Senator Hourigan was in possession, Senator Ferris. He is not in the House now.
Report of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Seanad Éireann pursuant to the Order of the Seanad of 13th September, 1984 takes note of the Report of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities on Disadvantaged Areas which was laid before the Seanad on 12th December, 1984 and which contains a request for a debate thereon.
—Senator Smith.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Hourigan had hoped to resume the debate this morning but he is attending a funeral and will not be able to do so. He realises that he has forfeited his right to take part in the debate.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I want to make the position clear with Senator Ferris.
I want to thank the Fianna Fáil Party for allowing me to go in first because I have another meeting and I did want to say something on this particular report. I want to commend the people who prepared this report No. 12 on the disadvantaged areas which in its introduction deals with the efficacy of Community legislative measures in relation to disadvantaged areas and with the case for the extension and reclassification of severely handicapped areas.
The joint committee examined the operation of the Community measures and they discussed the various Community directives of April 1975 and of June 1980. In doing so, they specifically gave consideration to existing Community measures regrding Directive 75/268/EC, Less Favoured Areas. The disadvantaged areas scheme as implemented in Ireland is based on this directive on mountain and hill farming, and farming in certain less favoured areas. The directive provides for the following types of areas, mountain areas designated under article 33 of the directive; hill and lowland designated under article 34 of the directive, namely areas in danger of depopulation and where the conservation of the countryside is necessary.
They go on to outline the presence of land of limited potential, economic results which are appreciably low and low or dwindling population. Why I specify those particular considerations of existing Community measures is that it was in the light of that that various submissions were made by farming organisations, county committees of ACOT and those of us with a responsibility in agriculture, or an interest in it. The eastern region, which is the only one that I want to mention in my contribution, incorporates the mountain sheep-grazing areas of Carlow, Cork, Dublin, Laois, Limerick, Louth, Offaly, Tipperary, Waterford, Wexford and Wicklow. They are of particular interest to me.
It is appropriate that I should outline to the Minister, arising out of this report which since its publication has been superseded by the announcement from the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Deasy, of the areas that were agreed at Community level for inclusion both in the more severely handicapped and the less severely handicapped areas. First of all, I must acknowledge that the progress that has been made by the Government in their latest submission to the European Community has had beneficial results in many areas. There is an additional 407,000 acres less severely handicapped in the country classified as disadvantaged. There is an additional 869,000 acres classified as more severely handicapped. I realise that that is a major breakthrough. This is in line with the brief outline in this report and the guidelines were used by those people who made submissions based on the presence of limited potential on the land, and taking account of people trying to maintain a livelihood and to ensure that the population does not dwindle. We were absolutely amazed in south Tipperary when key areas which to our common knowledge are within the criteria set down in this report of the joint committee for some reason were not classified as severely handicapped. They are still allowed to remain in the less severely handicapped areas classification. That is a pity.
For the Minister's information, as chairman of the County Committee of Agriculture for south Tipperary I want to put on the record of this House the views of my committee in this regard. At our last meeting we had a notice of motion from representatives, from many who expressed amazement that they were not included. They asked the pertinent question which it is my bounden responsibility to ask the Minister of State, Deputy Connaughton, who is present with us, to confirm. They asked whether in fact these areas were submitted by the Government in their reclassification to the Community or were they not included and, if so, why? If they were included I accept that the Government carried out their responsibility. I advised the members of the Cabinet, those available to me in my own Parliamentary Party and, indeed, the Minister for Agriculture and his two Ministers of State, that this was possibly the last opportunity that Ireland would ever get to extend its boundaries in these areas with the accession of Spain and Portugal.
Never say that.
If Spain and Portugal come in and if Senator Smith knows anything about the terrain there it is quite obvious that it would be quite some time before we will ever get a proper grasp of this particular nettle again. It is important that an opportunity was grasped on this occasion. I am quite sure that the Government left no stone unturned to ensure that the greatest possible acreage was included. The people living in the following areas want to ask the question, and I am responsible to them. They are asking me if the Minister for Agriculture and the Government included the area of Slieveardagh in the disadvantaged areas and if the following townlands in the Slievenamon mountain areas were included, Glenaskough, Toor North, Toor South, Breanormore and Killusty. They should have been certainly included in the severely handicapped area designation. I am asking the Minister also if the following areas are included in that category, I speak about Carrow, Carrowkeal, Lackenacombe, Bonarea, Scarrough — in case Senator Smith does not know the area, it is very close to Dundrum — Ballybrack, Ballysheeda, Moanvaun, Knockavar, Shanaclone, Toragh, Weston's Lot, Gortacoolrush, Drumwood and Brockagh, and the areas of Clonoulty east and Clonoulty west. There have been public meetings there over a number of years. They have produced submissions to the Minister and the Department assisted by our Chief Agricultural Officer, Mr. Michael English. I want to pay him a special tribute here today for the amount of work and effort that he has put into these submissions. There is no doubt that the strongest possible case was made to ensure that these areas were properly designated. I want to ask the Minister of State were these areas included in the application to change them from less disadvantaged to severely disadvantaged or were they not processed?
The Senator is getting very parochial.
Unlike the Opposition we did bring people over from the European Parliament. We brought members of the socialist group to see at first hand the problems that these people have to survive in this area.
We brought a Commissioner.
You had a Commissioner in your constituency as well. We brought the people over from Europe so that they would not sit in ivory towers and look at a map and decide that people can survive around Glenaskough or around the areas of Slievenamon. On a nice day like today people sitting in the Department of Agriculture in Dublin would not realise that there is snow down there and that people are unable to farm well into the month of June, that there is no question of saving hay at the same time as it is saved in any other area. There is the gravest hardship involved in surviving those conditions. If some assistance is not given to them those areas will be depopulated. People will leave because they will not be able to survive. This kind of package is their life blood. I would hate to think that somebody in the Department or somebody in Europe does not wish to see the area when it is the appropriate time to see it, when the weather is bad, when there is rain or snow.
I commend the Oireachtas Joint Committee on this report. A lot of work has been put into it. Now that the Minister has made a statement perhaps he might reassure me of the active role they have played. He might let us know also if there is any hope, despite this published list, that in respect of any area not included or not excluded by the Community we will continue the battle to ensure that the people concerned can remain where they are happy to remain.
I am glad to have the opportunity of discussing this report. It is a fairly sizeable document. I should like to see most of the schemes and measures in the document being implemented but it is only when one starts to look for them that one is confronted with all kinds of regulations that ensure one does not qualify.
The popularity of any scheme is its availability on the ground and its practical usage. People are debarred now under the farm modernisation scheme regulations, under the dry land reclamation scheme and because of various regulations relating to income limits and so on. Perhaps that is the climate that needs to be projected at this point. We have to subsidise each of the schemes that is in operation.
We must be realistic about this. Regarding the headage schemes the greatest deterrent in so far as people in the west of Ireland are concerned is the income level. Many years ago that was at £5,500. A Coalition Government reduced that to £3,500. That prevented more than 60 per cent of the people from being eligible for the scheme. The same applied in the case of other schemes also. It was an unrealistic figure. Though the figure has now gone up to £6,400, it is less than a county council worker is getting on the road today. How can the farmers from the severely disadvantaged areas be asked to avail of these schemes when the limit is so low? I maintain that the limit should be from £8,000 to £10,000 in order to allow the people in the disadvantaged areas qualify for the scheme. ACOT advisors are becoming more difficult to find. The main difficulty is that there are too many regulations attached to qualifying for any grant under the farm modernisation scheme. The number of applications coming in is becoming fewer while the grants being sanctioned are even fewer. There is a general stalemate. I do not know for how long that will continue. According to Building on Reality everything is to improve in 1986 and 1987. All of the western package schemes, drainage and so on, are to be introduced again. Who will be re-introducing them? If they are not introduced before 1987 a Coalition Government will not be introducing them. We will be introducing them. As Senator Smith said, Building on Reality is built on shifting sands.
