Vol. 392 No. 3
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the progress, if any, which has been made in the reclassification of areas to the required status to qualify for livestock headage payments, as these payments will be the cornerstone outreach from EC Structural Funds to marginal and uneconomic smallholders.
5.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when his proposals regarding the extending of disadvantaged area status will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
10.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the up-to-date position regarding the reclassification of less severely handicapped areas to more severely handicapped.
11.
(Limerick East) asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if his attention has been drawn to a submission made by farmers in County Limerick to have the combined parish of Knockainey and Patrickswell designated as a disadvantaged area; the progress which has been made in the processing of this application; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
19.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he intends to make provision in the Estimates for funding for both existing and proposed disadvantaged areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
22.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will explain the delays in extending the disadvantaged areas boundary; and if he will make a statement on the present position in this regard.
32.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the present position in relation to the application to have the whole of Counties Cavan and Monaghan included in the disadvantaged area scheme and classified as seriously handicapped; and when farmers might expect payments to commence.
47.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when he will finalise the complete list of areas for inclusion in the extension of the disadvantaged boundaries review; and the names of the areas that are ratified by his Department for inclusion in the extension, prior to their submission to the EC.
60.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when a decision will be taken on the extension of the disadvantaged areas in County Cork; if the survey has been completed and the total area included in the application for extension.
61.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the present position in relation to the extension of disadvantaged area status applications from County Wexford; when the different surveying procedures will be completed; when approval will be given for inclusion of such areas; when such a submission will be made to the EC in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
62.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the additional areas proposed for inclusion in the new disadvantaged areas schemes in County Waterford; and if special concessions will be given to the Ring Gaeltacht.
64.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the present position regarding the proposed extension and reclassification of the disadvantaged areas, in so far as same applies to the Slieve Bloom area of Counties Laois and Offaly; and when a final decision will be made.
65.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the present position regarding the proposed extension and reclassification of the disadvantaged areas, in so far as same applies to the Slieve Margy area of County Laois.
66.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if the lands owned by a person (details supplied) in County Kildare are likely to be included in the disadvantaged areas scheme; if he envisages any changes in the boundary affecting disadvantaged areas in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
68.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the present position in regard to the inclusion of the following areas of County Cork in the disadvantaged areas scheme: (1) Curraghalla, Kilworth (2) Killickane, Caherdring, Curraghalla, Mitchelstown (3) Nagle Mountain, Kilavullen (4) Cloonlough, Mitchelstown (5) Kilcronat, Tallow (6) Ballygiblin, Mitchelstown (7) Crougheve, Glendulff, Skeheen, Mitchelstown (8) South Nagle Mountains, Glenville (9) Fiddane Mountain, Mourneabbey, Mallow (10) Caherduggan South, Drumdeer, Doneraile (11) Glashaboy Mountain, Carrignavar (12) Glenville (13) Glanworth East (14) Ballinalough West, Carrignavar (15) Rahan/Burnfort (16) Araglen (17) Corrin Hill, Fermoy (18) Watergrasshill, Kildinan, Bartlemoy (19) Dangan, Ardagh, Youghal (20) Ballyknock, Ballyroe, Mallow (21) Ballyarthur, Corroghurm, Mitchelstown and (22) Knockanevin, Mitchelstown; if these areas have been included in the Government submission; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose taking Questions Nos. 3, 5, 10, 11, 19, 22, 32, 47, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66 and 68 together.
The position in regard to the extension and reclassification of the disadvantaged areas is that the first part of the survey of all areas, including those mentioned in the questions was completed earlier this year and the second part of that survey has been completed just recently. My Department are now processing the data obtained from these two survey exercises on computer at present and, when that processing is completed, I will present to the Government for approval the lists of areas deemed eligible according to EC criteria for inclusion or for reclassification. I would hope that this can be done before the end of 1989 and following Government approval of the lists, I will immediately make a formal submission to the Commission.
It is difficult to estimate how long it will take to obtain EC approval or when payments can be made in the new or reclassified areas. Deputies can rest assured, however, that I will make every effort to expedite EC approval and that the necessary funding for headage payments will be provided in due course.
The Minister made a few interesting points, one of which is that he cannot anticipate when these payments will be made to the farmers. Perhaps the Minister is not aware — but it is a fact and it is referred to in my question — that the cattle headage payments are a cornerstone of the economic or financial outreach of the Community to small farmers under the Structural Funds.
I am so aware.
My understanding is that we are living under the regime of the Structural Funds at present. Is it not only fair to ask the Minister that if the Structural Funds are in force at present, and are being paid under the various headings, we should expect that these payments would commence on the first day in 1990.
Having regard to the large number of Deputies who have asked questions and my desire to facilitate as many as possible, may I ask for brevity and relevance. Does the Minister wish to reply?
I will be brief and relevant. It is because of the importance we attach to this that we have conducted such an extensive survey. In fact, the review covered over 4 million acres. We are dealing with a huge survey and I committed all the staff I could to ensure that the benefit of the headage payments — about which I am fully familiar and, incidentally, I have got increases on them for the European Commission over the last couple of years would be available to the maximum number possible. Obviously, the final outcome will depend not only on the Commission but on the Council of Ministers when the matter is fully considered next year.
