work his land or the widow who is unable to work her land. The age limit operates in both those cases. My view is that the age limit is wrong. You will not get many men who are doing a good job on their farms to retire at 55 years of age. How many people here over 65 years of age have made application to retire? This State has to bear the burden of the retirement of those people.

The process is that the person applies to retire; his application goes to the EEC section in Agriculture House and they process it to see if the applicant is suitable to come under the scheme. That is the first step of the ladder. A person can have his application rejected on the ground that he has set his land. There is a case that I know of where a man set his land only a week before he applied for retirement. Technically he was not entitled to come within the scheme. I hope he will be allowed to qualify. The next phase is that the application goes to the acquisition department and they have to consider the benefit that the land will be to the people in the area. That is perfect. What I object to is not the scheme but the technicalities, the age limit, and so on.

The Minister for Lands said today that it was a great thing that farmers could retire at 55 years of age. I am worried about one aspect. Will this have the effect of putting people out of jobs? I have known cases where men who retired early went back to work as cheap labour. The farmer who retires at 55 years of age will go to work and put a labourer out of a job. Many people will be glad to get men of 55 or 60 years of age to work for them.

There may be a widow who wishes to retire. If she is under the age limit she cannot come under the scheme. The scheme should be flexible. Those persons we want to get out of the land and who themselves want to get out of the land and who are not suitable to work the land should be allowed to retire under the scheme. But for the technicalities, the scheme is a good one.

I have covered the three directives fairly well. I am very unhappy about the disadvantaged areas. I would ask the Minister to give some indication as to the amount of State backing there is in regard to this scheme.

Some attempt should be made to investigate consumption as well as production within the EEC. People say that we are inefficient but I do not think they are all that efficient in the EEC. What happened in regard to the pile-up of beef should not have occurred. They decided that they needed so much beef to feed so many millions but they did not take into account the consumption rate of the different types of meat. A particular slice of meat must eventually arrive on the consumer's plate and if the price goes beyond the capacity of the consumer to pay then you are in trouble. There may be something to be said for a different approach to price within the EEC. I know the Minister will not agree with me because he does not agree with direct payments at all but having regard to the cost of living it might be better policy to create a pool of money that would be used to subsidise prices when things are dear and when prices would fall to let prices find their own level. This would be a better policy than maintaining artificial prices by putting thousands of pounds of meat into intervention. It was a good thing last year but is it as good a policy as the one I have suggested?

Every directive and policy decision of the EEC is very important but few people here seem to take any interest in the fact that we are now directed from Europe. There is the Treaty of Rome. I do not understand why everybody except this country is allowed to break all the rules. I realise that the Minister is doing his best. It is scandalous the way the French have discriminated against the Irish lamb trade. We thought when we became a member of the EEC that we would have free access to the French market. Having regard to the levies imposed, that is not the case. The Irish sheep farmers are in a very shaky position. I know the Minister is anxious for a sheep policy. We were to have free trade within the Community and except in case of emergency no meat from countries outside the EEC would be allowed in while the Community was able to supply it. This rule seems to be broken by everybody else but we have to be the good boys.

If we are not bold here the Minister cannot be bold over there. If I go to a meeting to represent some people if pressure is not put on me people say to me that I am making it up. The Minister should go back to Brussels and say: "I cannot go home to my farmers. They are kicking up hell over this, that and the other." You can create an impression at any meeting if you have the backing of your people. The Minister will have the backing of this House in saying what we want. He may not be able to get everything but he will have a better chance of getting something with our backing than on his own.

It would be time well spent to debate in this House what is happening in the EEC. We had a Control of Mergers Bill in this House. Has anything been done about this within the context of the EEC? I went out to an international conference a number of years ago and I thought that it was a big man's club. That was long before we had any notion of entering the EEC. If companies are allowed to get too big and to amalgamate we cannot control them from here. We are only a fly in the ointment. If they are not controlled by the Community, and if big money rackets and big combines get together, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers will become irrelevant because those big companies will run Europe.

The Minister should ask his colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs to see that we are not controlled by big companies who amalgamate and become bigger and say to the European Parliament: "We have the money and you will do what we tell you." We should spend a lot more time discussing what is happening in Europe and what is likely to happen in Europe. The people who organise the Order Paper for the Dáil should see to it that we discuss what is happening in Europe more than once a year. We should discuss it at least every two months if we are to keep in touch.

Many of us knew that these directives were not suitable. I think the Minister now agrees that they should be changed. At last we have the secretary of a farming organisation saying they need to be changed. We knew this but we were told we were throwing a spanner in the works. I did not stand up here to throw a spanner in the works. I stood up to give my views as a practical farmer. I am looking at the situation from the point of view of the farmers and the workers. We come up here and try to give our views constructively. We should have a debate before decisions are taken and not after. Debating something you cannot alter is a waste of public money and a waste of time.

On the question of the disadvantaged areas, would the Minister tell us why we are in theoretically but not practically. Galway is not by any means the worst of the counties. If only 3 or 4 per cent will qualify for development, if that is not being disadvantaged I do not know what is. We should spend a lot more time discussing the European Parliament and what will happen to us in the future within the context of the EEC.

The Minister for Lands did it.

Mr. Clinton

I spent the best part of 12 months, month after month practically, discussing the disadvantaged areas scheme in Europe. I got numerous improvements on what was originally intended. If I do not know something about what would suit this country, and what we should have, and what we would like to get, from all the advice I get from all the organisations and from the House, I should not be in the job I am in.

The original proposal confined the disadvantaged areas scheme to an altitude of 1,800 meters. We have no hill or mountain in this country which measures up to that. It took a lot of doing to bring them down off the mountain and to get them down to the flatlands of Leitrim and parts of Galway. There is some very good land in Galway and there are some very prosperous areas.

Mr. Callanan

I said that.

Mr. Clinton

Nobody knows that better than Deputy Callanan but still he makes the case that all of Galway should be in there for all the advantages and all the aids provided under this scheme. Deputy Callanan knows better than I do that we have not got the decision making in all of this. The Commission's officials come over here from the EEC. They now know Galway nearly as well as he does. They know it on paper, first of all, and they have all the statistics they need to measure the criteria to which they insist this scheme must measure up.