The main objection to the farm modernisation scheme and to the headage grants is the income limit. One does not know whether to put in one's cattle for inspection this year in case one may not qualify next year. There is a new regulation every year. I have advised the people in my area to be very careful, to keep a photostat of all documentation and ensure that what they say is within the small print because the situation is worse than an insurance policy every year. However, we have intelligent people in the west who are able to read and see through the lines. They have been well advised to ensure that when they are making their applications they have enough forage and that they fulfil all the requirements.
There are too many regulations and deterrents. It is quite natural in stringent times for the Government to be adopting this attitude. Their instruction to their staff must be to give as little as possible to as few as possible. The attitude seems to be to disqualify where possible on some technical point. After people qualify, the payment is delayed often until the following year. In that way there is a little cushioning in the finances. In addition the Minister for Agriculture may think that the Minister for Finance will be pleased that such tactics were used. However, the people, in a few weeks time will register their protest against such policies.
I wish to speak about the mountain status areas. I am more than disappointed in this regard. I had been awaiting a long submission from the Minister on this subject. Instead, during his speech some time ago on the disadvantaged areas, he devoted only a short sharp statement. This was about a major item that people in the severely handicapped areas throughout the west of Ireland as well as such organisations as Donegal Co-Op had made submissions to the Minister for Agriculture and to Europe. They had gone abroad and explored the whole Central region. All the Minister had to say was that with regard to the question of extending the status of mountain areas to certain disadvantaged areas in the west of Ireland under the EC Directive 75/268, the matter had been the subject of separate and specific representation to the EC Commission and that he was continuing to press the issue. The Minister went on to say that the matter had been raised separately in the context of discussions which were taking place in Brussels on the Commission's new proposals on agricultural structure.
That is a very poor comment from a Minister who comes from the west and who knows the problem. If an east of Ireland or a Munster man made a short little submission like that I would tear him asunder. So far as I can ascertain, there is nobody making the case for us in Brussels and neither is anyone concerned as to whether we achieve mountain status for the severely handicapped areas. That is sad, because a lot of work has been put into the submissions. We definitely qualify. My own county alone has been singled out as a county that is identical to Cantal in all shapes and forms — altitude, climatic conditions, windscale, variations in soil and accessibility. There is difficulty, for instance, in bringing machinery to the higher areas. For various other reasons too, we should qualify for mountain status.
I do not know how sincere the Minister is in pursuing this matter, but I trust he is pursuing it at the speed at which people in the area concerned believe him to be pursuing it. If I were Minister I would not allow myself to be curtailed in my ideas or stymied in any way by any Minister for Finance or anyone else in regard to an issue of such importance to the whole west of Ireland.
Private afforestation is not feasible in the west because the people could wait for 50 years to recoup their investment. Rarely will one find afforestation land adjoining good land. If there were large farmers who had some money to invest longterm at the tailend of good land that would be all right but most of the afforestation land for private planting runs off bad land and would not make any impact.
I regret very much the reduction in the levels of agricultural staff. The number of holdings per agricultural office is about 11,000 in the west as against 3,300 elsewhere. Additional offices should be built as fast as possible and rather than starting to dismantle the whole system that has been built up over the years by many committees of agriculture, the advisory service should be improved. Reduction of from 35 to 26 agricultural advisors in Mayo is a very sizeable reduction. I may be blaming the Minister in the wrong but I am sure that if I criticise him sufficiently here, he will be able to blame somebody else. I am convinced that he is sincere in what he is setting out to do but he is curtailed by some Ministers. Too great a proportion of the moneys available is being spent on headage and sheep subsidies and in that field of activity and that is not the popular thing for any west of Ireland Minister to do at this time even if we are getting 50 per cent of the money by way of the FEOGA grant. I urge the Minister to continue to press for mountain status for the entire western area. The people there are of the opinion that the Minister is not doing enough in this regard and is sending out people who do not know the problem on the ground. I know plenty of people who if they were in the position that the Department officials are in, would have a mountain status area for the severely handicapped areas inside six months.
I, too, welcome this Twelfth Report of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EC dealing with disadvantaged areas. The report serves to prove the value of joint committees in the way they have examined an area of much contention among farmers in the western region and indeed farmers in other areas that were designated as disadvantaged ever since the first directive on less favoured areas was issued in 1975.
Here we had members of all the parties in the Oireachtas, together with experts from the Departments, people from the interested co-ops and representatives from the major farming organisations, sitting down for the first time, examining and teasing out the directives in detail. Problems have been shown up and there are various ideas and submissions on how improvements can be brought about.
Much of the report deals with Directive 268/75 which is popularly called the cattle headage directive and extensions to it. Since the publication of this report we are discussing here today the Minister has made announcements on extensions mostly in the west and indeed in areas throughout all the provinces. Nationwide, 407,000 acres have been deemed as less severely handicapped while 869,000 extra acres have been deemed as being more severely handicapped. These are the increases the Minister has announced since the publication of this report.
In County Roscommon and north east Galway the areas with which I am naturally most familiar, I welcome the major extensions. In County Roscommon we got close on an extra 90,000 acres included. In County Galway there was an extra inclusion of almost 100,000 acres. I particularly welcome the inclusion of the Ballymoe district, the Creggs district, and the Ballinakill and Tobberoe districts which are broadly speaking the Glinsk area in north-east County Galway. In the central area of County Roscommon, the inclusion of the greater parts of the district electoral divisions of Tulsk, Strokestown, Elphin, Clooneyquin and Ballintubber and a greater portion of what is generally referred to as the Four-Mile-House area is to be welcomed.
In the region surrounding Roscommon town and south Roscommon the areas taken in are absolutely welcome. In the former areas, that is surrounding Roscommon town, areas like Rosmoylen, large portions surrounding Dunamon and Athleague and Fuerty were lucky. In the latter area — the south of County Roscommon — large portions of Dysart, Taugmaconnell, Moore, Kiltoom, Cornafulla, Bealough, Thomas-town and Castlesampson were lucky also.
While one appreciates the major financial constraints the EC and the national Government operate under and while we fully appreciate this extension and see it for what it actually is, which is a major advance — in Roscommon giving us an extra 29,000 hectares and an extra 39,000 hectares in County Galway — and when we compare it with the the last enlargement which was by Fianna Fáil in 1981 when only a few hundred extra hectares were added in County Roscommon and a couple of hundred extra hectares were added in County Galway, there is natural disappointment in the areas that are still left outside. The criterion laid down under article 3.4 of the Severely Handicapped Directive 268/75 to qualify for cattle headage is (i) that land must be of limited potential, (ii) the economic returns accruing must be appreciably below the mean, and (iii) the area must have a low, dwindling or static population. The areas excluded meet all those criteria.
Let me give some examples. The area of Castleplunkett and Killmurray in County Roscommon lost 5.7 per cent of its population between 1979 and 1981. Yet only three townlands in that area were included. The Castleteehan district electoral division which is adjacant to Castleplunkett lost 1 per cent of its population in the intercensal period 1971 and 1979 and 6.7 per cent between 1979 and 1981, yet no part of it was included.
The Carrowduff district electoral division lost 10.4 per cent of its population in the ten year period, 1971 to 1981 and yet no part of it was included. Another example is Cloonycormican which is basically called the Ballinaheglish/Oran area in County Roscommon. The figures for that area are that in the years 1971 to 1979 it lost 9.9 per cent of its population and in the intercensal period of just three years between 1979 and 1981 it lost a further 8.1 per cent of its population and yet those areas were not included.
