Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Nov 1975

Vol. 285 No. 12

Private Members' Business. - Farm Modernisation Scheme: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann deplores the Government's failure to adapt the EEC farm modernisation scheme to suit Irish requirements.

—(Deputy J. Gibbons).

Mr. Fahey

When I spoke on this motion last night I endeavoured to bring home to the Minister and the Government the shortcomings in this scheme as it operates at the moment. It is not suitable to Irish conditions. This must be pretty clear to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries after seeing the scheme in operation for two years. I have no doubt he is considering changes in it. I have already mentioned a number of the changes this side of the House would like to see taking place. We have had a tradition in this country of helping the people who need help the most but under the farm modernisation scheme we have lost sight of this principle. A large percentage of our farmers, as high as 79 per cent, have no hope of becoming development farmers. They are the people who need help and it is not right that their grant rates should be reduced. We believe they are entitled to a living on the land.

What will be the position of those people after 1977? This has never been clarified. The Minister will probably say that they will be no worse off than they are at the present time. I would like him to say if he will be receiving the same grants and aids as those in the development and commercial categories. Those people are very perturbed by the position they find themselves in. Last night I said that the shortcomings of this scheme have not been fully felt as yet. I hope this debate will be something to make the people aware of the changes that are needed and those that must be brought about if the scheme is to operate to the advantage of the Irish farming community.

When one looks at this scheme one begins to think that it has missed the point that the small farmers in Ireland, in particular, have always had a love for their small holdings. They will not give them up too easily. They look back on the fight their forefathers had to hold the land. It is their way of life. We also have to accept that there is no alternative employment for them. Since this Government came into office, we have a very high rate of unemployment. Where will we find work for those who will be forced off the land under the farm modernisation scheme? Those people will be forced off the land because they will not qualify for the grants at the same rate as those who will be classified as development or commercial farmers and because of this lack of support will not be able to survive on the land.

No programme has been devised to find employment for them. There are no factories or industries of any description near those holdings where they could find suitable employment. The Government seem to have lost sight of this problem. They do not seem prepared to face up to it. It must be faced up to because it is a very definite problem. We also have the problem of farmers who are forced to retire at 55 years of age. If they do not do so, they are penalised by receiving 10 per cent less in their grants. This is a very severe cut and is unreasonable when one considers that the retiring age for the other sectors of the community is 65 years.

We must also take into account that, on average, continental farmers marry ten years younger than Irish farmers so this age should be 65 and not 55 if it is to be applied to Irish conditions. I advocate this change very strongly. Farmers of 55 years of age are very active people. They have very good farming ability and this is a very unjust penalty to impose on them.

We also have to consider the farmers who go out to earn their living to bring in extra money for themselves and their families by finding employment off the land. Those people are also penalised. They should be able to get the same grants and aids as the other sections of the farming community, whether they are development or commercial farmers. I know of many such people in my constituency and whether they work in Dungarvan, Portlaw, Clonmel, Youghal or anywhere else, it is not right to deprive them of the aids and grants they are entitled to. They should not be penalised for working off the land when they are trying to improve the living standards of themselves and their families.

The most serious aspect of the farm modernisation scheme is finding employment for those who come off the land. We should be able to avail of other aids and grants available from the EEC in the future to help to improve industry in rural Ireland. Such industry would have to be well placed and suited for the different areas. Those people do not want to work too far from the land and they do not want to emigrate. The Minister should pay attention to this matter and should seek changes in the farm modernisation scheme. Those changes are very necessary and are urgently needed.

I mentioned earlier the need for encouragement for market gardening and tillage. We have encouragements for dairying, beef and sheep. There has been a huge drop in the potato acreage this year so prices have soared and housewives are paying enormous prices for potatoes. Farmers should be encouraged to engage in horticulture. There are some small, intensive, market gardeners in my area of Ballinacourty who have to bear high costs to modernise their production, and buy new machinery. They should get grants and aids to help them to develop. There is also a high percentage of farmers who are denied entry into the scheme because of the high borrowings they had to make in order to develop their farms. This borrowing is denying them entry to the scheme which is entirely wrong and should be rectified. Again, I appeal to the Minister to seek and bring about the changes that are so much desired in the farm modernisation scheme and make it suitable to Irish conditions.

Mr. Creed

I understand I am allowed only five minutes because of the arrangements and therefore I shall be very brief.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has a half-hour, I believe.

Mr. Creed

Is there an arrangement by which the Opposition speak next for a half-hour and then the Minister? I do not want to interfere with the Minister's time. However, I shall proceed to make the few points I want to make. This discussion gives us an opportunity to consider the farm modernisation scheme and to see if changes are necessary and where they should take place. It would be very naive of anybody to say of any scheme that is operating that changes are not necessary. We have had some experience of this farm modernisation scheme and I have every confidence in the Minister's capacity to make changes and adjustments where necessary. In some cases changes are necessary.