Mr. Callanan

Paper is all a cod.

Mr. Clinton

We are asked who was consulted. A lot of work has been done on this, as the Deputy knows, by An Foras Talúntais. They did a number of surveys. We have soil samples for the whole of the country as a result of their work. We have income levels outside agriculture. This scheme is based on comparable incomes. There has been a lot of criticism of the level of incomes. We tried to get the lowest possible incomes. We spent a long time trying but we did not succeed in getting incomes down to the levels we wanted. At the same time, we do not want to get anybody's income down to a level which is not acceptable.

Nobody wants to keep any section of the community in drudgery for the rest of their existence. We all know that before ever there was any question of any scheme they were leaving the areas we are talking about at the rate of 10,000 a year for the past ten or 12 years. This is not something that is happening now. It is not something happening now that is responsible for any discouragement. I think, and I have said this before, that the more we criticise a situation that was never as good from the point of view of subsidisation——

Mr. Cunningham

The farmers have no grants unless this covers them.

Mr. Cunningham

How much is coming from the EEC?

Mr. Clinton

This is not a time for-cross-questioning. Deputy Cunningham made his contribution.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed to speak without interruption. Deputy Cunningham has already had his opportunity of contributing to the debate.

Mr. Cunningham

If the Minister does not know the answer to the question I asked, we will accept that.

Mr. Clinton

I cannot give the Deputy an accurate figure and neither can anybody else.

Mr. Cunningham

In other words, the Minister does not know the answer.

Mr. Clinton

It is not a question of not knowing what is available. I know what is available.

Mr. Cunningham

Then, tell us because we do not know.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must insist that these interruptions cease.

Mr. Clinton

Mr. Clinton

Yes, and it is being misrepresented. We have had much criticism of the whole intervention system but this country would have been in a serious plight last year had it not been for intervention. It is my estimation that we will always be first into intervention for as long as the system remains. I say this for a number of good reasons. First, we are by far the largest exporters of beef in Europe, exporting, perhaps, approximately 100,000 tons more than any other member state. We are not the largest producers, though. Secondly, we export approximately 85 per cent of our total production. Also, we are on the perimeter of Europe and are furthest from the markets. For these reasons we shall always have to rely more than any other country on intervention.

Recently I made certain moves in an effort to ensure, first, a continuance of intervention and, secondly, that the whole system will not be abused. Deputies know that we have an enormous amount of beef in intervention yet. Since the system was initiated we have put about 140,000 tons into intervention. The present figure is about 70,000. Apart from anything else, that represents an enormous amount of money—Irish money —but we do not wish to have that sort of money tied up. Neither do we wish to reach a point later in the year where intervention stores will be full and there will be no place to put more beef.

With that in mind I have appealed to the people in the processing business to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. I have given them a couple of weeks' notice and have informed them that I am cutting intervention by 15 per cent. Unfortunately, this is being represented as a reduction of 50 per cent. Prior to sending out this notice we were taking 65 per cent into intervention but I have said that as and from a certain date two weeks ahead that will have to be reduced to 50 per cent. That represents a 15 per cent reduction although it would be a 50 per cent reduction for anybody putting in 100 per cent. Fortunately, they would be small in number.

As a result of our membership of the EEC agriculture in the last two years received £108 million in direct grants, a sizeable amount of money. We should consider what the state of the industry would be if that injection of money did not come in the last two years.

There was a good deal of criticism that we had not free access to all the member states for sheep and sheep meat. I have explained this on numberous occasions and I have answered questions frequently on this matter. I never ceased to press our case in Europe for the common organisation of a market for sheep. I failed mainly because we are the only country in Europe interested. The French really do not want it; they do not say that but it would be of no benefit to them. They are perfectly happy as they are because they can open and close the valve as they like. If the market is oversupplied from their own producers, they close it down and do not take in any imports until the price rises. That is doing us a lot of harm.

However, as a result of the approaches I made in 1973, the market was not closed at all during that year. In 1974 it was closed for 13 weeks in total. It did not close for 13 weeks continuously, it closed for a couple of weeks and then opened again. This gives the opportunity, and the excuse, for people in the trade here to bring the price to the floor and say that as the French market is closed they cannot afford any more. That goes on for a couple of weeks and when the market opens the performance is repeated. I have some doubt about the legality of this practice but we do not wish to pursue this to the European Court until we try every other avenue. It may be that we will have to go to the court as a last resort, if our view is not accepted. There is something wrong if we as members of this club do not have access to every area in it. It does not make sense. We have the same trouble between two of the original member states about wine and a special meeting will be held on the 15th of this month about that product.

There is no trouble about sheep with the original Six but there is no special interest because only France is producing sheep in any numbers. Holland produce a small number of sheep but they are not interested in exporting any. We have been doing everything possible in relation to this. The UK want a common organisation for the market provided there is free access at all times for unlimited quantities of New Zealand lamb. If they do not get that, they do not want any part of the common organisation. They are the forces we are up against. It is all right being critical but it is more difficult to change what is in existence.

Deputy Cunningham asked if the scheme for disadvantaged areas was being married with the beef incentive scheme. Yes, it is because we cannot have two or three schemes running side by side. We are providing an extra £6 million under the disadvantaged area scheme and the areas concerned will be that much better off. Some areas will only receive the sheep headage grants, the mountainous areas outside the west. Who decided the areas? We delayed the implementation of the scheme for almost 12 months while we argued with officials in Brussels in an effort to get as many areas as possible included. It was to our advantage to get the maximum area in. I have asked if there is any possibility of a review for increasing the area and I have been told that there is always the possibility of review. Already we have had several approaches but they must meet the list of criteria set down for this directive if they are to qualify. This is critically looked at. No area is accepted simply because the Irish people think it should be included and we must accept that.

