Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I meet them. I support the Minister's efforts. I have met people who give out about social welfare. A farmer came to my clinic one day. He receives about €1,200 a week and he started telling me about social welfare. I asked him from where did he think that money came.

A person on social welfare payments receives €188 per week and spends every cent of it. Likewise, farmers spend every cent of their incomes. This is extremely important for the rural economy. However, there is a need for change. There must be a significant effort towards redistribution in order to ensure farmers who either receive small payments per hectare or none at all will enjoy an increase. On behalf of the Labour Party, I unreservedly support the efforts at redistribution which recognise these farmers who, as previous speakers indicated, own 30 acres or less. These individuals require a more substantial share of the money on offer in order that they might continue to farm properly and make a contribution to the agricultural economy.

The farmers to whom I refer are also important in the context of their contribution to our achieving the goals relating to Food Harvest 2020. Some farming organisations tried to write these farmers out of the equation. Those with 35 or 40 hectares of land must work extremely hard and are very productive. Who do the farming organisations think they are in suggesting the exclusion of these individuals who are the bedrock of the farming community? Not everybody has 100 or 200 acres. I come from a county in which there is substantial acreage of farmland. Those involved in agriculture in places such as Rathowen, Ballinacargy, Milltown, Loughanavalley, Ballinea and Walshestown in County Westmeath are all small farmers who are struggling. They have all raised families, put their children through college, etc. on the incomes they made from their farms. I am amazed at the attitude of no surrender adopted by some of the farming organisations which seem to be preoccupied with the retention of significantly large payments for the benefit of the few, rather than focusing on the construction of a redistribution model which would jettison and reject regionalisation proposals which should be non-runners because they would cause damage.

Farmers across my constituency and further afield have outlined their views to me on this matter. I have a proud record of fearlessly representing the interests and views of farmers who, in turn, have been faithful in their loyal support for me during the years. I recall being the subject of significantly adverse comment when I wholeheartedly supported decoupling proposals in the 1990s. However, that is a matter for another day. No matter what I said on behalf of the Labour Party at the time, it was not reported. My comments were judiciously kept out of the media and I know why that was the case. In negotiations I tried to ensure any change in payments would be to the benefit of those who most deserved it. One cannot speak out of both sides of one's mouth. I am clearly in favour of the sentiments expressed by representatives of farmers in the western counties in the farming section of the Irish Independenton Tuesday last.

Lest there be any doubt of where my Labour Party colleagues and I stand on this issue, we would not favour under any circumstances a policy which would favour the preservation or promotion of the interests of large, rancher style farmers. Their activities will have what is termed a "supermarket effect" and give rise to a significant drop in the actual number of farmers. This is the very antithesis of a policy objective based on equity and fairness. Ultimately, it would lead to the complete demise of farming in rural areas and the rural economy. We in the Labour Party want special provision to be made for young farmers and new entrants. It is vital that we take proactive steps to ensure we facilitate young people interested in taking up the profession of farming.

I support the Minister's stance, as I understand it, in seeking to have a green element included in future single farm payments, which would represent a percentage of their existing payments, rather than what is proposed by the European Commission. I also understand what he is doing in trying to achieve additional flexibility in the implementation of the greening proposals. However, approximately 250 farmers are in receipt of well over €100,000 each, while the remaining 80% receive average payments of €15,000 or less. That is why, in the interests of equity, justice and fairness and in accordance with the original objectives of the scheme, there must be a frontloading of the payments on the first 33 or 35 hectares, with the proviso that some level of agricultural activity was taking place on the land. I agree with Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív in that regard and it is something in favour of which I have always argued. There must be some recognisable level of activity taking place. One cannot merely look out on one's land and do nothing with it. It cannot be the case that vast areas of good land are left idle. Such activity can relate to forage acres, stocking rates, etc.

What I have outlined completely negates the argument made by one of the farming organisation to the effect that what is proposed only favours those who engage in cattle farming as a hobby. That argument was made out of the blue. How can anyone justify certain individuals receiving single farm payments of €100,000, €200,000 or €250,000 per year? We in the Labour Party believe it is time to introduce a cap on what a person can receive - perhaps €50,000 or €60,000 - by way of single farm payments. This may have to be done by way of transition payments. Fairness in the distribution of single farm payments is the cornerstone of Labour Party policy.

See this speech in context