Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)

Farming is another important job in rural areas where for various reasons it is extremely difficult to secure any jobs. Small shop owners know the importance of the rural community, especially the farming community, in ensuring the sustainability of local jobs and the spending of money in the local economy.

What will happen to young farmers who have made significant advances in order to participate in the scheme but who did not have the application form submitted by the cut-off date of 14 October 2008? In the current economic crisis, has any other European Union member state carried out the same suspension, cut or removal of an important support for young farmers or those who are trying to get started? I would hazard a guess that no other European country has embarked upon that process to undermine in such a deliberate way an effort to keep young farmers on the land.

The €34 million cut in disadvantaged area payments will impact significantly on up to 40,000 low-income farmers with the cut in the area eligible for farm payments from 45 hectares to 35 hectares. That smacks of desperation. It will particularly hurt those farming in hill areas. The halving of the suckler cow payment from €80 to €40 will have an impact also. The Minister explained that not a cent of the intended budget for this worthwhile scheme will be lost as a result of what he euphemistically calls an adjustment in the payment process. Nevertheless, the budget cuts in those two areas will also impact on farmers in the midland and lowland areas.

I wish to give an example from the area in Longford-Westmeath that I represent where I get a huge farming vote. Who would not do so? The average loss of income for farmers in Longford due to the cut in the suckler welfare scheme will be €720 and in Westmeath it will be €904. The cut in the disadvantaged area grant will result in a loss of income per farm of €995 in Longford and €982 in Westmeath.

I called some time ago for an extension of the deadline for the farm waste management scheme. Between 2000 and 2006, €978 million was spent, excluding VAT, on capital investment in farm buildings. This year €1 billion will be spent, yet next year only €330 million will be spent. One does not need to be a mathematical genius to suggest what will happen. Just when we had 17,000 extra workers added to the live register today, the Minister has cut the legs out from under everybody. The scheme could have been extended. We all know what happened with the weather. For three months one could not put a swan out on the land no matter what part of Ireland one was in. It was absolutely stupid to abolish that scheme. We should remember that it is only a money-saving exercise by the Exchequer. The extension of the scheme does not need EU approval. The scheme closed in 2006. The numbers are there. The money that needs to be allocated is already defined, delineated and demarcated. It was only a penny-pinching exercise by the Exchequer not to extend the scheme.

No one should tell me about Europe. Can it interfere in such a way as to abolish our right to ensure that we have the farm installation and buildings that are needed for the comfort and convenience of animals, apart from the improvement in environmental standards that will result? Those schemes provided a considerable amount of work in rural areas. I refer again to Johnny Owens's firm that used to employ 130 people but that number went down to 80. A further 40 people have been laid off and a number of others are under notice. That is what the suspension of the scheme has meant in rural areas. If the scheme had been extended for five or six months we could have kept the construction industry going for that period and got it over the hump. I cannot understand the Minister's decision.

The over-enforcement of the nitrates directive in regard to tillage farmers is of concern. Again, the prevailing poor weather conditions has had a major impact. Now tillage farmers are being harassed by the ploughing regulations introduced under the nitrates directive. I wrote a book on the issue. I cannot understand how the regulations slipped under everyone's radar. We need to address the issue as a matter of urgency.

There is a requirement that ground ploughed must have a green cover within six weeks of ploughing. In bad weather one does not have to be Einstein or a first-year agriculture student to realise that such a proposition causes extreme difficulty for a tillage farmer. How can a grower who has ploughed ground in wet conditions and who has experienced compaction, an obvious consequence of using heavy machinery, which is something we all know a bit about, be expected to go back and sow crops that have a green cover, where the failure to do so would result in penalties? In addition, there is cross-compliance.

Is the Minister's Department implementing this measure or is it the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? We had better find out quickly and get our act together because farmers have to adhere to good practice. Farmers are utilising the book of good farming practice. That is what we should use to implement the directive and not have people checking for cross-compliance and cutting up to 5% from payments due. The head will not be worth the wash as they say in Westmeath if the Government keeps going the way it is. The Government should get its house in order. This particular regulation is stupid.

It is more stupid when one looks at how the issue is being handled in the United Kingdom. A green cover is not required there for the winter period and that is eminently sensible. Neither is there a closed period for ploughing in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, the UK environmental agency appears to promote winter ploughing and subsoiling, especially where compaction is a problem. Furthermore, the nitrogen recommendation for main crops is significantly higher in the UK legislation. The system that operates in the UK appears to adopt a more flexible approach, which clearly takes cognisance of the practical situation that applies to ground and is sensible. Given the inclement weather of recent summers and autumns, which pertained during the harvest period, it is clear there was significant impaction which necessitates subsoiling and early ploughing. Late ploughing in such circumstances results in poor establishment, less efficient use of nitrates, deficiencies and reduced yields and an increased risk of disease and carryover from volunteer cereals. That is very important even though one might not know a lot about it.

Equality of treatment is an essential element that is supposed to underpin the application of EU legislation. It appears that rules which are environmental in nature are not being consistently applied across the EU. Why should Irish growers be more constrained, disadvantaged and punished? That is the type of measure that led to farmers, among others, adopting a negative tone, when they should not have done, to the vote on the Lisbon treaty.

See this speech in context