We are not 100 per cent pleased with the various EEC schemes but there is no point in seeking a review before we have had the experience of operating them over a period of time. When we have operated them we can go back and make a convincing case that in the course of operating these schemes and trying to apply them we found a number of snags. We can press for revision and for change but we cannot do that if EEC officials in Brussels can accuse us of criticising a scheme before we have had experience of operating it. We cannot agree on a scheme now and change it every second month in the year. I hope Deputies appreciate that it is far better to implement a scheme for a time and then make a case for revision and review.

We are doing pretty well in the EEC. Of course we would like to do better but, for God's sake, do not pretend to anyone or give the impression that there is any area that is not doing far better, support wise, than it has been doing at any time in our history. Deputy Callanan should not be telling farmers stories that would put them to bed and encourage them to give up work. The Deputy said that if farmers get any more discouraged they will give up work but he should tell them they will qualify because the more they work and the more effort they put into their work the more income they will receive.

I appreciate that, and the Deputy is quite entitled to do that. What I am saying to him is not to discourage farmers by telling them that they are not getting anything and that nobody cares a curse about them. Do not tell them that because that puts them to bed and makes them give up, and there is no reason for them to give up because they never had such an opportunity in the history of the country.

Mr. Meaney

We come again to a discussion of some of the problems taking place within the EEC and as a rule, in such a debate, the main discussion is on what is happening to this country. People put forward thoughts and ideas as to the way they think this should be developing, but let me say, at the outset, that as time goes by, one often wonders if one would see the EEC intact at all for another discussion, because reading the papers, following what happens in Brussels and reading about all the haggling and fighting and the late night sittings, one would often think that they were on the verge of breaking up. Fortunately, they are not Again, one might be thinking was it all a bit of a show for the people at home. The point about it is that we have a lot of discussion mainly concerning agriculture and the Minister is trying to tell us that things were never so good in agriculture. I wish to God he would go down the country and see the marts, see the sucking calf opening his mouth at 10p a gallon and the majority being sold under £7 or £8. If there is despondency, it is because people are failing to make a proper living out of their holdings and not being paid for their produce. There is no good in talking about this man or that man not working. If the income is good and if it pays to rear animals, or to have industry to produce goods, they are going to produce them but if it does not pay to produce them, the people are not going to do so.

We have been in the EEC for quite some time and many of us have been very disappointed. I fought very hard so that we should become a member State, but I personally think, and I make no apology for saying it, that this country is not fully playing its part at home by its policies, be they taxation policies or the way in which moneys are distributed within the various communities. There is really nothing happening at all in many sectors and on top of that, England gets very lame all of a sudden and wants to rnegotiate her terms of accession. Everybody runs around saying "Poor England, out on a limb, nearly down", and the whole world is over if England does not get what she wants and comes back in again as a fully-fledged member. Is it not time someone stood up and told them the plain truth, that they should accept the terms of accession? Why did we not fight for some betterment of our conditions. Why did we not fight to improve our conditions when England fought for renegotiation terms? England made well on that deal and it could well be a sore day for us when the New Zeland farm produce will be coming in here, affecting our cheese and butter industry and our milk industry in general.

Let there be no doubt about that. England is a cheap food country, highly industrialised, not depending on agricultural produce, not depending on selling their agricultural products on world markets. We are the very opposite in this country. England got special terms because the Labour Government were threatening to pull out of Europe and you would think that Kate and the child were lost if England went out of Europe. I wonder would England completely survive if she did go out. We have to bear that in mind. Can Mr. Wilson, if the people in England decide not to stay in, come back again with another lame story and say: "We must renegotiate further; we must have better terms" and "I must go to my own people"? That is quite on the cards.

While that was going on, why were our people not calling for a betterment in our terms? If there is a change for one, there should be a change for the other, bearing in mind that they are a cheap food country and going to import as cheaply as they can, highly industrialised, and that we are the very opposite, depending an awful lot for the survival of our economy on what we get from exporting agricultural products. We accepted what happened there. Our negotiators said they were quite pleased with the way things went, but previous to those negotiations, there was a mystery tour by the New Zealand Prime Minister and three or four members of his party.

I had a question down yesterday as to what several members of the party were doing here after the Prime Minister had flown out. These people flew out from Shannon some days later, having been accompanied there by Government Minister in State cars. We are not to find out that—that was in their private capacity—but it seems there has been some underhand work and that is why the Dáil question was put down, to find out what it was all about. There seemed to be some underhand work going on before the member countries of the EEC discussed the application for better terms. I want to make that quite plain. I am saying what I am informed of—the Parliamentary Secretary is looking at me—but this is the place to say it, and if it is true, it is his place to say it.

Mr. Kelly

It is the place, but you were not here to say it yesterday.

Mr. Meaney

I am here today.

Mr. Kelly

In my recollection, the Deputy was not here when the Taoiseach was replying yesterday.

Why is this such a sore point? When the New Zealand Prime Minister went out of the country, leaving other men behind him, what kind of underhand dealing was going on?

Mr. Kelly

The answer was given yesterday but the Deputy was not here to pursue it.

Mr. Meaney

I do not believe the answer but we will leave it at that. The Parliamentary Secretary can answer if he likes. The Minister tried to tell us that the farming community were never better off. There have been no farm grants passed for payment, or paid, since we entered, no farm organisation grants. He should have come out and told us that. I am referring specifically to people who applied for grants since we entered. You are paying for grants which had already been processed before we entered, but since we entered how many grants have been paid to individual farmers throughout the country? The reason this has taken place, as we all know, is that you have to be assessed as a particular type of farmer and there is a shortage of agricultural instructors to do this job.

I would like to know what efforts have been made by our people abroad to get funds to pay or at least to get sufficient agricultural instructors to make out the farmers' requirements, his projects, the income he should attain within so many years. It takes two and a half to three days to process a claim of one man alone. There are not just enough of these people available and grants are not being paid and the State is being saved millions of pounds and blaming the EEC. The State is taking advantage of that situation and has not provided the agricultural instructors to go out to do the job so that the farmers are paid their grants as should be their right. They have not got them one way or another.