In order to get this scheme in its proper perspective we should first go back and examine the system it replaced. The farm modernisation scheme has created a situation in which farmers are being categorised in three different categories, development, commercial and transitional. Prior to this, we had a situation in which up to a year ago people not involved in any way in farming, millers, doctors and other professional people, were buying up land at a great rate. Having purchased huge tracts of land they were able to apply to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for grants and they applied for and succeeded in getting every penny that was available in grant aid. This was a bad system because ultimately you would reach a position where you would have ranchers and the land intended for farmers would be taken over by these people. On the other hand, you had the small farmer who had not necessary finance to invest in modernising and improving his smallholding and therefore could not avail of the grants.

With the introduction of the farm modernisation scheme you have a system under which the people I have mentioned are in the category of commercial farmers and therefore not entitled to grant aid. That is all right. I heard Deputy Fahey saying that as far as grant aid is concerned it should be diverted to those most in need. This came at a time when Deputy Fahey's party were in power and when changes could be made without reference to Brussels or any outside authority. A very serious situation developed in my opinion.

While I agree entirely with the principle of the farm modernisation scheme I have some complaints to make on some points to put to the Minister. In my county, if my figures are correct, we have 36 per cent in the development category, approximately 10 per cent commercial and the balance of 54 per cent, transitional. In my experience of dealing with applications and with the scheme as far as my knowledge goes, far too much time is taken up on the part of people qualified for other jobs, those in the agricultural advisory service. I ask the Minister and his officials to consider this aspect of the scheme. It is wrong that agricultural advisory officers, trained and prepared to advise farmers, spend a considerable amount of time on paperwork in connection with the implementation and operation of the scheme. Anybody who has seen those applications will agree that it is very confusing and difficult to understand. I believe the agricultural instructors would be doing a better job if they were on the ground to advise and encourage farmers as to what line they should take because it is now more important than ever for farmers to have the advice of those people. Farming generally has become a highly technical operation and the days are gone when the farmer could jog along without change. We are now members of the EEC and we have competitors and we must ensure that we take a proper course and that we use all the technical advice available to us. I should like to see those people who are very qualified, skilled and experienced in the county hall in Cork dealing with paperwork dealing instead directly with the farmers on the ground and advising them. I think it would be well worth while for the Minister to examine that aspect of the scheme.

We heard a considerable amount of criticism last night. I do not object to criticism and I concede that Deputy Gibbons has a great knowledge of agriculture and so has Deputy Callanan. In the West Mayo by-election I listened to a speech by Deputy Callanan at Newport when he informed his listeners that the only policy to save the west was the policy adopted by Fianna Fáil. I happened to be canvassing in an area where I did not see the effect or the results of Fianna Fáil policy. There is a problem there and all along the western seaboard and we politicians, both inside and outside the House, have paid sufficient lip service to the west but very little has been done there in the past. If one examines the problem from the economic viewpoint and does not consider the social aspect of it, one would remove the people from the land and plant the lot of it with trees. In the past ten years we have had in almost every western constituency contested by-elections and I think everybody, even midland Deputies and Dublin Deputies and Deputies from other areas, now realise that there is a problem in the west. Directives 159 and 160 are very closely related and I think one is interdependent on the other. Again, the farm retirement scheme is a good scheme but changes must be made. In order to solve the western problem we must try to improve the standard of living and in order to do that it is first necessary to examine the retirement scheme. I think this is the scheme where the 12-years' lease comes in and in certain areas—and this is not unusual; as Deputy Fahey said farmers in this country marry much later in life than their European counterparts—you may have old parents, particularly farmers who may be 50, 55 or 60 years of age and have young families and they are going through a rather difficult time financially. This scheme gives an opportunity to the farmer concerned to lease his land for 12 years. It gives him a lump sum, a pension and, if my interpretation of the scheme is correct, an income from the land if he lets it to a farmer who qualifies under the scheme. However, such a farmer has to search around the area to get qualified applicants to lease his land. That is a difficult problem. While the principles of the scheme are good it is difficult for a farmer, even though he may know his locality well, to know of a development farmer anxious to lease his land. For this he needs the assistance of the Land Commission officials and local agricultural advisers.

I did not do much research about this matter because I was informed that I would have only five minutes to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Cunningham

I am afraid the Deputy is getting mixed up between his party's instructions and the instructions from the Chair. The Deputy was told to sit down after five minutes to allow the Minister in.

Mr. Creed

That is not so. I was told that if I took longer than five minutes I would be going into the Minister's time. While I do not know the number of applicants who have approached me in connection with this retirement scheme, I did not have any inquiries under the 1963 scheme. Once people realise the full benefits of the scheme they will be anxious to avail of it. I agree with the principles of the scheme. Changes are necessary but I have every confidence that the Minister will introduce these changes.

Deputy Hussey rose.

Mr. Clinton

On a point of order, how can I, as Minister dealing with this, deal with the matter if Deputy Hussey speaks now because there would be only time left for Deputy Gibbons to reply and I would not get an opportunity of speaking?