That is not a very satisfactory answer. Counties Roscommon and Galway are the only two areas west of the River Shannon where there are farmers who are excluded. I am not saying that the scheme should not apply to other areas but those areas west of the Shannon are the ones where it should best apply. In County Roscommon, for instance, 4,213 farmers are included. These are relevant and very germane matters.
The Chair decides these matters. I have asked for brevity in the hope of bringing in a number of other Deputies. Please facilitate the Chair.
You can be assured that I will be as brief as possible and I will be finished in a few moments. I am saying that in County Roscommon there are almost 4,500 included with about 3,500 excluded. In County Galway——
Deputy Connor seems to be imparting information to the House rather than seeking it. That is not in order.
It is in order.
That is not in order, Deputy Connor. Please resume your seat.
I would say that it is in order because——
I would ask you to desist from this carry on. Deputy Sherlock has a question tabled.
Arising from the Minister's reply I would ask him to clarify two points. In relation to the matter of reclassification, is the Minister referring to the areas that have applied for the first time?
No.
Is that not included in your reply?
It is.
Thank you. The Minister stated that he will make provision in the Estimates for agriculture for the funding that will be required for the area that will be classified as disadvantaged.
There are two elements to the submission, first the extension to areas not disadvantaged in any way at this point and, secondly, the reclassification of some areas now classified as mildly handicapped to be regarded as severely handicapped.
Some parts.
Some parts, of course.
There was no need for the survey at all for the areas that were already classed as less favoured.
The Deputy will be aware——
Deputy Boylan rose.
Please, Deputy Boylan.
——that 4 February 1987, was a very interesting date indeed. The previous Government submitted a general global reclassification that all areas be classified as severely handicapped.
Was that not acceptable?
Within a few weeks the Commission sent it back to me.
And you sent it back to me for——
They rejected it out of hand because no serious survey had been carried out.
At the time.
That is a fact.
Tell the truth, Minister.
There was a submission from the Commission to me within weeks of my sitting in my Department. Equally I think I should put on the record that Deputy Connaughton during the course of the election campaign sent out notification to all farmers in his constituency saying that they were now about to be paid higher rates of grant, as if they had been included in the severely handicapped areas.
It was the same letter you sent to the workers in Thurles saying Fianna Fáil would never close the Thurles factory.
Order please. I am on my feet. I have certain rights here.
(Limerick East): I will make my point in a minute.
Having regard to the large number of Deputies who put down questions and to those present in the House I propose to call them to put a brief supplementary question and hear the Minister respond later.
(Limerick East): Question No. 11 is in my name, the Minister answered it in a general way. Perhaps the Minister could help me in this matter. When I was looking at the figure of £2.7 billion of Structural Funds that was being allocated to this country I could not identify what portion of it was designated for increases in the disadvantaged areas. Can the Minister tell me how much of the Structural Funds will be designated for extensions in the disadvantaged areas? Can he tell me how I can identify it within the global sum which has been provided?
I would like to tell the Deputy that there has been no final decision in relation to the breakdown of the Structural Funds on the Community's general framework in any event. The Deputy must be aware of that. It is not surprising then that he could not find it. Let me assure the Deputy, and this arises also in relation to the question asked by Deputy Sherlock, that when the submissions have been submitted and sanctioned by Commission and Council adequate funds will be provided both by way of national Exchequer and Community funding.
Deputy Noonan (Limerick East) rose.
There is a large number of Deputies offering.
(Limerick East): The money which will be subsequently allocated for an extension in the disadvantaged areas is already contained in the global sum allocated. Is that not correct? What we are waiting for is a breakdown of that.
It is contained within the global sum submitted. Nothing has been allocated as yet.
(Limerick East): It has been allocated.
I would like to ask the Minister if he would not accept that the criteria of one livestock unit per hectare will effectively preclude large numbers of areas which have been surveyed recently and if this is not a criteria that needs to be renegotiated? Secondly, what is the ratio of funding for headage payments from the EC and the national Government? Is it on a 50-50 basis or has that been agreed?
In relation to those two points I should like to say that I agree with the Deputy that the current directive is far too restrictive. If that is not to be amended — and this can only be done by the Council of Ministers, not by the Commission — then a number of the areas that have been surveyed would not qualify. I hope I can get agreement from 11 other Ministers, which is not as easy as the asking, to change the qualification in relation to the stocking rate. In relation to the second point——
On the rate of recoupment.
I am glad to tell the Deputy that that has advanced to the point where we can now be satisfied that we will have a very significant increase in our recoupment rate.
Will we have 70 per cent or 75 per cent?
First, I want to state that the Minister's activities in this business over the last two years is nothing short of scandalous. There is absolutely no reason an application cannot be made to Brussels to pay headage in all the disadvantaged areas and there is agreement in Brussels for a member state to do that. We have——
Sorry Deputy Boylan, I want to assist Deputies. Please listen to the Chair. I am anxious to facilitate you, with all Deputies, in eliciting information but a statement or speeches I cannot entertain during Question Time.
I am asking the Minister——
Ask a question, Deputy, please.