Many speakers have referred to the farm retirement scheme and to desirable changes in it. I would like to see people fighting hard for these because I think it could be a great scheme. I would not like it to be thought I was critical of schemes in general. It should make no difference what a man did with his farm last year or the year before; if he wants to retire and other people in the area qualify for land, his retirement should be accepted. The land should be purchased from him and divided amongest other small holders. But certain directives lay down that very strict conditions be observed, such as the fact that an applicant had to be actively farming for the preceding few years. He could have been ill or anything else. Perhaps that is a change for which our Minister is fighting but I think he would need to fight harder still.

Criticism can be made also of the pig industry. We are now producing fewer pigs. We had less milk last year and there is less coming from our land. The pig industry is in a bad way. There are also very strict regulations governing that industry with which it is very difficult to comply here. I should like to see the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and our people in Brussels, having conditions improved in order that we may survive in that respect. I think the Minister said at one time that people would be better off to get out of pig production. Now there is a great scarcity of pigs which was bound to happen. The Minister spoke about Deputy Callanan depressing people but when we were discussing the pig industry here about two years ago the Minister depressed people involved in pig production. Actually what he said was that they would be better off to get out of pig production altogether the way things were progressing. Nobody will agree with me more than Deputy G. Collins in what I say in that respect.

I come now to the question of the disadvantaged areas scheme which is a good one. We are not at all criticising the principle of the scheme. We are entitled to make suggestions and criticise what we see wrong about the scheme. We feel that the areas defined in this country are much too narrow. They should be broadened and extended much more. We met the Minister with regard to several areas in my county. We had discussions with him on them. Yet such areas have not been included. In fact, there is included three-quarters of one small mountain range, with the remaining quarter excluded, which is completely wrong. At least we feel that those disadvantaged areas should include those in respect of which previous Fianna Fáil Governments gave special grants for industry.

Some years ago the IDA designated areas of the country to which they would give special grants in order to attract industrialists. We should fight hard to have all of those areas included. That would be a very fair way of processing the matter. What I object to is the fact that we failed completely to get information on the scheme before it was announced; one would not know where to go, to whom one should apply. As far as I know committees of agriculture were not consulted; the general council of committees of agriculture was not consulted. In respect of both the disadvantaged areas scheme and the regional one people are arriving from Brussels and hopping into cars. Somebody knows they are arriving but the people directly acquainted with such areas and who could gain somewhat from such people's tour of the country know nothing about their arrival. They do not know where they go or what is happening.

While we were meeting the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in a deputation on the disadvantaged areas scheme in Dublin there was a gentleman from Brussels driving around our area but nobody seemed to know he had been there at all. It transpired then that it was some city chamber of commerece that sent him here on a tour of rural areas. We should have known he was coming. Likewise, I would not think it right if such a person came, and met a man representing farming, organisations or rural workers' organisations who conducted him on a tour of the city. How would it be viewed if a man from the midlands or from Munster brought somebody here from the EEC and showed him around Dublin? It would, indeed, be very silly. But it is equally silly that a man should arrive and meet city people who conduct him on a tour of rural areas. We would all be anxious to meet such people. We are all anxious to fight our case. Whatever the party to which we belong, the more money coming into the country and the stronger the case our Ministers make the better it is for us all. But, as far as we in the rural areas are concerned, the various Departments will have to issue more information certainly in respect of my county and I shall not speak for any other.

I understand now that the designated disadvantaged areas are those submitted by our representative to the EEC. I want to know what areas did our people submit for inclusion. What areas did the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries submit for inclusion? No official in Brussels came along and said: you will include A and exclude B. Our people were definitely involved in it. But they all, including the Minister, refuse to tell us what was submitted for inclusion, which is something we are entitled to know.

The Minister spoke about what he had achieved in respect of intervention prices for beef. Indeed, were it not for the winter we have experienced it would be very difficult to sell beef at all. The Minister made one good remark which was that he doubted if the money went to the right people.

Mr. G. Collins

He knows bloody well it did not.

Mr. Meaney

I could not agree more with Deputy Collins. Is it not wrong, within the EEC or otherwise, to walk into a mart and see 12 cwt bullocks making £270 this week and then into the next ring and see calves four days' old—I shall not speak about the worst ones—making from £4 to £6? Is there not something wrong in the operation of the scheme and what are we doing to remedy it? We may fail to remedy it in Europe but one can travel the country and find people giving away calves. I know a man who gave away two to a neighbour the other day to rear. I know another man who shot them with a 22 rifle because he said he would not give them milk at 30p per gallon. That is bad because there is an old saying "Wilful waste makes woeful want" and those animals will be valuable in time. We should be trying to give some incentive to people to raise these animals. Some of them were exported this year but there are thousands left and, if we care about them at all or the people producing them, we should give them some incentive to remain in the business.

The system of intervention payment will have to be changed. How is it that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has set up now a commission to investigate the matter? I welcome it but it is not before its time and I hope it will not be long before they issue their findings. It was very difficult to qualify for intervention prices and get one's cattle into the various meat factories last winter. The Minister should have intervened personally in that respect. At the end of the season one could have come along with perhaps 30 lorryloads of cattle on different days. Then one could go to a mart where there were too many cattle for sale, buy them at a depressed price, carry them right into the factories, sometimes making from £50 to £60 per animal. That was very wrong. If one wanted one could have sold the lorryload, and that did happen. That is what is depressing the trade, not the money that came in for intervention—which is a very good thing but the way in which it was distributed. I hope the Minister will exert pressure on the commission set up to issue their findings in the very near fature.

Another matter of great importance to rural Ireland is the grants system for group water schemes. As we face the mid-1970s it is only right that every house in the country should have running water and sewerage facilities. But a big effort will be needed to ensure that that is implemented. As one travels around the country there are very few areas only where there is an adequate supply that can be tapped and extended from one town to another. I wonder could we fight, within Europe, for a change if the local authorities take on very big schemes throughout the country. They are not undertaking many at present. They undertake small schemes only attached to towns. But I am talking of those running throughout the country, extending from one town to another, in respect of which special funds should be made available to local authorities. I would describe them as very large group water schemes. The local authority could get big grants for such schemes to carry water from town to town.