Mr. Cunningham

If the Minister had briefed his back-bencher better that Deputy would understand about the five minutes.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Moore)

The Chair, according to Standing Orders, is in order in calling on a Member of the Opposition to speak and I am calling on Deputy Hussey. I do not mean any discourtesy to the Minister. Deputy Hussey has half-an-hour which means he will be finished at 6.50 p.m. The Minister can get in then and the last Opposition speaker will be called at 7.15 p.m. That is the position as far as the Chair understands.

Mr. Clinton

The Chair is treating the Minister disgracefully in this matter.

Acting Chairman

I am not. I have been informed that the position is as I outlined. I did not draft Standing Orders.

Mr. Cunningham

The Minister's statement is not correct. If the Minister's back bencher pinched some of his time the Minister should not blame Fianna Fáil.

Acting Chairman

The Chair is only complying with Standing Orders and is calling on Deputy Hussey.

Mr. Creed

I did not take any of the Minister's time. Surely the most important person is the Minister and he should be given an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Clinton

I only want to give information to the House and if the Deputies opposite do not want it, that is that.

Mr. Hussey

I regret I did not have the opportunity of hearing the Minister before making my contribution because it is possible he would have been in a position to enlighten us about all the problems we are concerned about in relation to this scheme. I was sorry Deputy Creed did not continue because, as a European representative, he would have had a useful contribution to make since agriculture is so tied up by decisions taken in Brussels. It is not my fault that the Minister is being deprived of any time and I do not believe he will be deprived of any time.

The motion is very important because the scheme has been controversial since it was introduced. When it was introduced committees of agriculture in the west considered it in detail and expressed concern about it. The Galway and the Mayo committees discussed this at length. Mayo County Committee of Agriculture went so far as to refuse to administer the scheme. This shows the concern farmers, and their representatives, had about the scheme. The scheme has brought about many changes, some of which are not for the good. In the last 18 months we have seen how the scheme works and it is our duty to make changes if the scheme does not suit our respective counties.

If the Minister, in making changes in the scheme, has the support of the county committees of agriculture he will have a stronger case to make to his counterparts in Brussels. It would be better for member states if schemes such as this were discussed at home before being implemented. The Minister responsible for such schemes could then convey the views of the members of his own parliament to his colleagues in Brussels. Agriculture is important for us all and the Minister should be aware of the schemes that would suit the different counties. There should be a commitment from the Government to develop agriculture to its full potential. This is not happening.

Agriculture is our main industry but there does not seem to be any Government policy for agriculture. The Government merely react to certain situations at a given time. What other industry would survive in this situation? What other industry would have withstood the economic blizzard of 1973-74 when our farmers were forced to sell their stock at give-away prices? Thank God our farmers withstood that challenge and are now fighting back. If agriculture is to become a dynamic sound industry, young people must be encouraged to take up farming as a livelihood. Young people will not go into farming unless they can achieve a standard of living comparable to that available to those engaged in alternative occupations. The exodus of young people from the land, particularly in the west, is evidence of the lack of confidence in present policies.

Dr. John Scully some years ago published an excellent report. He said that there were 1.7 million acres of land owned by non-viable and problem farmers in the west and that this land was making little, if any, contribution to the general economic development of the region. The policies which successive Governments followed were not capable of dealing with a problem of this magnitude. This vast acreage of land is lying derelict. How long can we leave this non-viable and non-productive land? A dynamic policy is needed to encourage those farmers to make their land more productive. If they cannot make it more productive they can surrender their land to young farmers, at a price. We are not asking them to give it away for nothing. These young farmers are prepared to work the land and make it viable.

The present Land Commission policy of land acquisition and division has not been successful. How often in the past have we seen the Land Commission allocate land to farmers who are not even working their own land to full capacity. How often have we seen the Land Commission preparing a scheme but failing to get at the root of the many problems, particularly restructing and fragmented holdings. This is a burning question, particularly in the west. We have seen land divided; but where land becomes available and restructuring is to be carried out, every effort should be made by the Land Commission, before they allocate the land, to ensure that the scheme will minimise or end this fragmentation. This has not happened in the past as often as it could have. There are still many fragmented holdings which are causing considerable hardship to the farmers using them. They have the problems of right-of-ways, fencing and driving stock through those lands. This makes farming much more difficult and expensive for those farmers than for the farmer with ten, 20, 30, 40 or 50 acres all in one piece. It is easier to work a farm if it is in one piece than to work a farm in four or five pieces, as happens in the west.

I understand there is very little money available to the Land Commission for the purchase of land. When land is advertised for sale and the Land Commission are asked to try to acquire it, there is far too much delay. Every Deputy in the west knows of cases before the Land Commission for the past six months which are still awaiting a decision as to whether they will be acquired or sold on the open market. Again this is causing uncertainty and problems for the people concerned. If a shortage of staff is responsible for this delay, more staff should be made available. There are many young people leaving school who are very anxious to get any kind of a job. They would be well employed in any of the Land Commission offices around the country which we are told are understaffed. There is no excuse for this.