In south Roscommon, where the land is generally poorer with the added handicaps of flooding from the river Shannon on the one side and the river Suck on the other, the anomalies are even greater. Drumlosh, a district close to Athlone, lost 6.3 per cent of its population between 1971 and 1979 and a further 2.6 per cent between 1979 and 1981 and it had only one townland included. Kilcar, a district close to Curraghboy lost 4.7 per cent between 1971 and 1981, a ten year period, yet none of it was included. Turrock, a district electoral division which is close to Dysart, lost 8 per cent between 1971 and 1979. Its population stabilised between 1979 and 1981 yet no portion of it was included. Dysart itself lost 6 per cent between 1979 and 1981 and not all of that district is included. The Rockhill or Curraghboy district lost 8.8 per cent between 1971 and 1979 and 3 per cent between 1979 and 1981 and none of it was lucky enough to be included. Lismaher, which the Minister knows himself is the Four Roads or Mount Talbot area lost a staggering 11.9 per cent of its population between 1971 and 1979 and a further 3.8 per cent between 1979 and 1981, yet only one townland in that area was included.
On the other side of the coin we have Taugmaconnell gaining 16.5 per cent between 1971 and 1979 and a further gain of 1.7 per cent between 1979 and 1981 and the larger part of this district is included while Carrowreagh district which is also in the Taugmaconnell area gained 11.1 per cent between 1971 and 1979 and 4.1 per cent between 1979 and 1981. It, too, was lucky enough to have most of its townlands included.
Naturally we do not wish to take from any of those areas which have been lucky enough to be included and which have growing populations. Good luck to them, but we make the point only to draw attention to the anomalies and to show that while we are told that the three basic criteria are used to apply the directive, it does not always seem to be the case. Of course all of the land west of the River Shannon meets the criteria, and justice will never be done fully until the supports of this directive are extended to all of Connacht, much of the west Munster, all of Monaghan and Cavan and indeed to the higher altitude lands in places like Carlow, Tipperary, Waterford and Cork.
Nowadays about 34 per cent of all the land of County Roscommon and 47 per cent of the land of County Galway does not qualify for the bovine headage payments, and they are the only areas in Connacht now not benefiting. The degree of natural handicap in those areas excluded is just as great as in the areas included. The Agricultural Institute, the farmers' organisations and of course the farmers involved would all agree with me. There is no use explaining to excluded farmers who see their production and livelihoods retarded by flooding of the rivers Shannon and Suck in the Counties of Galway and Roscommon that they do not have the level of natural handicap to qualify while they see the farmers in the Finn Valley in east County Donegal qualifying and they have some of the best land in the country. Again I am not taking anything from the farmers in east Donegal, good luck to them.
Finally, I would appeal to the Minister to formulate a proposal for submission to the farm commissioner requesting that all areas excluded, in Connacht at least, be included in an extension in 1986.
On the committee's report we must put on the record our appreciation that the Minister has decided to increase the income limit from off-farm activities to allow participation in the disadvantaged areas scheme from £3,500 to £6,400 per annum. This is a very sensible move, and it brings the spirit and the aim of the disadvantaged areas directive of aiding farmers who are marginalised in terms of income and resources towards greater reality.
I will take just a few aspects of the committee's deliberations on directive 1800 of 1980, commonly called the western package. Firstly I will deal with aids under the package for county roads and I will quote from paragraph 1 on local roads, country, on page 19 of the report. This states that the Department of the Environment's block grant allocations to county councils include a sum specifically to finance a programme of works on country roads used mainly for agriculture and forestry.
The amount of money allocated to county councils under this concession amounts to about 10 per cent or 12 per cent at best of their total expenditure under local by-road network. It should be looked at as to how greater resources from the western package funds could be got into this area, since the Department have apparently turned their backs on appeals coming nationwide that hundreds of miles of the country's minor road network are becoming impassable because of the starvation of funds. Always forgotten, it seems, is that this minor but public network is a fundamental economic lifeline to countless rural regions throughout the country and that millions of pounds worth of agricultural merchandise is transported over them every day.
Could the finance that will be released by the discontinuation of aids to the food processing industry, which is to cease this year, make extra funds available for minor road development and improvement?
With regard to the relative lack of success in relation to the orientation of agricultural production, detailed in paragraph 12 of the report, I agree that there would be a far greater uptake for the calf to beef scheme had the aid been in the form of a direct grant rather than in the form of an interest subsidy. Also a calf to store scheme would have been of much better value in the conditions of the west of Ireland.
We welcome the Minister's decision to get the western drainage scheme going again. This has been the most widely availed of aid scheme among all the schemes designed to rehabilitate the land economy in the western region. The most fundamental initial step any non-profitable landowner must take, if he or she is to come on the right side of the economic margin, is to remove the debilities in the land which operate against economic production. The major debility in the west is land wetness because of high rainfall and the impermeable condition of the soil. It is probably not realised the amount of land taken back from the wilderness between 1978 and 1983 as a result of this scheme, and its re-introduction now is most welcome. I live in a county that is lucky enough to have major arterial drainage works carried out under the western drainage scheme. I refer to the Boyle-Bonnet drainage scheme which is in Ballaghaderreen, others being the Robe and the Mask schemes which are now nearing completion. They are in County Mayo and County Galway. This year this project will benefit by an expenditure of in excess of £3 million. That is double last year's expenditure, and I wish to put on the record of the House our gratitude for this from the point of view of its land improvement value and the employment which it gives.
I want to thank the Senators for a very wide ranging discussion on a very important subject. I want to put on the record exactly what has happened in the recent past in regard to the extension of the revision of the severely handicapped areas. I am glad to have this opportunity to put on the record of the House the sizeable benefits the boundary adjustments of the disadvantaged areas will bring to farmers in 21 counties. These adjustments follow upon the most comprehensive review of the disadvantaged areas ever undertaken in this country. The EC Commission have now completed examination of the submissions made by this Government in August 1984 and has put forward a proposal to the Council for its approval. Before this proposal was finally completed there were substantial negotiations with the Commission and these resulted in the criteria laid down for designation of disadvantaged areas in Ireland being made considerably more flexible.
What are now proposed are, first of all, extensions to those areas which are designated as disadvantaged and the reclassification of certain parts of the existing designated areas. In all, the boundaries of some 406 district electoral divisions will be adjusted, and this has involved over 3,000 townlands. The adjustments to the boundaries will increase the proportion of the agricultural area of the State in the designated regions from 62.5 per cent to 68 per cent. This sizeable increase can be appreciated when one considers that the 1976 to 1981 reviews, combined together, extended the agricultural area by a little over 1 per cent. As a consequence of the proposed adjustments an additional 407,000 acres of land is being proposed for designation as less severely handicapped while the area classified as more severely handicapped is being increased by some 869,000 acres. When they are added together we get the figure that is most quoted of 1,250,000 acres, which is a very, very sizeable increase by any standard.
It is obvious to all that the sizeable adjustments to the disadvantaged areas, the extension of the western region with its other benefits, the increase in the off-farm income limit to £6,400 and the proposed doubling of the beef cow payments to £70 will benefit a large number of farmers throughout each and every county of this State.