They are in the Government. Name them.

Mr. Meaney

As I said, we have a great deal of unemployment. There is unemployment all over Europe, but we do not seem to be getting an adequate number of industries here. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me on that. There is trouble in the car industry and in the clothing and footwear industries. We shall have to fight within Europe for special concessions. It may not be long before Mr. Wilson is back looking for more concession, and if he gets them, for goodness sake let our men stand up and fight for something extra for us.

Mr. Hussey

I should like to add my voice to that of the other speakers in trying to highlight some of the anomalies that exist in regard to EEC directives, particularly those that affect the farming community. The previous speakers have dealt with many of them and for that reason I do not propose to go on at any great length.

The Minister has asked us not to give the wrong impression about those directives, but if those directives are to be implemented as they are at present we shall be getting into the ranching system of farming very rapidly, because we shall be driving the small farmers out. The number of small farmers who will benefit under any of those directives but particularly under Directive 159 is so small that it does not really matter. In the county of Galway alone I believe that from only three to four per cent of the farmers will become development farmers under the scheme. Before I go on to that, I want to say a few words on the latest directive, the disadvantaged areas scheme which was announced last week. I should like to protest, like previous speakers, at the exclusion of certain areas in my own county of Galway from the terms of this scheme. It is little use telling those farmers who have been excluded from the scheme that they will benefit under other schemes as development farmers, because, as I said, the number who will qualify as development farmers is so small as to be negligible. I want to protest, as I did when I saw the scheme announced in the daily newspapers, at the exclusion of certain areas in County Galway. I believe that every parish, every farmer, in county Galway should be included in this scheme. The farms there are so small, the system of farming is so difficult, that it is necessary that any assistance that can be made available should be made available to those people in order to maintain them on the land and enable them to give their families a decent standard of living, as the people employed in non-farming activities can. These people are being seriously handicapped as a result of this announcement.

In the brief circulated by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries the areas which are to be included in the scheme are defined. They include the counties of Donegal, cavan, Monaghan, Longford, Galway, Mavo, Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon, Clare, Kerry and part of west Cork. Further down the areas that have been excluded are defined. I wish to protest at the exclusion of those areas, which will not qualify for extra investment under the farm modernisation scheme because there will be so few of them who will become development farmers. The Minister has not given us very much information as to who prepared the scheme and who decided on which areas were to be included, but the first body that should have been consulted when the scheme was being discussed and when the areas were being defined was the committee of agriculture in each county. They would know exactly the areas that needed capital investment and the farmers that would need help under the scheme. They would have been able to tell the people from Brussels or from the Department where this scheme should operate. Apparently the county committees of agriculture or the CAOs have not been consulted about this. It is very retrograde step not to consult the people directly involved. Those are the people who could give the answers to the Minister and the people in Brussels and should not have been ignored when this scheme was being launched.

I now want to talk about some of the other anomalies which exist in Directive 159, one of which is the age limit which applies to those applying for grants. Those aged 55 have their grants cut by 10 per cent. This militates against farmers in the west of Ireland. There is a late marriage rate there and they are not getting their full share from this scheme. Many farmers in the west of Ireland continue working until late in life. Who would expect a farmer aged 55 years to retire? If the marriage rate is low, such a man may not have a successor to take over. How many people in business or in the professions are asked to retire at 55 years of age? Most of them work until 65 years. A special effort should be made to ensure that farmers up to 65 years at least qualify for the full grants under this scheme.

Another grievance we hear from time to time is the amount of paper work involved for our farm instructors. Every application submitted for grants has to go to the farm modernisation scheme. This has to be processed through the agricultural adviser who has to decide what class of farmer the man is, whether he is a transitional, a commercial or a developing farmer. If this continues, the time of the agricultural advisers will be taken up with paper work instead of advising farmers how to get the best advantage out of their crops, how to manure their land and all the other advice they can give to them. They are being forced to sort out the large amount of paper work involved in this scheme. If this continues, we will have to request the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to appoint many more agricultural advisers.

My county have requested that more advisers be appointed and if the present trend continues we will certainly need more in the near future or have clerical staff appointed to help them out. We see under many of the directives that many of the industries which were of great help to small farmers are no longer of any use to them. There is a high cost involved in developing small industries nowadays. Let us take, for example, the pig industry. Pigs were a very important source of income to small farmers in the west but under the present scheme unless the expenditure involved in the erection of piggeries is over £4,286 it will not be considered for grant purposes. It is an impossibility for any small farmer to have that amount of capital available to go into pig production. That only involves the erection of the piggeries. This scheme should be modified. The Minister should do something about changing it because it is only big farmers who would have that amount of cash readily available. Pig production should be encouraged among small farmers.

The expense involved in poultry is so great that many people cannot afford to go into it. There is no policy in the EEC in relation to poultry or in relation to sheep. This is a great drawback to small farmers. We are told that 50 per cent of a farmer's income must be from farming in order to qualify for the maximum grant. We have people, who are not farmers, who are able to buy 50 or 60 head of cattle, fatten them and qualify for the high rate of grant because they are able to show in their accounts that the biggest proportion of their income is from farming. The small farmer with a part-time job who, because his farm is so small, has to go out to work, cannot qualify for the high rate of grant because 50 per cent of his income is not from farming.

Those schemes as they at present operate are designed mainly to abolish small farmers and encourage ranchers so it has the opposite effect to what the Minister said when he was finishing up his speech that we want to get away from the ranching system of farming. If the Minister is not prepared to take up the cudgel for them and he and the Government are not prepared to see that the anomalies I have mentioned are abolished, to see that farmers in the west of Ireland are maintained on the land, then another Michael Davitt will have to rise up in the west of Ireland and the farmers will have to make their protest. They will have to ensure that these directives do not drive them from the land.

