Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)

In the history of grant aid schemes introduced by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the farm waste management scheme is probably one of the best and most innovative. The response by farmers provides evidence of that fact. The level of grant aid is 60%, while in some Border counties it is up to 70%. The top up available under the grant scheme is specifically focused on young farmers, which is in stark contrast to the body blows delivered to them in the budget. However, in the context of the scheme, the top up for such farmers was particularly welcome. It must be recalled that in responding to the incentives there is not any direct financial gain. In fact, it is a condition of the scheme that farmers should not be able to increase their productivity, and consequently their profitability, by virtue of these works. Therefore, these works are driven primarily by the nitrates directive. Consequently, farmers who complete works under the farm waste management scheme will have freedom to farm without fear of prosecution by local authorities or the Environmental Protection Agency because of effluent problems on their farms.

In the history of such schemes introduced by the State, it is probably one of the best that I can recall and, as I stated, farmers responded in their droves. Over 42,200 farmers were approved for benefit under the scheme. Farmers do not lightly go to the trouble of making applications if they do not proceed, particularly given that they are required to get planning permission for many of the schemes approved under the farm waste management grant aid.

They have also, at considerable personal financial risk and exposure at a time when it is not easy to organise finance, committed probably in the region of €2 billion of their own money to improve their farm holdings and farm waste management, with consequent benefits for everybody from that environmental improvement.

Our motion deals with a number of those applicants, a substantial minority. A briefing I received from the Department some weeks ago in the context of the Supplementary Estimate put the figure for the number of farmers who have not notified the Department yet that they intend to commence works at approximately 12,000. The likelihood in any such scheme is that there would be a number, a fraction of that 12,000, who probably would not proceed anyway for a variety of reasons. There is a substantial majority of the 12,000 outstanding who are committed by virtue of their actions to date, such as planning permission, and who would proceed if they thought they could complete the work within the timeframe, but are now considering whether it is worthwhile proceeding and running the risk of not being completed on time and therefore losing the grant with the additional consequent financial exposure.

This motion, to use a term that has a wide political currency at present, is about bailing out those 12,000 farmers. This House has in recent weeks seen the developers bailed out by the banks and the banks bailed out, through this House, by the taxpayer. What is at issue here is whether the Government will bail out those 12,000 farmers. The farmers came to the Government's assistance in bailing it out during the week, albeit without consultation, in a range of schemes that were withdrawn from them. At issue is whether we will bail out those farmers and enable them to proceed with those beneficial environmental works.

As I stated, environment improvement is at the core of the raison d'être for the scheme. I await to see whether the Green Party will make any contribution to this debate given the key environmental objective for which the scheme was introduced. We know from recent EPA reports that, regrettably, there are issues of water quality that need to be addressed. This scheme is part of the jigsaw that will ensure the farming community meets its requirements.

The consequences for those 12,000 farmers, if it is not extended, are an adverse impact on the environment, which is not acceptable. Those 12,000 farmers will have to reduce their productivity and, consequently, their profitability which is not an acceptable scenario, or that they would have to be obliged to fund the entire scheme themselves which, in the current difficult environment in which all sectors of agriculture find themselves, is not a runner either.

The sole solution for those 12,000, and the consequences for others who are directly impacted by those works, is for the Minister to go to the European Commission to seek an extension of the deadline by six months, from the end of December 2008 to the end of June 2009.

On two occasions over the past number of days I have seen on the Department's website instances where the Minister patted the Commission on the back and thanked it for acceding to his requests for deadline extension or for bringing forward single farm payments. The slurry deadline was due to expire on 15 October last and the Minister issued a press statement last week weekend stating that Commissioner Fischer Boel had acceded to his request, and rightly so. In fact, if we were to be critical, the Minister did not extend it far enough and I hope he will go back again to have it extended, as his compatriots over the Border in Northern Ireland did, up until the end of December 2009.

See this speech in context