I would like to refer for a few moments to changes in the different areas. It is worth while to outline the impact these adjustments will have at county and area level. In the western region over 321,000 acres of land will be re-classified to the more severely handicapped category. Seven counties are involved where farmers will now benefit from the cattle headage payment. Over 14,000 acres will be re-classified in Counties Clare and Monaghan and some 74,000 acres in Counties Cavan and Roscommon. About 98,000 acres will be re-classified in county Galway, 49,000 acres in County Kerry and nearly 5,000 in County Cork. We have also enlarged the western region itself by adding some nine new areas to the boundary including bringing in the existing Sliabh Felim area, one in fact that was a hot potato for many years. An area of 345,000 acres has now been added to the west. In west Cork an additional 61,000 acres has been included while in Counties Meath and Westmeath 29,000 acres and 32,000 acres have been added. Many people would find it difficult to understand how there could be that type of land in places like Meath and Westmeath. There is bad land everywhere.
In my capacity as Minister of State I have toured nearly all the areas involved over the last two years. There are counties in which you would not expect to find any bad land, but this is not the case, of course. In Counties Offaly and Tipperary 32,000 acres and 81,000 acres have now being included while in County Limerick 39,000 acres now joins the west, for this particular purpose.
In the eastern region cattle headage and beef cow payments will now be made payable in designated areas for the first time in the history of the disadvantaged areas scheme in this country. They would include some 98,000 acres of land in the Castlecomer, Sliabh Margy area and, in fact, that is one of the areas that has been a bone of contention for many years. They include 34,000 acres in the County Kilkenny area, 81,000 acres in County Waterford, 19,000 acres in the Sliabh na mBan area, the sheep area of Tipperary. It includes 69,000 acres in the Limerick-Tipperary Galtee area, 49,000 in the Sliabh Blooms, 17,000 in the Cooley Peninsula, 37,000 acres in the Blackstairs Mountains and 247,000 acres in Counties Wicklow, Dublin and Wexford. We have also included new mountain sheep grazing land in County Kildare.
A number of Senators have queried the criteria laid down by Brussels, and I would just like to point out that we cannot, in a blanket matter, decide to include every area in the country, whether it is in the west or outside the west, for the very simple reason that there are very strict criteria. After the announcement of any extension to these areas there are people who are deeply disappointed, and on this occasion it is no different. Most of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Department on this occasion would appear to centre around the criterion concerning the population basis. It would appear to me that in any future negotiations this is something that will have to be taken up by the Commission to get more flexibility because I have met many groups in the last fortnight or three weeks who would meet all the other criteria except where, for one reason or another, a number of people not connected with agriculture at all have built houses, or county council estates or this kind of thing have been built out in the country. It is certainly against our best interest from here on to allow that particular criterion to be there, but of course there are very good reasons why that should be there.
This would be an appropriate occasion for me to say that when we first joined the EC the basic principle of this was that the areas that would not be able to generate any type of reasonable farm income obviously had to be helped. Now there is a big difference between parts of the country that have gained access and, say, parts of County Leitrim where, for obvious reasons, the agricultural potential is so low. It was generally believed at the time, when the powers-that-be created this type of severely handicapped areas basis for calculation, that it would be held to areas of that type. As the whole business developed and more pressure came on from all the other countries in the EC, as well as ours, obviously more areas were included. We have now arrived at a stage where we will have to renegotiate the criteria. We surveyed four million acres and 1¼ million acres were successful.
Other criteria have been mentioned here and I do not intend to delay the House going through them but I would just like to refer to a point made by Senator O'Toole, a man who can make a point very well. I could not help thinking he was getting his vocal cords flexed for the next couple of weeks. I want to say a few words about the designation of parts of the west as mountain areas. There is no doubt that I put an awful lot of work into this in the last few years and indeed it is fair to say that people before me, in all Governments, did likewise. There is no point in point scoring on this issue because no matter which Government are in power if we can get the mountain area status for the west it will be good for the west. There are obviously huge impediments to our getting this because I know all about the problems of the west vis-a-vis the Cantal area of France and, indeed, many other areas on which we have got in-depth detailed information.
The problem is that many of the other countries have areas that should, in their view, be designated as mountain areas as well. Obviously it comes back to the budget at Commission level. I hope that in the not too distant future we will get that mountain area status. There are counties in Connacht and indeed outside that province that should be entitled to this but, as all Governments in the last five or six years have found out, it is not an easy matter. Everything will be done and the pressure will be kept on Brussels. Indeed, I compliment NCF and Donegal Creameries on the magnificent submission they have made. I was with hill sheep farmers at Maam Cross, in Connemara, last week and they presented me with a similiar type of submission which, in fact, one could not quibble with. I gave them my entire backing on it and I will do everything I can to ensure that we get that status as soon as is possible.
There are two other things I would like to refer to. The Government have decided that the off-farm income limit will be raised from £3,500 to £6,400. This is something on which everybody has pressured me in the last two years. I believe the right decision has been made. I do not think it is sufficient for Senator O'Toole to say that it cuts out many people who are working in forestry and the county council. My information is that many of them who would be working the ordinary five day week with no overtime would be involved. It is a huge jump from £3,500 to £6,400. As Senator O'Toole said, we would like to have it higher if the budget permitted. So it is a big step in the right direction and there will be many thousands of farmers who heretofore were not involved who will now be entitled to get their cattle and sheep headage payments.
Might I refer to another item that Senator O'Toole mentioned? A very practical man like Senator O'Toole may argue that some of the application forms we have are quite detailed. There is a reason for that. We hope that, at the end of the day it will not be the cause of doing anybody out of a grant but we have to try to rationalise all those schemes. Everybody here would like to think that I would be giving value for money and that whatever money is around will go to the farmers and is not spent on administration. On one hand, people say to me: "You have not enough offices and you have not enough officers," but on the other hand the farming organisations quite rightly say, "Make sure that the greater part of whatever amount of money is earmarked for farmers gets back to them." I can certainly say that in the last few years the Department have rationalised their procedures to the degree that for the calf scheme, the sheep scheme and the cattle scheme we had a composite form, that you made one application and, more important, the local AO want out and did the whole inspection on the one farm the one day.
It is very difficult to get over the problem that Senator O'Toole has talked about. A number of older people, in particular, could not make head nor tail of the application form but you will always have some of that. We have a great degree of cost-benefit analysis on the numbers of staff we have vis-a-vis the number of herd owners we deal with and every year that is getting somewhat better.
One other matter was mentioned by Senator Ferris. I would not have a clue where all the townlands that he and Senator Connor spoke about are except the ones I would know locally. The areas mentioned were, in fact, surveyed as such and in this instance were found not to meet the criteria for one of three or four different reasons. I would also like before I finish to refer to another point that was made by Senator O'Toole. That is the question of the multiplicity of schemes that we have. I would have to agree with him. There is no doubt we have a scheme for everything and some people would be very confused about the numbers of schemes that we have. Now that I am in the process of renegotiating the western package, I can say with a certain amount of confidence that I will get over that problem to some degree. There are certain types of grants that are running parallel to each other and in my view they should be lumped together to one degree or another. While it is a very difficult task I think the outcome will be acceptable to most people as being a reasonable attempt to rationalise that problem.
I was surprised to hear Senator O'Toole say that one would have to pay for the agricultural advice when one got it. While it is not relevant to this debate, I would not like the news to go out, from an ACOT point of view, that one has to pay for agricultural advice. One does not have to pay for it. If any farmer, in the west or anywhere else, wants advice from his ACOT office, it is available. There are changes in the way they actually give that information, which I will not go into today, but I want to put it on the record of the House that our farmers do not have to pay for agricultural advice.
On a point of order, the farm building inspectors deduct it from your grant.
That is a different thing. Let us get that clarified. There is a £20 fee on the farm buildings side, but that has nothing to do with the agricultural advisory service. That is important.
I am still right.