Under the terms of Directive 159, if it is carried to its logical conclusion, where land is made available by the Land Commission or where it is available for division the small farmers will not qualify unless they are development farmers. Therefore, you make the rich richer, the big farmer bigger and you exclude the small farmers. This is not justice. If we are serious about maintaining our people on the land, then we must endeavour by all means, fair or foul, to ensure that these directives are changed. Farmers come to me daily and tell me about farms that are to be divided, where the Land Commission have held farms for four or five years and are drawing up schemes at present to allocate them to different farmers. Heretofore it was the farmer with the smallest valuation who qualified for land but under the terms of Directive 159 that farmer would no longer qualify for an addition of land. It is the farmer a mile away from the farm, or two miles away, who has become a development farmer, who will qualify for the addition of land. I do not know how it is expected that we can maintain people on the land if we allow this to continue. I would ask the Minister and his Government to make every effort to ensure that the scheme is altered.

At the moment there is talk of beef being imported again from third countries. In 1973-74 this had drastic effects on our cattle and beef industry. In a period of one month, 1 million tons of beef were allowed to be imported from non-member countries, forcing member countries to mount a large-scale rescue operation through the intervention system. If this is allowed again—and the non-member countries are pressing for it—we will have a similar situation. This would be a terrible disaster. We witnessed the hardships imposed on our people during that period. Cattle were sold at the mart, particularly store cattle, for £5 and £6 per cwt. This affected the small farmers in the west of Ireland more than anybody else because they are the producers of store cattle. The big man did not suffer because he got a fair price for his beef all the time and he was able to replace that beef at a scandalously low price. It was the people who produced the store cattle who suffered.

The intervention system might have been a good system in the short term but it was an expensive system. It cost the Exchequer in the region of £8 million since it started in October, 1973, and the Government had to borrow this money in order to pay the initial cost. I understand that they can recoup from the EEC 6 per cent or 7 per cent of the interest rate. Nevertheless it cost the Exchequer a considerable amount and it cost the taxpayer a considerable amount. I wonder whether some other solution could not have been found at that time.

Various suggestions were made from this side of the House but they were ignored. There was a market in Greece and Turkey for store cattle at that time. The excuse that was given then was that boats were not available. I wonder if that possibility had been explored, if the store cattle had been exported to Greece or Turkey or wherever there was a market for them and if the boats had been paid for, if it would have cost the Exchequer any more than the intervention system cost. I do not think it would and in the long term perhaps it would have been a better scheme.

The points I have made have been made by many other speakers but we must keep repeating them so that eventually somebody will listen to us. We are the voice of the small farmer in the west. He is the man we are concerned about at present because he is in danger of being put out of existence unless the Government see fit to alter radically the terms of directives, particularly Directive 159. That is the one that needs to be watched because that is the one that is of greatest danger to the people in the west.

Mr. G. Collins

First I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I welcome his appointment to the responsible position which he now has within the Department of Foreign Affairs, particularly with regard to EEC affairs. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will do an excellent job because that is needed very badly.

There are many people who voted us as a nation into the European Economic Community who now feel that they have been let down or that they were misled at the time they had to make a decision with regard to our entry into Europe. Those of us who advocated that this country should become a member of the EEC did say that on gaining entry all would not be honey. We did say that there would be many problems to be overcome. We felt then, as we now feel, that the right thing to do was to go into the EEC. There is this feeling abroad that many people, if they had a second chance, might not at this stage take our advice, no matter how strongly we would give it to them or how we would try to influence them, as we did in the EEC referendum campaign. There is an air of despondency which should not exist. It is extremely unhealthy for us as a nation and for the EEC.

Members of this Government have done more harm to the Irish position within the EEC since they came into office than many of the Labour members, including Deputy Keating, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and his colleagues, tried to do while the campaign for admission to the EEC was going on. I do not accuse Deputy FitzGerald, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am sorry I cannot say the same for his colleague the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

Every time the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries goes to Europe there are banner headlines in the newspapers saying "Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries off to fight a great big battle in Europe". One often has to read the article down to the last line to find out how big that fight really is and strip away the verbiage supplied by the well-oiled, well greased and well-monied public relations section of the Taoiseach's office, the propaganda machine in the hands of an assistant secretary of the civil service, who churns out day after day and hour after hour enough material to run 20 newspapers. When one strips all this away and sees how big the battle is that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has on hands on that particular trip to Europe one realises what is really going on.

We all wish the Minister success in all his battles in Europe but if he has some particular success at the time I am talking about it is a fantastic victory, in inverted commas, for the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that, if the Minister is not successful, he is interviewed at an airport on the Continent or here at home, and he lays the stick on the EEC as being the people who did not give him what he wanted. Bluntly, any time he succeeds it is a fantastic win for Ireland, and any time he loses the EEC is blamed, and the seeds are sown in the minds of our people that we are not doing as well within the EEC as we should.

I have heard it said by our colleagues from this House who are involved in the European Parliament that the feeling there is that our Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is doing tremendous harm to the EEC because he blames them when things go against him and he praises himself when things go for him. I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary would feel, as I do, that this is an unhealthy state of affairs which cannot be allowed to continue. The Parliamentary Secretary is fresh and new in his responsibilities with regard to European affairs and I would say to him that if he does his damnedest to see to it that this situation no longer continues he will be doing something worthwhile for the people.

Mr. Kelly

I suggested to the Minister not so very long ago that a floor price should be introduced for the calf and store producer. The Minister told us it was not possible to do this. If the Minister and his Government put the same effort and energy that they used when trying to devise ways and means of taxing farmers into working out a system to provide a floor price, then something worthwhile would have resulted and helped these people who were in very serious trouble. It is no secret that in this time of crisis in the farming industry farmers have had to use any cash at their disposal to buy food for their stock. They also had to buy fertilisers. Possibly because we suggested it, the Minister refused to introduce a subsidy for fertilisers to help those farmers who had no cash to fertilise their land so that food would be available for their stock. Providence was very kind to us this winter. The winter was mild and soft up to some days ago. The month of February was one of the pleasantest we have had for many years. The sunshine in Galway during February turned that beautiful county into a Riveria while we were there enjoying the company of the fine people we met there. Providence was kind to us in our weather and it was that weather that saved us from disaster. Had the weather in February been what it is like at the moment things would have been very bad indeed. We cannot always depend on the weather to get us out of our difficulties and that is why we should do our utmost to ensure similar problems will not exist next year. The Government's failure to help this particular section could still contribute to a disastrous situation in the next 12 months.