When the Land Commission compulsorily acquire a farm the farmer is paid in land bonds. Bonds are not acceptable. No matter how good bonds may be a farmer prefers to get cash for his farm and that is the only thing he is willing to accept. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries may not be responsible for the Commission, but it is all part of the farm modernisation scheme. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department of Lands are both involved in this problem. If there is not full co-operation between them, this scheme cannot be successful.

The object of the retirement scheme is to provide older farmers with an attractive alternative to farming through a premium and pension so that their lands can be released for use by potential development farmers. One of the great anomalies in this scheme is that farmers whose land had been let for the past few years are precluded from participating in this scheme. This has been mentioned many times in this House and it is important that we keep plugging at it until it is changed. This is a serious drawback because if the scheme is to succeed this condition must be changed. These men should be allowed to participate because farmers who were in the habit of letting their land would be more likely to participate in a retirement scheme than the people who have never done it. This has been borne out many times in this House.

I should now like to deal with the farm modernisation scheme as it applies to Galway. Up to 31st October, 1975, the number of applicants for grants in County Galway under this scheme was 3,672. The number processed and decisions taken as to elegibility was 2,899. The number of development farms was 78 and the number of commercial farms, four. This obtained up to 31st October. The important thing to remember is that out of 2,899 applicants eligible for grants, 630 were aged 55 or older which meant they would lose one third of the grant.

This is a serious handicap in the west of Ireland, something we have to emphasise repeatedly. I want to repeat that this should be changed because it is very unfair to farmers in the west. Large numbers of such people are farming their land through no fault of their own. We have had a history of late marriages and naturally in such circumstances a farmer could not be expected at the age of 55 years to have an heir to whom to hand over the farm. Where such a situation arises there should be some relaxation of the scheme. It is terrible to see a farmer who has gone to the expense of erecting farm buildings having to pay the same price for materials as the man of 25. We have heard a lot of criticism of this.

When a farmer has a son who is capable of managing the farm, even though the farmer has not handed over the farm he should qualify for the higher rate of grant. I understand there is a move in this matter but I do not think anything definite has been done about it. Where the son is managing the farm, the farmer should qualify for the higher rate even though he has not handed over his farm.

Mr. Clinton

Have any of them been refused the higher level of grant?

Mr. Hussey

I understand they have.

Mr. Clinton

Not to my knowledge. When the son is managing the farm and is seen to be managing the farm the higher rate is paid.

Mr. Hussey

I knew there was some move about it but I was not sure. I am glad to hear that such a farm qualifies even if the father is still the registered owner. It is hard to expect farmers to retire at the age of 55. People employed in industry are not asked to retire until they are 65 Even in Government Departments many officials are not promoted to senior ranks until they are 55 years or older and they can still do good jobs. The same should apply to farmers.

Participants in the scheme are asked to plan ahead for at least six years. In present circumstances it is impossible for a farmer to plan that time ahead. The Government themselves have not planned ahead for six years and neither have the Brussels bureaucrats. We are living in a time of change and this seems to apply more to agriculture than elsewhere. Therefore, it is unreal to expect a farmer to plan ahead for six years. He might be in beef this year and might find it profitable to be in some other form of farming next year. There is far too much uncertainty in farming.

I fear the national herd is being run down. Whenever I attend a cattle mart I see large numbers of cows being sold. This is happening throughout the country. Any mart one attends devotes half the day to the sale of cows. Last year this was understandable because of the fodder situation but the trend is continuing. In the past two weeks the price of milk cows increased so much that they are out of reach of the ordinary farmer. They are making £300 to £350. I cannot understand why the sale of cows is continuing and I am worried that we will be in serious trouble next year or in 1977 when the impact of cow slaughtering will be felt. I have seen a figure of 401,000 cows slaughtered in nine months and a later figure of 15,000 cows being slaughtered per month. How long is this to continue? We would have a terrible job next year or the year after trying to replace those cows.

As well, the beef cattle export business is at risk due to the dispute between the Minister and the vets. I am sure the Minister is concerned that there should be an early settlement. At the moment farmers have to pay for the testing of their cattle which puts more expense on them at a time when the Government are saving money on them. Taking the long-term view, it is a disastrous situation because we may find ourselves in 1978 with the brucellosis scheme not completed and we will not be able to export cattle to the Continent. It is important that this dispute is resolved very soon.

Another scheme introduced during the year was the disadvantaged areas scheme and in the west, particularly in Galway, the people were very disappointed. This scheme involved headage grants. We made our views known to the Minister that we were disappointed in Galway that only a small area of the county was included even though it was designated a disadvantaged area. Certain areas were selected and this has caused a lot of controversy and bad feeling throughout the county. I do not see why we should not be treated in the same way as Mayo, Donegal and other counties. When this scheme is being reviewed next year, I hope there will be 12 counties included. The same should have applied in respect of the disadvantaged areas scheme. It is wrong that farmers living outside those areas but most of whose lands are within the areas should be deprived of the grants.