Senator Connor referred to some aspects of the western package which was mentioned in this document. I am in the process of renegotiating it. We have had that for four years as a very important plank in western development and in western farming. There were certain aspects of that scheme that were of the utmost importance. We think immediately of the group water scheme. Obviously we must continue that because a farm or a house without running water is not a farm or a house at all. In this day and age the least people could expect is to have access to running water. We still have many houses in rural Ireland that have not got running water.
Senator Connor mentioned the calf-to-beef scheme. It did not work, of course. I am of the opinion that no matter what you do with a calf-to-beef scheme in the west it will not work either. Traditionally in the western region we do not keep our cattle until they are beef. Perhaps we should, but we do not. Indeed, in the last few years, even with new technology, it appears that we tend to sell the store cattle. I believe that that scheme, well intentioned though it might have been, no matter what I do with it, will still not be used. There are many other aspects of that for discussion on another day. It is an important chance that we have got, that we can go back and renegotiate it. It is to run for another six years. I hope we will get the act together a bit better on this occasion and that all the aspects Senator O'Toole mentioned, such as the mountain areas, the reclamation grants, the fencing grants, and so on, will bring a certain amount of rationale into it so that at least when a farmer decides to improve his lot he will know it is there, it is easily understood and, most of all, that it is possible for him to be eligible for it. That is the important part of it. I hope that in a few months time I will be announcing those various details and that they will be to the benefit of the people for whom they are intended.
I would like to compliment the joint committee on this timely and important report dealing with the disadvantaged areas. It is as concise as could be expected, taking up 43 pages including a very helpful coloured map which shows the then designated severely handicapped and other disadvantaged areas. The report concludes by stating that in view of the importance the joint committee attached to this matter of disadvantaged areas it specifically requested a debate in the Dáil and Seanad at the earliest opportunity. I am glad that this House has responded to that very reasonable request.
The important parts of the report come under the headings of Existing Community Measures, Case for Reclassification of the Severely Handicapped Areas, Views of Joint Committee and, finally, Conclusion. The disadvantaged areas scheme as implemented in this country is based on the EC directive dealing with less favoured areas. This directive provides for two types of areas — mountain areas and hill and lowland areas. The directive requires properly, I believe, that the level of aid be varied in accordance with the degree of permanent natural handicap. It is understandable for this reason that the poorer areas of the west are scheduled as severely handicapped.
The areas of Ireland designated by the Council in 1975 were the western region, which included all of Counties Cavan, Clare, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Longford, Mayo, Monaghan, Roscommon and Sligo as well as parts of west Cork, the eastern region, incorporating mountain sheep grazing areas in counties Carlow, Cork, Dublin, Laois, Limerick, Louth, Offaly, Tipperary, Waterford, Wexford and Wicklow. The report deals with grant aid and explains that the directive has two main provisions (i) an increase in investment aid available to development farmers in less favoured areas and (ii) a system of payments to compensate for permanent natural handicaps. It states that the most important aid, having regard to both its cost and the number of benefiting farmers, is the system of headage payments. The Irish Government introduced three schemes in the disadvantaged areas to implement the system of headage payments. These are set out in the report, together with the list of other benefits which apply. In their submission to the joint committee, the Irish Farmers' Association stated that in the past Ireland has not paid the maximum amount of compensatory allowances permissable under Directive 268. They pointed out that the off-farm income limit has been reduced to a very low level, at £3,500 gross income. The Irish Farmers' Association proposed that the off-farm income clause should be increased to £6,500. I am glad that since 18 December the Minister has raised the off-farm income restriction to £6,400. Why the Minister did not go all the way to respond to their proposal — it would only have meant £100 — I do not know. He did not refer to this in his speech.
The third review of the disadvantaged areas in Ireland was initiated in 1981 based on parts of district electoral divisions, presumably not smaller than townlands and culminated in a submission to the EC Commission on 2 August 1984. The report states that the volume of submissions and representations considered ensure that the situation in every county of Ireland was examined, comprising 600 district electoral divisions and 10,000 townlands covering nearly 4 million acres. Not everyone has the greatest confidence in the Department of Agriculture where furnishing of statistical data to the EC is concerned, but I trust that they are correct in stating that no area which had any prospect of qualifying as disadvantaged was excluded.
Regarding the submission made on 2 August 1984 to have the existing disadvantaged areas in Ireland extended and in certain cases reclassified, the Minister set out at considerable length the procedure involved because, as he said himself, he did not want the people to have the impression that extending the boundaries of the disadvantaged areas was only a matter of sending in a list to the Commission and that this ended the story. Nobody would expect it to be a simple matter. But what I do not understand is why the Minister could not disclose all the information in relation to the submissions. If this could cause problems with regard to prejudice on the final outcome as the Minister stated, I cannot understand it. I believe it to be a serious mistake to be so secretive about this important matter. Of course, as the Minister has pointed out, the decisions have been made.
I want to refer briefly to County Meath, which the Minister covered in his speech. Only a small area has been included in the less severely handicapped areas. The district electoral divisions of Ardagh, Moybologue, Trohanny in Kells Rural District, part of the district electoral divisions of Carrickleck, Kilmainham, Newcastle, Nobber and Posseckstown in Kells Rural District and Drumcondra in Ardee No. 2 Rural District. There are many people in Meath who are very disappointed that the county did not benefit more under the scheme. The Minister has gone into the details and more or less confirmed what I have stated on previous occasions, that the fertile plains of that area do not start on the county boundary. I think the Minister would agree that many areas are excluded which could not be compared with the remainder of the fertile land. The soil surveys and the income from those areas would bear that out. In general, while some progress has been made, there is still considerable dissatisfaction, and I hope this will be reversed in the future.
Regarding the programme for western development known as the western package which was approved by the EC Commission in April 1981 the report points out that this consists of a wide range of measures designed to deal with the special problems of agriculture in the west, and it provides over a ten-year period for the injection into the western region of about £300 million, of which about half will come from the EC and half from the Exchequer. The package includes considerable financial aid for the provision of essential services to farms including electricity supplies, water supplies, roads and land improvement. It also includes orientation of agricultural production, afforestation, agricultural training and grants for agricultural marketing and processing. It is satisfying to note from the report — although not everybody would agree — that in general terms under the western package infrastructural elements including water, roads and electricity are regarded as satisfactory and work is well on target. Apparently, land improvement work under the regulation is satisfactory also. Unfortunately, however, while work on illegal division of commonages is also satisfactory the amount of follow-up work being undertaken by owners of the divided commonage, such as fencing and rehabilitation, is below expectations. This is very difficult to understand, particularly since grants are available to farmers involved in commonage division to provide fencing, reclamation, surface treatment and access roads. Also, I recall that the Minister was very enthusiastic about this particular operation when we dealt with the Bill on land leasing last year. He was very optimistic too. I would like to ask the Minister what has gone so seriously wrong since then.
The Department of Agriculture feel that the most disappointing aspect is the rate of progress under the orientation of production element, including the calf-to-beef scheme under which grants were available for on-farm investment. Some of the reasons given for the poor uptake are the facts that there are restrictions on investment in dairying, that farmers over 55 years of age are excluded — except where management arrangements operate — that the scheme operates by way of a farm improvement plan which entails keeping of accounts and — regarding the calf-to-beef scheme — that aid is available only where there are borrowings.
The Minister told us that he feels this is a particularly suitable time to have discussions on the package because the first review of the programme is due to take place this year in conjunction with the EC Commission. While the Minister welcomed this opportunity to have that subject discussed more widely in the House and he stated that this year's review is very important since it would be the only chance to make meaningful changes in the programme which will run for ten years from 1981, I think the Minister might have taken us into his confidence and given us some idea of how he intends to deal with these problems. The Department of Agriculture, realising the reasons behind the poor uptake, must at this stage have a fair idea of how they intend to deal with them. I might also add in this respect that I feel the report itself could be more forthcoming.
