I wish to thank the Chair for allowing me to raise this matter which has caused much controversy. EC Directive 75/268 was introduced in 1975 and at that time member states were authorised to introduce special aids to assist farming and to raise farm incomes. They laid down the criteria under which this was to be done.
One of the purposes of the directive was to encourage the continuance of farming in the poor and more remote areas to help maintain the level of population and the preservation of the environment. The criteria laid down were fairly straightforward but we do not seem to have applied them fairly. There is an imbalance in regard to certain areas. We have always claimed that the 12 western counties complied with the criteria and should have been designated as severely handicapped, thus qualifying for cattle headage payments.
The criteria were that less productive land unsuitable for cultivation and used mainly for pasture would qualify; the average farm income had to be appreciably less than the national average and there had to be a diminishing level of population which were depending mainly on agriculture. My constituency of Cavan-Monaghan has fared very badly under this directive. A case was made by the North Connaught Farmers' Cooperative, in conjunction with the Donegal creameries, in pinpointing the inadequacies of that area and they claimed that they should get the same consideration as the Cantal region in France which is a hilly, mountainous area.
In Cavan, 22 per cent of the area is severely handicapped and 18 per cent of Monaghan is also severely handicapped. There are four counties which are 100 per cent severely handicapped, others are handicapped to the extent of 81 per cent, 75 per cent and 51 per cent. The percentages go down as low as 13 per cent and Limerick has a very small portion designated as severely handicapped. County Monaghan has 66 DEDs and 55 of those did not qualify. Cavan fared worst because there is very bad land in the west of that county. Indeed it is some of the worst and least productive land in the country. We had the Erne Catchment Study Report, the EC Social and Economic Committee Report and the NERDO report which all pinpointed that the western counties were severly handicapped and in need of attention. One of the members of the social and economic committee said that part of the area along the Border was one of the most deprived areas in the EC. Reasons have been advanced many times as to why Cavan and Monaghan have not done as well as other counties. One of the reasons mentioned was that it was because they were milk producing counties which gave the impression that they had a fair level of income. However, we must realise that they were working in some of these areas against nature: the land was reclaimed and allowed them to produce but it was not up to the standards of some of the best land in the country which they were competing against.
If we look at the amounts paid in 1983 under the sheep and cattle headage schemes and the beef cow scheme, we find that some counties were paid as high as £4.3 million, £5.1 million, £3.4 million, £2.8 million and £6.7 million. I will not mention counties individually, but Cavan received £120,000 and Monaghan received only £526,000 under those schemes. If you relate that to the type of land in the other counties — I am not saying that they should not benefit — you will see that they have fared very badly.
The last examination was conducted in townlands instead of DEDs. I do not think that is a good idea. During the last investigations four million acres were surveyed and, in answer to a Dáil question, we were told that 70 officials were involved in a review of the boundaries. Not alone did that militate against us, it gave an opportunity from a political point of view for pressure to be put for small pockets outside the 12 western counties to be brought in on a townland basis rather than on DEDs. It will be practically impossible to operate the scheme on a townland basis as there is fragmentation of holdings. Much of this stems from the lack of proper soil surveys being carried out in each county. Surveys have been carried out in only eight counties and they are the only counties where they have data and statistical information to guide them.
In the early seventies a survey was carried out by the Agricultural Institute. It was a very sketchy survey and was rejected by many people in agriculture, in the farm development service and in the county committees of agriculture. The classification they gave for a percentage of land was that it had a wide range of use. It was entirely inadequate as far as defining an area was concerned.
The submission was sent to the EC in August following years of examination but we have been told since that it was inadequate information. Mr. Lalor, MEP, tabled a question in the European Parliament both to Commissioner Burke and to our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry, who was chairman of one session and a few facts emerged as a result of tabling that question. It was indicated that the ceiling for designation — at that time it was 2½ per cent — had been reached in our case and it would need the Commission's agreement to raise this limit to 4 per cent. This was done last year when Britain put in their submission for Northern Ireland and it was also done for the Netherlands and Italy. The question must be asked, why did the Irish representatives not seek to have the ceiling raised in anticipation of this submission? That submission should have been with the EC then but it was held up for an unnecessarily long time in order to look at certain townlands. The submission could have been made with the other claim which was successful in respect of the parish across the Border. Incidentally, I live in that parish. Fairly accurate information has filtered through to us from the Department that the wrong that has been inflicted on the Cavan-Monaghan area from the end of the seventies will continue. We are told there is a very small acreage in the counties I mentioned in the submission which was sent back and which was considered inadequate.
In the course of questions raised in the European Parliament, Commissioner Burke was asked if there would be much trouble in getting the information required and he replied that it could have been got by telephone. The Department have dragged their feet and the reason has to do with finance. They did not want to match this money. It is obvious there has been a certain weakness in policy in the past few years. The money is there in Brussels for programmes for Border areas and for FEOGA grant aid but it is not being taken up because it must be matched pound for pound.
The Minister of State comes from the west and I am sure he is aware of the situation. I ask him to rectify the matter before the debate on the super-levy takes place. All the documentation is there. A comparison was made between Mayo and the Cantal area of France and there is no doubt that Mayo was far more deprived. Nevertheless, the Cantal area received complete exemption from the co-responsibility levy. Had we got a similar concession for the high altitude areas in the west and in Donegal we would be in a much more favourable position as far as the super-levy is concerned.