Every effort should be made to encourage tillage. Last year we experienced the effects of the non-avail-ability of fodder. Coupled with the fodder shortage was the high price of meal. If each farmer was encouraged to produce, say, an acre each of potatoes, beet and such crops, the benefit to themselves and to the economy would be great because we would be saved from having to import vegetables in such large quantities. There is the situation in Tuam where the potato plant operated by Erin Foods has been allowed to come to a standstill because of a shortage of potatoes. I am not laying the blame for this at the feet of the Department, but some plans should be devised to ensure that sufficient quantities of potatoes are available for factories such as this.

This was a difficult year in this respect because of the high prices obtaining on the commercial markets, but the Department and the Sugar Company together with the farmers should co-operate in devising a scheme to prevent the sort of situation I have outlined. The discontinuing of operations at this factory means no employment for the farmers and others in the area who worked there on either a part-time or a full-time basis.

There were many other points I intended raising but I shall have to forgo them because of the time factor. In any case, our biggest concern is that the changes I have outlined should be made in the farm modernisation scheme.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Clinton)

Before dealing specifically with the package of directives there are a few general remarks I should like to make. This motion has been discussed in a reasonable and thoughtful way and in this regard I compliment Deputy Gibbons and his colleagues. There were the inevitable side swipes at Government policy in areas unrelated totally to the motion, but I suppose we can expect such remarks. However I trust that the atmosphere which prevailed during discussion of this motion augurs well for future discussions on agriculture. The best possible results for Irish farmers can be achieved only if we all regard ourselves as being of a team. This is particularly important in the context of our membership of the EEC.

I have the responsibility of engaging in negotiations in Brussels and Luxembourg and I am supported ably in this task by a first-class group of officials. It is in these places that decisions are taken generally, but I want to emphasise also that the Members from all sides of this House who attend the European Parliament are doing very important work. It is only right that this be recognised. I fear it could happen easily that the work they are doing would not be appreciated fully, particularly in their own constituencies, from which they must be absent for prolonged periods from time to time. I assure them that the opinions they express in the Parliament are not ignored at the Council of Ministers. All the Members concerned are giving the maximum amount of attention to the work involved.

Having said that, I must point out that much confusion has been caused by misinformed public comment— some of it deliberate and intended to mislead the people into believing that everything was wrong in these directives and that the responsibility for this should be placed on the Government of the day. Directive 159 was adopted long before we entered the Community, so that we had no part in its formulation. It was accepted by the previous Government, who conducted the negotiations for membership. I have been accused of giving no indication of our being dissatisfied with the directive. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have said here on many occasions that what we were doing was putting the directives into practice, that in this way we were finding out their snags and shortcomings, that we were accumulating evidence which we could bring to Europe as proof of what was wrong with the directives as they applied to this country. This was the right way to proceed.

There were delays in the use of the directives to the maximum extent. These delays were caused in no small way by the views and criticisms expressed by Members of the Opposition as well as by other people. The farmers generally were suspicious because they believed the stories that were being bandied about. However, they know for themselves now what is the real situation. They have been operating the schemes and know that the levels of the benefits they are getting are far superior to anything they had at any time previously.

Members of the Opposition say, for instance, that those who are not development farmers are deprived of development aid and they talk of 79 per cent or 80 per cent of farmers being in this position. But let us not forget that those farmers are getting higher levels of grant aid now than ever before. All transitional farmers are being deprived of is the 10 per cent for mobile equipment and the 10 per cent for the purchase of stock. They are getting 50 per cent for land reclamation. This is much higher than they ever got before and they are getting 30 per cent for farm buildings. In these circumstances, should those who indulge in the criticism not have stopped this long ago. Instead, they should have been encouraging farmers to use these schemes and directives to the maximum extent for their own benefit and not deprive them of something that is there for them to take. Our attitude, as I said, has been to put the directive into effect, gain experience, ascertain the facts, ascertain the faults and then bring the facts and the shortcomings to the notice of the commission to try to get things altered.

We have done that. We did not want to do it until we had at least 12 months' experience of the scheme operating, and operating properly, and, having had that experience, we brought these snags to notice. We brought proposals to modify the comparable income. We see the comparable income as a serious snag and we are doing everything we can to overcome it. Already we have done a considerable amount to overcome it by regionalising and by making it a lower income for the west than for the rest of the country. In this way we are able to bring more people in under the comparable income. That is one of the matters we have raised in the Community. We are trying to get improvements and an alteration that will at least enable us to get more people in under this particular aspect of the scheme.