Regarding private afforestation, the report deals with forestry development as it is defined in the regulations. It is very difficult to understand why the rates of uptake of grant aid for private afforestation has been so extremely disappointing. Areas considered marginal for agricultural production are highly suitable for afforestation, and these include the north central region covering County Leitrim, east Sligo, south Donegal and west Cavan. Other very suitable areas are County Clare and parts of north Tipperary. There is a suggestion that the poor progress with the forestry measure may be because there is no tradition of tree planting among Irish farmers. Considering, however, that there are about one million acres of most suitable soil in the two regions which I mentioned, it is difficult to understand poor progress.
In this regard, I have a copy of the leaflet "Grants for Private Planting" issued by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Forest and Wildlife Service. It sets out the grants available, and I note the leaflet was published in February 1980. The value of money has decreased since then, and perhaps all these grants need to be updated. This would be necessary if the incentives were to have the same value now as they had then. I feel the Minister would agree with this. I also notice on this leaflet that it is stated that the planting of trees for shelter is not covered by the scheme. On page 36 of the report it is stated that grants up to 80 per cent are available for shelter belts. Perhaps the Minister would like to clarify this apparent contradiction. I would also like to say briefly that with regard to afforestation one of the big problems for investment would be forest fires. The Irish Press of Monday, 18 February 1985 reported that we had two major forest fires involving over 500 acres in County Mayo.
The publications of the Forest and Wildlife Service are well worth studying, and also the European Community green Europe newsletter on the Common Agricultural Policy. "Europe's Green Mantle: Heritage and Future of our Forests" is well worth studying because I feel much more could be done in this area. The problem of fires is something that should get priority. I suppose there are different ways of having suitable divisions between areas of the plantation.
There is much more I would like to go into regarding the report but my time has run out. In conclusion, I would like to thank the members of the joint committee, and I think it is only proper to thank also all those groups who had discussions with them for the benefit of the report, including representatives from the North Connaught Farmers CoOperative Society Limited, the Irish CoOperative Organisation Society and the Irish Farmers Association, also Mr. Eddie McSuibhne and Mr. Jerry Haigh from the Department of Agriculture
I would like at the outset to express gratitude to the Minister for the statement he made here a short time ago in which he gave a summary of what had been achieved and the difficulties we have when we seek to have extensions made under these schemes and have to make the case in Brussels. We should express our satisfaction with what has been achieved in the latest extension. It was no mean achievement to have an extra 800,000 acres included in the severely handicapped areas and to have about 407,000 included in the disadvantaged areas, as the Minister said, taking us to a total of over one million-and-a-half acres. That is an achievement that we should be highly satisfied with. It does not mean, of course, that we are 100 per cent satisfied: people are never satisfied, but at the same time it is wrong not to acknowledge success when it has been achieved. I would like to compliment the Minister and his officials and everybody involved in the presentation of this case in Brussels and to express satisfaction with the favourable results achieved so far and the hope that they will continue to press the case. I was very interested to hear that the case presented by the Government in Brussels was for four million acres, because there is a view that only the areas that are now included were listed and a case made to Brussels for them. I would have been very much surprised if that had been so because I know areas in my own part of the country where people cannot understand why they are not included. There must have been a number of very borderline cases between exclusion and inclusion. I hope the Minister and the Department will continue to press the claim for these areas that should be included.
I was very interested to hear the Minister make one particular point in relation to the criterion of population because in parts of the country, where the area holds a certain scenic attraction but is certainly not fertile and certainly not a highly productive area, people who might otherwise be living in towns move out to live in these areas and the population is increased.
In the assessment of the population it should be borne in mind that it is the population of the area which derives its income solely from agriculture that is concerned because I could list a number of areas convenient to different towns in Cavan where people have moved out to live, perhaps for peace and quiet or for the scenic attraction. It is true that the development of group water schemes and rural electrification have encouraged a tendency to move out of towns and live in an area near a town and that gives an artificial figure of population in these districts. If that kind of growth in an area that is being considered for inclusion in the severely handicapped or disadvantaged areas is not examined in depth such an area would never have a hope of being included unless the population criterion becomes much more flexible, as the Minister hopes.
In Cavan about 74,000 extra acres have been added on to the severely handicapped areas and that has given a good deal of satisfaction. However, it has not given 100 per cent satisfaction all over the county but it has generated a good deal of satisfaction and a great deal of appreciation for the work that was done. A great breakthrough was the taking of a townland as a unit instead of the district electoral division. Anyone who knows rural Ireland at all knows perfectly well that in a great number of district electoral divisions you have a wide variety of land, ranging from very poor, non-productive, or productive at a very low rate, to reasonably good land and in some cases in a district electoral division you will have land of top quality or near it. The early insistence on taking the district electoral division as the unit worked to the disadvantage of counties like Cavan and Monaghan and other counties in that part of the country. It was a great breakthrough when it was conceded that a townland be taken as a unit.
With regard to the question of altitude which has come up, I was on a number of deputations with people from Cavan and Monaghan to different Ministers under this Government and the previous Government. One of the criteria put forward at that time was altitude. I was told by a Fianna Fáil Minister that when the case was presented to Europe what we consider mountain areas in this country are looked on as hills in Europe where the altitude of mountains is greatly in excess of mountains in Ireland. I understand the point. I was interested when the Minister here today said he would continue to press for the inclusion of what we regard as mountainous areas even though in comparison to the high mountain ranges in Europe ours would seem to be only hills or hillocks. The productivity of these regions is very low and it is necessary that people get support of some kind in order to be able to live there in any sort of comfort.
One guiding principle that should be borne in mind when these assessments are being prepared is the amount of capital that it is claimed is justifiable in setting up a new job in industry and compare that with the relatively low amount of capital or support that will help a man and his family to continue to live in a state of reasonable comfort on a farm and be productive at the same time.
I would like also to draw attention to the fact that headage payments encourage increased productivity. They should be examined from that point of view and contrasted with the unemployment assistance which is calculated now on the wealth generated in an area or by an applicant. It is an incentive to produce less, whereas the headage payment is an incentive to produce more. The overall advantage of extending these headage payments to areas where farmers need assistance is, in the long run, calculated to produce more wealth in the country and for that reason it should be welcomed sincerely. That is part of the reason why I compliment the Minister and his staff on what they have done in including well over three-quarters of a million acres in the severely handicapped areas. That will result in increased productivity in the years immediately ahead.
For the purpose of encouraging the Minister to pursue the efforts to include Border areas I would like to draw attention to the fact that there are areas I know in County Cavan — the Minister knows some of them himself — where nobody can understand why they were omitted. They are quite close to areas that were included. They meet the criterion of declining population and the other criteria also. Part of the district electoral division of Moynehall, Cavan town, has been included; a very small part of the parish of Lavey; none of the parish of Laragh, very little of Denn and very little of Castletara. These are parishes I know and which the Minister knows also. I do not know why all of those areas were not included. It must certainly have been a hairline decision as to whether they were to be included or to be omitted. Comparing the land and the decline in population in some of these parishes with areas that are included, it is beyond me why they were not included and ACOT and agricultural advisers in Cavan are of the same opinion.
The biggest surprise of all is that none of the Bailieborough electoral area is included and only part of the Ballyjames-duff electoral area is now classified as severely handicapped. This is a disappointment to me. May I draw the Minister's attention again to the area that he knows well, Upper Laragh, Carrigallan, and the parish of Knockbride and the Shercock area where the land is very hilly and much of it of very poor quality with a big decline in population. That is a genuine rural population of farming people, if you exclude people who have moved to live in the area from towns, tradesmen and professional people.