As I have said before, the farm modernisation scheme in its present form militates against the small farmer. On 28th January last on a motion urging the Government to introduce amendments to various schemes in operation under the EEC, I suggested certain things which would help the small farmer to benefit more from these schemes. When the Minister was making his contribution to that debate he said the disadvantaged areas scheme would help the smaller farmers and raise them out of the classification of transitional or small farmers into the category of development farmers. We all waited anxiously for the disadvantaged areas scheme. I urged the Government in January to do something positive to ensure that this scheme would be introduced immediately because the people it would benefit could not afford to wait much longer. I asked the Minister more than once to let Members know what areas were being considered for inclusion in the scheme.

The Minister told us that he thought it improper to let the House know what areas were being considered but, as the record shows, he said that the submissions made by him to Brussels regarding the areas being considered for eligibility would be made known to the Members of the House. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be aware that the Ceann Comhairle had refused a question from Deputy Brendan Daly which was put down a week after the Minister's submission here but that when Deputy Daly went to the Ceann Comhairle, for the first time, at least during the term of office of the present occupant of that office, he changed his mind regarding a decision as to whether to allow a question. That question was allowed only on the understanding by the Ceann Comhairle of what the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries had said the previous week. However, the Minister refused to answer the question when he came to it. He did not give us the information we sought.

Regarding a question on another aspect of the areas that were being considered for that scheme the Minister said that proper and full consultation would take place with all interested bodies in the areas that were being considered for submission for participation in the scheme.

At that time I asked the Minister if he would consult county committees of agriculture and the advisory staffs in the various counties. Again, the Minister replied that full consultation would take place with all interested bodies. We have had a recent announcement from the Minister regarding the disadvantaged areas scheme in which he informed us of the areas that were being included. He did not have to spell out those that were being omitted. Naturally, there is grave dissatisfaction among the people in those areas that are not being included in the scheme.

Mr. Kelly

Would there not have been dissatisfaction regardless of where the boundaries have been drawn?

Mr. G. Collins

This dissatisfaction is genuine and if the Parliamentary Secretary bears with me he will understand why this is so. All of County Limerick is not in the Golden Vale. As a member of the Government, the Parliamentary Secretary should know that a large portion of County Limerick is in an area where those engaged in farming are eligible, because of the poor conditions in which they are trying to farm, for social welfare benefits from the Government. These people have been in this area down through the years and have been kept there by successive Governments with the aid of social welfare. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that I am not talking of five, ten or 15 people.

Further, that part of County Limerick that has been omitted from this scheme deliberately is also an area which, like the 12 western counties, has a county development scheme and a full-time county development officer. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary understands what is required for the setting up of such a scheme and the placing of a county development officer on a full-time basis to service that team.

Also, this area is, perhaps, the only one omitted which has always been entitled to the maximum grant from the IDA for the establishing of industry, particularly small industry. It is the only area which has been omitted deliberately from this scheme which in the past has been allotted funds directly from the Department of Finance for the setting up of small factories and for the continuance of small industry. I am not trying to make a claim for a new area. I am merely pointing out that somewhere somebody for some reason which I hope was not political deliberately rejected this area despite the fact that it had everything going for it to warrant its inclusion in the scheme, perhaps even more so than the neighbouring counties of Clare and Kerry that have been included.

This depressed area has been recognised by the present and past Governments up to now as one that needs special care and attention if we are to do as the scheme says, to encourage farmers to remain in these poor areas so as to ensure continuation of farming, the maintenance of a reasonable level of population and preservation of the countryside. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary's sense of fair play to inquire into this case.

The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries informed us that he would be having full consultations with everybody concerned with farming but did he consult anybody? Last night in County Limerick the chief agricultural officer of that county stated publicly, for the second time, that neither he, nor his staff, were consulted with regard to the possibility of Limerick being included in the submissions in relation to this scheme. I understand that an official from the Department called on the chief agricultural officer but there was no discussion of the case for or against any of the areas in the western part of Limerick, those areas not in the Golden Vale, being included in the scheme. There was a vague discussion about the scheme in general. If that is the extent of the consultation the Minister spoke of that Minister is overworked and is not in a position to live up to the undertaking he gave here that full consultation would take place.

I should like to know if the Minister consulted with the farm organisations in Limerick? Did the Minister consult with the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association, the IFA, Macra na Feirme or Macra na Tuaithe? These bodies have stated that they were not consulted or asked for their views or submissions. If this is the case there is something radically wrong. We are being asked questions by the farming community in the areas concerned but we do not have the answers. Those farmers are aware that the representatives for the constituency have asked questions in relation to this matter and have been refused information. Farmers are sore at the Government, and the Minister, because they were kept out of this scheme. How is it that a farmer whom the Government considers needs help in the form of social welfare is not recommended for inclusion in the scheme for disadvantaged areas? It does not add up. There is no reasonable answer to that question.

It is of prime importance for all the small farmers, if they are to be kept on the land and given an opportunity of maintaining their holding, that they be included in this scheme. How can these farmers hope to be lifted out of the small farmer category, out of the transitional classification, and given a chance to get into the area where they could be considered for further help under the farm modernisation scheme if the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Government do nothing constructive to help them? It appears that the words of the Taoiseach, the Parliamentary Secretary's Taoiseach and the leader of his party——

Mr. Kelly

There is only one Taoiseach even though Fianna Fáil may not believe that.