We have to deal with the limitations on investment. We are trying to have this revised to take account of inflation and to remove some of the restrictions applying to pig production. As Members know, pig production is not included in the way it should be. We have also raised this question of the 55 years of age. We are trying to get that altered. Now this has another side to it. If we get it raised to 65 then a farmer of 55 or over will not have the opportunity of retiring until he is 65 and he will not be able to secure the benefits provided by the pension scheme. This is a snag, but one cannot have it every way.

The overall EEC contribution is only a little above 10 per cent. This is a very serious snag. It is just not possible for a small and weak member state, as we are by comparison with the others in the Community, to get anything like the same benefits other states get. That is a serious snag. We want to try to get more Community support. I think it was Deputy Fahey referred to the fact that if a farmer buys stock he gets a 10 per cent grant while, if he rears the stock, he gets nothing. That is a serious difficulty. We have raised this and we have got recognition of it. So far we have failed to get results, but it is not for want of taking it to the Commission and trying.

The position is that we have placed all these defects before the commission. We have had discussions on two occasions with the commission and we hope to have a further discussion at official level and then have an opportunity of discussing this at the Council of Ministers in the New Year.

Deputy Gibbons criticised the fact that Directive 159 was applied uniformly throughout the member states and he argued there was something all wrong about this. He is wrong in this. It is, you must remember, a Community and we are members of it and the conditions are the same for every country in the Community and the farmer has to measure up to these conditions before he secures the grant aid provided. I do not think it really matters except that other countries were there before us and they have got a great many of these benefits. One of the things about these schemes is many of the member States already had a great many of these things and they are now applying whatever assistance they are getting from the Community, but it is not improving the situation for the farmers.

I said we have regionalised income and income in the west is now £1,785 and for the rest of the country it is £2,080. In considering this matter of comparable income we will have to be careful not to argue for an income that is too low. We want to bring our farmers up to the level of income of those employed outside farming. If we do not do that we will make our farmers into second-class citizens. Who wants to do that? It might be a way of getting them into a higher level of grants, and that is important, but we want to aspire to a level of income which will ensure farmers will stay on the land and they will not stay unless they get an acceptable standard of living. All of us should recognise that.

I think it was Deputy Hussey who regretted the number of small farmers. Deputy Hussey and his party cannot opt out of this because they created most of them with their policy of 20- and 25-acre farms. Now we start regretting. We must pin the responsibility on the right party. The Opposition were 35 years in office and they went on producing these small, uneconomic holdings which are now causing all of us so much trouble. We must all recognise that there must be consolidation and the only way that can be done is by reducing the number of farms. You cannot make a 20-acre farm viable unless you give the farmer more land. That must be recognised. If you give him more land you reduce two farmers to one. That is logic. That is the only way it can be done in most of the country where you have small farms. Otherwise, you must take one out of it altogether and give him a holding somewhere else. That has been done in a limited way over the years and it continues to be done.

Deputy Hussey says six years is too long for any man to plan ahead. Farming is a slow business and you cannot make much change in a farm in less than three or four years. Perhaps six years is a bit long, but there must be targets. Even in business there are targets and people think it is a good idea to have targets in business.

With regard to the level of grants, we must have regard to the fact that by comparison with the previous level of grants available to farmers the grants are generous and the aims of the directive are good. We have been trying to improve the directive. We want to improve it. The 30 per cent grant for building and the 50 per cent grant for land reclamation is a high level of grant when one considers the upper limits have been removed. There is now no upper limit of £45 or £50. You get 50 per cent of whatever the job costs.

I want to get out of people's minds once and for all the idea that transitional farmers are being badly dealt with and done down. The fact is we have got 37,000 or 38,000 applicants. We have got 700 who are qualified to be development farmers who simply will not have it. They will not take on the decision. They want to be regarded as transitional farmers because they will not keep accounts and they will not go through the programme required of them and, therefore, in that sense it could perhaps be said that the grants for the transitional farmers are too high because you have these people opting in this way in order to get into the other category because they consider apparently that it is easier for them to do that and accept the grants in this way. This is unfortunate for the country because, when we do that, the State pays the entire bill. We want to get them into the development status because then, at least, we get a small contribution for Europe.

Mr. Callanan

May I ask a question?

Mr. Clinton

Yes, of course.

Mr. Callanan

A number of transitional farmers who were keeping accounts under the small farm incentive scheme will not be planned now because they are not development farmers. They will get the grant but they are not being planned.

Mr. Clinton

They will be planned if they can be regarded as people who will reach the level of comparable income in six years.

Mr. Callanan

I reckon quite a number of them cannot.

Mr. Clinton

I am quite sure that is correct. Deputy Callanan will probably accept that they are on holdings which could not be brought up to the level of comparable income required by this directive unless they can be given additional land. Is that not the position?

Mr. Callanan

Yes, but they are not being planned.

Mr. Clinton

Being planned for what?

Mr. Callanan

To continue on as they have been doing for three years.

Mr. Clinton

The only thing we can do with a 20 or 25 acre farmer in the shape of planning is to plan to keep him there at a level of income which is no longer acceptable. I have heard it said frequently that the small farm incentive bonus scheme was a better scheme and did a great deal for people.