I would be failing in my duty as a representative of the area if I did not do what I could to impress on the Minister our hope that whenever another review takes place these cases will be pushed through with all the muscle he can command. I am very happy to say, in common with other Senators, that a reasonable off-farm income of over £6,000 does not debar one from participating in these schemes because it cannot be denied that some people who are anxious to succeed in the world and provide for themselves and their families, in addition to holding a job, run small farms. That is meant to supplement the income from whatever job they hold and it is meant to give them an opportunity to give the members of the family a fair start in life. It is wrong to say that just because they hold jobs, their desire to get on in the world, produce more wealth and improve the conditions of themselves and their families, they should be taxed to such a degree that there is no incentive for them to do it. Increasing the off-farm income was a great step forward.
In my opinion, the Minister and his staff and all concerned in this work must be congratulated on the success they achieved. The very fact that they are congratulated for what they did will encourage them to do more in the future.
I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking on this motion. Our committee looked in depth at all the directives and at the proposals of both the Commission and Government. We had the advantage that our members came from practically all parts of the country. It is fair to say that the document before the House today is the result of much thought and consideration and a considerable amount of work from the members of the committee and the subcommittee who assessed the situation. We ought to compliment the Minister and the Government on their work and their provision which has enabled the significant extension of the disadvantaged areas scheme, as the Minister said, in 21 counties in the Republic this year.
This move will clearly demonstrate to thousands of farmers, and especially small farmers, the determination of not just the Government but the Commission of the European Community to try to bring about a more equitable distribution. It is though this scheme in particular, and the regional policy scheme, that the real force of the aspirations of the people who founded the European Community shines out. I hope that their efforts will be successful.
I am particularly happy that the Minister has in this rearrangement of the disadvantaged areas included an additional 98,000 acres of the Sliabh Margy area which is in Laois and down to the Kilkenny border area and that is included, only unfortunately, as less severely handicapped. Nevertheless it does confer considerable benefits on the many hundreds of farmers there. The farmers in those areas can benefit from the beef cow headage payments scheme which at present is £32 for the first ten cows and then £28 for the next 18 livestock units. This brings in a maximum of £824 per farm on that scheme alone. I read where it is the intention of the Government to increase that figure of £32 per cow to £70 in the coming financial year. That should give a significant basic flow of income to many small farmers in that rather difficult area.
It is regrettable that this area was not included originally in the 1975-76 scheme. Some two or three years ago An Foras Talúntais did a marvellous job in our county in their soil survey which clearly indicated that the structure of the soil in that area and in other areas of the County of Laois met the criteria laid down by the Commission. The farmers in the areas designated less severely handicapped have the benefit of the calf scheme and the sheep headage payments scheme and this will be of considerable benefit to them. I hope the Chair will bear with me while I mention the townlands benefiting from that. In the DED of Blandsfort there is Garrintaggart and Graiguenasmuttan. In Rossmore, there is Rossmore, and part of Clogrenan, all of the DED of Newtown. In Ballinakill there is Boleybawn.
I want to say and to repeat to the Minister, my disappointment and disbelief that Boleybeg in the DED of Ballinakill was not included. From my point of view, as a farmer, looking at the particular areas and at the problems of the farmers there — I am not an expert such as the Minister would have in his Department — it is difficult to understand how a small townland like Boleybeg should be excluded. I think the Minister should look very closely at what would appear to be discrimination in these situations. The Minister has not said what criteria his officers used. I think it is because farmers in some of these areas have put more muscle into their farms and they look better. I do not think they should be penalised by virtue of their thrift and industry. All of the DED of Farnans is in and all of the DED of Doonane. In the DED of Turra there is Ballynakill, Drumagh, Rushes, Towlerton and Turra, and all of the townlands of Ardough.
In the DED of Rathspick we have Aghamafir, Boley, Crissard, Kellystown, Kilfeacle, Kylenabehy, Mullaghmore, Shanragh and Wolfhill. We have Ballylehane Upper. In the DED of Ballickmoyler we have Keeloge. In Luggacurren we have Brennanshill, Coolglass, Fallowbeg Upper, Fernyhill, Gooreelagh, Luggacurren, Manger, Monamanry, Scotland. In the highest point in Luggacurren between 700 and 800 hundred feet up, we have the townland of Coolrusk which comprises fewer than 200 acres and which for some extraordinary reason — perhaps because the road was too bad for the Department officials to go down; they probably could not get through it during the winter because it was cut off during the snow for at least a fortnight — was forgotten about.
There is a blatant omission there. I want the Minister to look very seriously at that omission. The fact that they left out Coolrusk which has a few farmers there who are being grossly and unfairly treated is something which I cannot understand. I cannot understand the officials' motivation. Perhaps they came in a snowstorm and then forgot about it, or there was a crease in the map and they did not see it.
I ask the Minister to request the officials to look again at the townland of Coolrusk in the Luggacurren DED and perhaps he might let me know why it was left out and why it cannot be included. I do not think it is too late to rectify the obvious mistakes that appear in the entire list. In, also, are the DED of Timahoe, Aghoney, Ballinaclogh Upper and Garryglass. In the DED of Fossy there is Aghadreen, Baunogemeely, Fossy Upper, Knockacrin, Knocklead and Orchard Upper. In the DED of Dysartgallen there is Aghnacross, Clenagh, Graiguenahown, Keelagh, Knockardagur, Knockbaun and Moyadd.
The land is those disadvantaged areas is all very difficult land. It is suitable for tillage. The problem is that it will give at least some income to some people. They suffer the worst disadvantages of the climate. They get a much higher rainfall. If it snows they are cut off for several days, or more.
In Laois the people in the Slieve Bloom area are much more fortunate. Their area has been deemed to be more severely disadvantaged. The Government have included 49,000 acres in this category on Slieve Bloom. The Minister's official forgot a couple of townlands as well. There is the townland of Cartown. This is something I want to have redressed. There is absolutely no obvious or credible excuse why the Department should exclude a couple of hundred acres in small townlands. From the point of view of the man in the street they look all the same and have all the disadvantages that their neighbours endure.
The more severely disadvantaged areas have considerable benefits and I wish them well. They have the cattle headage payments. It applies to all types of cattle, which is an advantage. On each of the first eight livestock units there is £32 payment while on each livestock unit in excess of eight and up to a maximum of 30 there is £28 per year. That comes to £872 per year. The Minister said that this will be increased next year. They have the high rate of beef cow grants, the calf scheme and the sheep headage payments scheme which afford the maximum of £1,550 per farm. This will be a considerable boost. When one is talking about £1,600 or £800 to people who are in the Department who may have £20,000 or £25,000 a year, it is not a big sum. If one looks at the farm survey and takes the average figure of farm income it does not look too bad.
When we move into the hills to the areas that are disadvantaged, where the average yield for gallons from dairy stock and the yield per acre in beef falls to perhaps a third of the national average, a grant from the Government of £800 or £1,500 is of considerable advantage. However, when we talk of the sheep headage scheme as far as County Laois is concerned whether it is in the Slieve Margy, Slieve Bloom or other areas we have not got a tradition of sheep farming there for the simple reason that the land is so wet. It is not suitable for sheep. The people in the Department of Agriculture are conferring a tremendous advantage. One has to drive for an hour in that area before seeing a flock of sheep. This is a problem that possibly has been overlooked. Perhaps the Department may think that farmers should move into sheep production but the tradition has not been there. There is no great move to improve that. I am not saying that there are no sheep, but comparing it with Wicklow and Galway we do not have the same sheep population.