Mr. G. Collins

The Taoiseach when he was in Opposition said there was no future for any farmer unless he was a 100 cow-farmer and these words are now beginning to mean something to the small farmers. That speech was ill-advised at the time and it is possible it was prepared by somebody who knew nothing about agriculture. I hope it was a mistake, that it will be regarded as such and dismissed. If the Government do nothing to help the small farmer by way of amending and improving the farm modernisation scheme as suggested by Members on this side of the House and by Government back-benchers and do nothing to have small farmers included in the scheme for disadvantaged areas, they are not sincere in their efforts to help the small farmer. It has been stated by the Government's well-oiled and well-greased propaganda machine that the aim is to encourage farmers to remain in these poor areas so as to ensure the continuation of farming, the mainenance of a reasonable level of population and the preservation of the countryside but that is not being done.

If the Parliamentary Secretary doubts what I have said about the position in Limerick he should ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle or the Minister for the Gaeltacht because they know that the pressure in Limerick is on. Those who are being categorised as transitional farmers know that the only hope they have of being able to continue in farming depends on their being helped into the development category. This can only come about if they qualify or are eligible for participation in the scheme for disadvantaged areas.

While I have the ears of my Limerick colleagues, let it be on their political necks if it does happen. I say that in the friendliest way to the people I am speaking to, because they too are nearer to the Government naturally, being members of the party supporting it and keeping it there. I am using this opportunity here and now to urge them publicly, as I will from now on, to exert every effort, every pressure at their disposal to see to it that at least those 600 people whom the Government recognise as being badly off in a farming sense and give money to keep on the land, are given whatever help they need if they are to stay on the land and that a proper survey and full consultation take place with all and everybody, as the Minister said, who should be consulted and he said would be consulted.

I hope that will be done at this late stage because the Minister spoke of "the areas in Ireland which for the present...". That is very weak. I do not care how you look at "the areas for the present". Why was a thorough investigation not carried out into all the areas for all time which need help under this scheme? Why must we act in a slipshod manner, as we did, in preparing our case for submission to the EEC? Why did we not live up to our responsibilities and do the job as thoroughly as it should have been done, irrespective of what county it is in and see to it that those who are entitled to benefits under the scheme will be given their just rights?

In the previous discussion on agriculture in this House at the end of January, contributions were made by members of this party here in Opposition in a fair and reasoned way, with nobody trying to score any political points whatever. Suggestions were made which would improve the farm modernisation scheme and improve the situation as it is under that scheme. Mould the scheme to suit the needs because you cannot mould a people to suit the details of a scheme. We have the opportunity to do it and again I say to the Parliamentary Secretary, new in his job of Foreign Affairs and EEC matters, that there is no point whatever as far as small farmers are concerned, in closing the stable door when the horse has gone. Mounting a rescue operation then on behalf of those affected is, to say the least of it, a waste of time and energy.

I said not so long ago, and the Minister felt very sore about it, that I felt the Government were making quite a mess or a shambles of the implementation of the farm modernisation scheme. I said it quite sincerely and I gave facts and figures to prove why I said it. I say it again: the Government are not serious, for some reason or other I cannot put my finger on, in their efforts to see that this scheme be got under way so that those eligible for benefit under it will be given an opportunity to qualify for the benefits to which they are fully entitled. We heard Deputy Hussey speak about undue delay in the processing of applications and this is so not only in Galway but in every county. There is a great backup in the pipe because it takes not five minutes, half an hour, an hour or a day but two or three days to process one of these applications right through. The answer, as I suggested here and in other places, is more staff and not just clerical staff. The Minister in reply to my suggestion said he would give county committees of agriculture permission to get in clerical staff but he knows as well as I that we need more than clerical staff.

He came in here and with his tongue in his cheek, tried to bluff us into believing there was no problem, no shortage of agricultural advisers and it is they who process the applications. He was quite sore because this matter was raised and, indeed, three or four weeks after my raising the matter a prominent agricultural journalist in a daily newspaper which was never known for its great devotion to the welfare of my party had an article in its supplement saying that they were reliably informed from a Department source that the Minister was beginning to crack the whip and was very annoyed with the chief agricultural advisers throughout the country at the way they were mishandling the implementation of the scheme.

Mr. Kelly

If it is the supplement I am thinking of, my casual glances at it suggest that the Minister gets a kick in the teeth from them as often as he gets praise, and the Deputy knows that is true.

Mr. G. Collins

Might I say that the farm modernisation scheme is a welcome scheme, a great scheme, a scheme that can benefit our people, if it is suitably amended in relation to their needs. That is what I am trying to say and the farmers, and particularly the small farmer, the transitional farmer as he is now being called, knows this. He knows that this scheme can do a power of good for him, if it is amended so that he can qualify. They also know, and this is the killing part, that unless they are lifted out of the transitional category and brought into the development category, there are no plans or scheme for their future beyond April, 1977. This is another reason why there is a certain amount of genuine dissatisfaction with the EEC, which is wrong. The dissatisfaction should not be with the EEC. It should genuinely be with the Government who are not taking the best advantage of our membership. Those of us who worked hard day and night to convince the people that their place was in Europe want to see to it, and so far as we are concerned on this side it is the right place to be, that everything worthwhile will be done by the Government in this regard. I shall have the same to say any time I feel our case is not being made strongly enough, as it has not been in regard to the EEC directives I mentioned, the farm modernisation scheme, the disadvantaged areas scheme and the farm retirement scheme, which badly needs to be amended if it is to be worthwhile and acceptable to our people. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary, without trying to score any political kudos for myself or my party, or embarrass him politically in anyway that in his new responsibility in the Department of Foreign Affairs he could do nothing better than see to it that the case I have been making is examined closely. And if there is something worthwhile and constructive in my remarks, as I believe there is, I would urge him to do something about it.

What the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries said about the farming community and how well off they are could not be further from the truth. I would say to the Minister that what Deputy Meaney said a short while ago about the price of calves is true. The Minister knows that one of the best calf fairs is held in my town every Monday morning. I walk through it going to my office, as I did last Monday morning, and let me tell the Minister that things are not well. If the Minister does not believe me, let him have his Fine Gael colleague, Deputy Jones, have a look for him next Monday morning and report back to him when he will know I am telling the truth.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 9 Apr 1975

Developments in the European Communities—Third Report and Fourth Report: Motion (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 9 Apr 1975