Mr. Callanan

That is right. It did.

Mr. Clinton

We had a toal number of applications for that scheme of 22,000 over a period of four years. About 3,000 or 4,000 of them opted out. They applied but did not take it subsequently. There were about 5,000 a year in this scheme. The upper limit of gross margin was £1,000, at most, a net income of £750. Who will accept that and stay in farming? Nobody. Not today. They will not do it.

Mr. Callanan

They would keep going up if they were planned.

Mr. Clinton

Time and again the question has been asked: what will happen to other farmers after 1977? Deputy Fahey alleges farmers do not know what will happen after 1977. This is an old chestnut. I have spoken about it in the House before but nobody wanted to listen. I should like to set out the position again. Directive 159 says that the provision enabling member states to give aids above the normal level to certain farmers outside the development category should be reviewed before April, 1977. The issue is not whether other farmers will continue to get grants. They will. The issue is whether we will be allowed to continue to give them extra grants. The main concern of the review will be to assess whether there is further need in the Community context for such measures. There will be discussion about the position of these farmers before the end of 1977. Does anybody in this House, or in any member state, imagine that, if there are a large number of these farmers in existence after 1977, everybody can run away from them and leave them high and dry if there is no alternative employment for them?

A question was raised about farmers in part-time employment not getting fair play. What is part-time employment? They are allowed to spend 50 per cent of their time on the farm and get 50 per cent of their income outside. I would look upon that as part-time employment. If that is the position, they are treated the same as anybody else. I think this is fair. If they are development farmers at the end, they are still allowed to get 20 per cent of their income from outside, provided they have the income for one labour unit at the end of the six years. I would not think this is unfair treatment for part-time farmers.

There are three or four attitudes on this in the country. Macra na Feirme are deploring the fact that we have 40,000 part-time farmers. They are proud of this fact in Germany. Minister Ertl regularly refers to the wonderful success this is. I see nothing wrong in having part-time farmers. Under this scheme they are being properly treated.

The allocation of vacated land has also been raised and the fact that only development farmers are entitled to land. There is a misunderstanding about this. Deputy Cunningham raised it repeatedly. A person who is entitled to priority here is a person who, when he gets additional land, is seen to come into the category of a development farmer. If he can put forward a plan, assisted by the advisory services to do so, to show that if he gets ten or 20 acres extra he will be a development farmer, he can be programmed. The development farmer is a man who has enough land already himself and who is programmed.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Healy)

The Minister must conclude shortly.

Mr. Clinton

One way or another my time has been taken. I want to deal briefly with Directive 160 because I am told the response to Directive 160 has been quite good. A large number of farmers are opting either for selling their farms and taking the pension or for a leasing arrangement, which is possible. It has been said it is not possible, but it is possible. I have a lot of extra information here but, unfortunately, I have not got time to give it.

Mr. Cunningham

I gather from what the Minister said that he is anxious to make some changes and some improvements in the farm modernisation scheme. Any help he requires from this side of the House will be forthcoming and, indeed, I am sure our representatives in the EEC will do likewise at that end.

I was surprised at the Minister's statement that only 10 per cent of the moneys available under the farm modernisation scheme come from EEC funds. This is a big disappointment to me. I hope the Minister will elaborate on this on some future occasion. My understanding, and I think the public's understanding, of Directives 159, 160 and 161, was that 25 per cent was being put up by the EEC and 75 per cent by native Governments.

Mr. Clinton

That is for the disadvantaged areas scheme.

Mr. Cunningham

Yes, it applies to that and to Directive 160.

Mr. Clinton

No.

Mr. Cunningham

However, it is a surprise to me to learn that only 10 per cent represents EEC funds.

Another surprising aspect of this— and the Minister talks about the public being misinformed—is that his Parliamentary Secretary is the most misinformed person in this House. His Parliamentary Secretary stated categorically that there is no difference at all in the grants available to the development farmer and the transitional farmer. The Minister has clarified that but I wish he would clarify the mind of his own Parliamentary Secretary who said otherwise here last night, and who said the grants were the same when, of course, they are not.

The Minister pointed out two instances where the transitional farmer receives a lower grant. I would ask the Minister if it is not a fact that the transitional farmer has not available to him the same variety of grants as has the development farmer.

Another point mentioned by his Parliamentary Secretary and touched on by himself—and I do not want to go too deeply into Directive No. 160— is that a transitional farmer will receive land vacated by farmers under the farm retirement scheme. That statement is marginally true only. If, in that area, there are farmers who are classified as development farmers, they are entitled to first preference.

Mr. Clinton

No, Deputy; I have repeatedly said "No".

Mr. Cunningham

I will check up on this. I am convinced that statement was made by the Minister for Lands, that they have a first preference.

Mr. Clinton

Potentially viable.

Mr. Cunningham

I have not the reference with me but I will check on it.