Is it not a fact that you can apply to have headage payments paid in all the disadvantaged areas as and from now? Have we all the information we need about the number of cattle? Surely that has been documented on several occasions?
Payments are being made in all the disadvantaged areas. It would not have been necessary to conduct a survey of four and a half million acres, which had never been surveyed by any Government, if we had all the information we needed. The Deputy should know that you cannot make submissions to Brussels on the basis of broad generalisations of that nature. That is what happened in regard to the last application which was sent back within three weeks and I am determined to ensure that it is done more professionally now.
Will the Minister confirm that all areas submitted to his Department which have complied with the criteria laid down in Directive 85/350 will be accepted and forwarded to Brussels for inclusion in disadvantaged areas? Is the Minister aware of the serious dissatisfaction expressed by countless hundreds of farmers in those areas which have been visited? They are very annoyed at the manner in which the inspection was carried out by officials of the Department of Agriculture who stayed in their cars and drove through the townlands concerned without looking at the land involved.
If that is the case I can understand that there would be serious dissatisfaction. This is the first time it has been conveyed to me so if Deputy Sheehan has some information——
I will convey it personally to the Minister.
I will accept it because the officials were not sent out to just sit in their cars.
I am calling Deputies who have tabled questions, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.
The Minister did not answer my question.
The Chair cannot compel a Minister to speak if he does not want to.
Could the Minister tell us something about the criteria or conditions?
Of course. If we can satisfy the Commission and the Council that we meet the criteria regarding the rate of stocking, tillage and population, we will be most anxious to ensure that they are included. However, we have to meet the requirements set down by the Council and that is why we have undertaken such a detailed survey.
Will the Minister convey that information to the House before he conveys it to Brussels?
Will Deputy Sheehan allow the Chair to make some progress? I am calling Deputy O'Keeffe.
Will the Minister be more forthcoming in relation to financing arrangements? For instance, it is commonly felt that the delay in dealing with this has been attributed to the unwillingness of the Government to make funding available for the headage in the extra areas. There seems to be validity in that in view of the fact that the decision to reclassify and extend was made by the Fine Gael Government around November 1986, nearly three years ago. Will the Minister state categorically that there will be no further delays because of funding difficulties? Will he be more definite in relation to the rate of recoupment he expects from the Structural Fund? Will we get the 70 per cent or 75 per cent which has been talked about?
In regard to recoupment, the matter has almost reached conclusion on the basis of our application from 50 per cent to 75 per cent in rates and I do not see any reason for a delay.
The Minister should get 75 per cent.
I do not want any further argument on this point but I have to say to the Deputies on the benches opposite that if they had conducted a survey of the kind the Commission required before sending in their general application during the election campaign in 1987, we would already have the work done. However, they did not and it is too late to be moaning about it now.
Why did the Minister not do it for the last two years?
Will the Minister tell the House, once and for all, if there is a specific provision that the European Commission can reclassify areas in this country which have been designated as disadvantaged to severely handicapped without going through a mountain of paperwork?
Anything in this area, reclassification or extension, must comply with the directives set down by the Council. If they do not they cannot be accepted.
How did Luxembourg get 100 per cent classification?
Is the Minister telling the House that no such facilities exist in the Commission?
To what facility is the Deputy referring? I thought I had made myself clear. If he is talking about classification, the Commission examine submissions sent to them on the basis of satisfying the criteria laid down by Council regulations. The Commission has already proved, beyond yea and nea, that it requires applications to satisfy those regulations. As I indicated earlier, they proved it most clearly in rejecting out of hand the applications submitted by the previous Government during the election campaign.
The Minister was asked for information and he refused to answer the question.
When the present review is completed by the Minister's departmental officials, will he bring it before the House for further discussion before it is sent to Brussels? The Minister informed us that negotiations have to take place with members of the Council of Ministers to see if the position could be changed in regard to the number of hectares. What progress has been made in this regard? I would not like to think he would wait until the application is sent to Brussels before he looks for support.
Discussions are already under way in relation to proposals for revising the regulations but they have to take their normal course under the Council agenda. There is no precedent for bringing matters of this kind before the House. There are four and a half million acres involved in this all over the country and it is unrealistic for the Deputy to expect detailed discussion in regard to this matter.
If we got a proper reply to Question No. 5 it would satisfy all those who tabled questions. The Minister should not make accusations in this House because I was present at meetings when the Minister was in Opposition and I heard him say if Fianna Fáil were returned they would pay funds from last October. That meeting took place before the last two Governments were elected but they did not do it.
A question, please.
Is it not a fact that the Minister has laid down stricter regulations than the Community for the classification of disadvantaged areas and the reclassification of such areas? We have our own rules which exclude many people in this country who would normally quality. Will the Minister give a date because too many promises have been made?
I totally repudiate the Deputy's remarks. There is no basis for the allegations he made and if he wishes to be precise on any such basis I will accept it. In the meantime, the Deputy should show a little responsibility and not be throwing out such totally groundless allegations.
The Minister has put in additional regulations.
That is what I am saying.
We have dwelt overlong on this issue. I am proceeding to Question No. 4.