Some areas have suffered, especially the Rossmore area. In the high plateau overlooking the town and the fertile plains of Carlow and south Kildare a number of people moved out to provide themselves with new homes on the hill overlooking that plain which affords them a view of Wales on a fine day. The fact that people have bought sites and built houses in that rather beautiful area has done an injustice to the landowners because the population increased there even though they have absolutely nothing to do with the agricultural industry. They just happen to be living there and working in Carlow town or county.
When the Minister and the Government are looking at this problem again they should look at the population which is dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. They should not include people who just find it convenient and very pleasant to live in that area. There is a very clear distinction between a person, whether he or she is a civil servant or someone other than a person engaged in agriculture, who is building himself or herself a £30,000 or £40,000 bungalow or house in a scenic place, and a small cottier farmer trying to eke out an existence on 35 or 50 acres, where land is inhospitable and where the slope on the side of a hill is 60 degrees. If the Department officials with their expertise cannot see the difference then we should take a very hard look at the officials and the people who are advising the Government on these situations.
The joint committee have made a very worthwhile contribution in examining the Commission's proposals and in considering the benefit that the extension of the disadvantaged areas scheme has for the three categories, the more severely handicapped, the less severely handicapped and the sheep grazing scheme. It is certainly a step in the right direction. It gives the people who are under the greatest pressure in the agricultural sector some hope that the Commission, which we put so much hope in over the last ten years, is at least taking its responsibilities seriously. I wish all the people throughout the country who are now in these new categorised areas success and a better measure of prosperity.
First, I should like to thank my colleagues on the joint committee for their efforts in compiling what has been recognised during the course of this debate as a very excellent report. It is always vital that we should avail ourselves of every opportunity to assess and monitor the variety of schemes which operate from Brussels in order that we not only maximise the amount of payments that can be won in negotiations in Brussels but also that we have a coherent and positive policy approach here in our own country in order that these schemes will have the maximum benefit possible.
I would, secondly, like to thank all the Senators who contributed to the debate. I know that perhaps some as they drove down quite a number of cul de sacs on their way towards the 20 June found it impossible to find unqualifying applicants left and right of the roadway and that does present a lot of difficulty for any Minister at a time like this. Overall, I would like to compliment the Minister and his staff for the fairly exhaustive examination that was carried out over all of the country for the purpose of extending the disadvantaged areas scheme. There will never be a time when we will not quibble about areas that may be left in or left out. There will never be a time when one will find a solution to all these problems. It is important that at every opportunity we should try to extend and expand these schemes. No opportunity should be lost to explore these possibilities. At the same time no conclusion to any negotiations should ever be accepted to be the final answer. Therefore, we look to every other opportunity that will be available to us in future years to improve on this scheme and to undo some of the defects which are obviously in this scheme as were in the earlier schemes.
During the course of the Minister's contribution he highlighted a fact which is not well known in the country and may be emphasised again. This was brought out very clearly in the second soil survey categorising soils in 27 categories. That survey indicated that in every county there was the poorest of poor land. Most people associate poor marginal agricultural land with the 12 western counties, and from that point of view a lot of the eastern, southern and other parts of the country were partially neglected. On this occasion, and hopefully, in future negotiations more cognisance will be taken of that fact. We hope that all areas wherever they are will get equitable treatment because, as we know, more than half the farmers live, work and farm on marginal agricultural land. It is not possible for them to extract any more than about half the potential of what is possible on better land. Therefore, they have a huge income problem.
As we look at the development in the country generally we see how much we have centralised all our services and how our towns and some of our cities have grown out of all bounds. We see suburbia and the topical traffic and other ancillary problems that go with that. The aim of trying to ensure that the maximum number of people had a reasonable standard of living on the land persisted in the earlier part of this century. It is even more necessary today as there are no suitable employment opportunities available to those people if they have to leave the land. Therefore, farm income supplements by whatever means in this or other schemes have to form an integral part of agricultural policy as far as we can see into the future.
I should like to thank the Minister for taking up my suggestion of extending the western package to the Sliabh Phelim area. I have naturally been telling the people down in that region that the Minister is inclined to listen to suggestions of that nature. In that western package which is now up for review — and which has some disappointing features in relation to how the general shake-up was — I would like to ask the Minister to make a special effort on the question of afforestation. The soil survey indicated that something like 3,500,000 hectares of land in this country is unsuitable or marginally suitable for the main line of agricultural production. Quite a lot of it is very suitable for afforestation. We, unfortunately, at the moment are cutting back on State plantations and I think that needs to be arrested. In the area of private afforestation it is time for a major initiative, with a huge deficit in timber imports into the country, the UK and into Europe generally. With the climatic and other advantages that we have, the statistics show that the capacity to produce timber per cubic metre per hectare here in this country on most of our lands is the very best in Europe. We must take into account that the imports into the European Communities, particularly from Scandinavian countries, are produced on land with a cubic capacity of about a fifth of what is possible in this country. We have to break down barriers and many of the traditional attitudes that exist. We have not to go back very far in our history to find the times when we had huge woodlands and plantations in the country. The unknown poet — or at least from my point of view at the moment — if somebody can help me I would be glad — who wrote Cill Cais said —"Cad a dhéanfaimíd feasta gan adhmad? Tá deireadh na gcoillte ar lár." Looking at the woodlands and the changed agricultural scene at that time with colonisation and the British war necessity stripping these woodlands and seeing the countryside being stripped of them he wrote that poem. In a lot of ways when one considers that our good land and improved marginal land can produce sufficient agricultural products, and when one takes into account the quota system on milk we have got to find some other answers to the problems on the marginal land. I would appeal to the Minister in these negotiations to find some way of coping with the initial financial situation which a farmer who wants to get involved in private afforestation or, indeed, leasing of land for that purpose can encounter on the income side. Such a farmer is used to a yearly income on whatever production he is in at the moment. To release this land for afforestation, however suitable it might be, creates an immediate income problem for him. It is very difficult to explain to people that the main benefit for this is going to come in 30 years time when he expects to be pushing up the daisies, if one considers the age structure of a lot of farmers in the Connacht and other regions. I am not denying them the full right to live to be the oldest in the country, if possible, but that is looking at it realistically. We need to look at that situation seriously. Is there any way where the headage schemes or payments of that kind could be made on a year-on-year-off basis to try to encourage people? My view of it is that if we do not make a breakthrough on the structural side at present with the limitations and the quotas on milk production and the problems with cereals and with beef, and if we do not make a change and take initiatives now we will lose the opportunity. The Minister will accept that there is a greater openness in the Commission at present for structural aids and for developments of that kind than was there previously. That is all the more important with the limitations in so many other areas.
I condemned a few other Senators for being somewhat parochial in their contributions. I have a map which was presented to me last Saturday showing a white region here in Drumban, near Thurles, and I must say the group of people who came, of all political persuasions, to me did not come with any clear sense of grievance, but asking that something positive should be done for them. I accept what Senator McDonald has said in relation to having a change in relation to population. The deputation named out 25 families and their homes that have disappeared from that area in the past 25 years. They have a huge haemorrhage from that area, and it is in the middle of a belt that has qualified and it is inexplicable as to how it has been excluded.
I recognise, as I said at the outset, that these things will always happen, but we have to remain open to further suggestion and improvement on these schemes at the very first opportunity presented to us. I ask the Minister to take a special interest in these situations.
I welcome the committe's report and the extension to these areas announced by the Minister. There is no doubt but that all of these contribute towards helping people to remain on the land and to improve the very poor income situations of a lot of our farmers. The structural aids and the improvement of the western package and the general use of facilities in order to maintain more of our people in the rural areas is the road that we have to travel down, especially at present. With the pressures on other main line agricultural production every avenue has to be explored to maximise and improve what has been won over the years. Hopefully, we can report at a later time some further progress in this area.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.