Mr. Leonard

Yes, that was stated.

Mr. Cunningham

In any review of the farm modernisation scheme the Minister must consider differentials between certain areas. He called it regionalisation. This is necessary but not only in respect of grants. The whole scheme must be reappraised in such a way that more benefits will accrue to the farmers in the larger parts of the country, where there are small farmers, that is the west, and indeed in some other areas also. It is a pity that more assistance is not given them.

That brings me to the disadvantaged areas where very few of the farmers reap the advantage of either a transitional or development grant under this scheme. So far many of the farm activities financed heretofore through grants by the Department are not now so financed.

Mr. Clinton

They are completely financed by the Department and with no aid, 100 per cent from the Exchequer.

Mr. Cunningham

There are farmers who will not and cannot qualify under the farm modernisation scheme.

Mr. Clinton

That is not so, except that they are working outside the farm totally.

Mr. Cunningham

There are farmers who are part-time farmers and who heretofore were able to get Department of Agriculture and Fisheries grants for certain farm activities, such as drainage and so on. These farmers do not now qualify and are not provided for under the disadvantaged areas scheme.

Mr. Clinton

They do qualify if they are not doctors, professional men or something like that; if they have to work it to make a living they do qualify.

Mr. Callanan

Fifty per cent of their earnings must be derived from farming.

Mr. Cunningham

The Minister is saying that the full advantages of the farm modernisation scheme are available to the small farmers in the west who are meant to be catered for under the disadvantaged areas scheme if they wish to go for it.

Mr. Clinton

Yes.

Mr. Callanan

That is not right.

Mr. Cunningham

I do not think it is right.

Mr. Clinton

It is 100 per cent right.

Mr. Callanan

Fifty per cent of their income would have to be derived from farming.

Mr. Cunningham

Frankly, I think the Minister is chancing his arm.

Mr. Clinton

No.

Mr. Callanan

He would need to have a very small job to have 50 per cent of his income derived from farming.

Mr. Clinton

If he is not a professional man, a hobby farmer.

Mr. Callanan

He need not be a doctor. He would need to have a very poor income. That is not so at all.

Mr. Cunningham

There are drainage, land reclamation and other grants for which they are not now eligible.

Mr. Clinton

That is not so and, if the Deputy has a list of such people, he can give it to me and I will see that they get the grants.

Mr. Cunningham

All right.

Mr. Kitt

Does that apply to every county?

Mr. Clinton

Yes.

Mr. Cunningham

This is a common complaint. In regard to the farm retirement scheme the Minister for Lands should make changes here so that it can be dovetailed with the farm modernisation scheme. In most counties along the west coast 4 per cent only of farmers have been classified as development farmers. I think that is roughly the average.

Mr. Clinton

Yes, 4 per cent or 5 per cent.

Mr. Cunningham

That is very small. In reconsidering this and any proposals he may put to the EEC, the Minister should envisage that it may not be necessary in the case of better land where most of the farmers will qualify as development farmers, whereas farmers in the west and, indeed, in other areas are finding it very difficult to qualify as development farmers. That is why I urge that the facts of the case be put strongly by the Minister to the EEC so that he may be permitted, if he is not already, to regionalise this scheme and bring more farmers in the west under the development cover.

The Minister for Lands was able to make very substantial changes in the farm retirement scheme. One of his boasts was that he had made it a better scheme than those operated in other EEC countries. I am surprised that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, in charge of our most important industry, cannot stand up and make the same boast in respect of the farm modernisation scheme. If he says that he is getting only 10 per cent from the EEC, then he should try for more and make a case for more.

Mr. Clinton

That is all that any member state is getting.

Mr. Cunningham

And also that the subvention by our own Department should be greater. After all, if the Minister for Lands can make a better case to the Government for the improvement of Directive No. 160, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries—apart from anything we ask him to do vis-à-vis the EEC— should make a case to the Government for dealing with many of the points highlighted by speakers on this side.

Mr. Clinton

I only got £6 million extra this year for the west.

Mr. Calleary

But the Minister did not spend it all there.

Mr. Cunningham

Some of the £5 million from the regional fund could well be directed into farm activity infrastructure in the west but has not been.

Mr. Clinton

Two-thirds of it have gone there.

Mr. Cunningham

It was spent in the Minister's constituency as much as it was in mine. I agree with the Minister that it has been a constructive debate, that we are all on the same note on this, that we are anxious that the prosperity of the farming community, especially the small farming community, be improved. I am sure the Minister will agree that what we advocate is reasonable. He may not be able to achieve it all but he should make an effort to do so.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 64.

Tá

• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, Seán.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Burke, Raphael P
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Leonard, James.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciarán.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Power, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Burke, Dick.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burke, Liam.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Esmonde, John G.
• Finn, Martin.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McDonald, Charles B.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• Pattison, Seamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, John J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Toal, Brendan.
• White, James.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Browne; Níl, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond.

Question declared lost.