Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)

I was listening to some of the debate on farming and agriculture, a very important industry in Ireland, especially in rural Ireland among farm families. I come from a very small farm in a rural part of County Donegal. My father was a sheep farmer and I know all too well the importance of farming to rural Ireland. I know, in particular, the significant benefits that have derived to farm families from the increased investment by this Government and the previous one.

This year obviously has been a very difficult year economically, not only in Ireland but globally. As a result, each Department, including the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has had to take a close look at the money available to its Minister. The Minister, Deputy Smith, has not wavered in his commitment to allow farm families deliver on the capital investment programme by means of the farm waste management scheme. Every farmer will welcome that initiative because, ultimately, farming is about the land and about protecting animals. To do both those things a farmer must have the necessary facilities to hand. That is why the Government is committed to providing €615 million to the farm waste management scheme. I welcome the commitment given to that scheme and the fact that, despite the current budgetary climate, there will be no reduction of payments in the scheme.

Concerning the Estimates published on 14 October, some people suggest that agriculture took a disproportionate cut. That is not the case. The figure of €195 million included in the Supplementary Estimate for the farm waste management scheme marks an increase in investment in the scheme.

The Department's budget for 2009 is 2.56% less than in 2008. This decline is comparable to reductions across other Departments made in response to the current economic climate. The Department's budget for 2009 compares favourably with the budgets of other Departments. The reduction arises primarily on the capital side and current spending on the rural environment protection scheme, disadvantaged area payments, suckler welfare scheme payments, etc. will continue. As the Minister of State outlined, the overall budget available to the Department next year will be €3.2 billion.

I come from a disadvantaged area. While the Minister reduced total expenditure on area-based compensation or disadvantaged area payments by 14%, in doing so he reduced the maximum hectarage limit on which payments are made from 45 hectares to 34 hectares and introduced a small increase in the stocking density. This decision ensures the majority of the 102,000 participants in the scheme will not experience a reduction in their payments. Without wishing to take undue issue with the IFA figures, it indicated that 40,000 farmers would be affected by this budgetary measure when the precise figure is 35,000. Given that the average size of holdings is 31 hectares, the average participant in the scheme will not be affected. This includes many farmers in my constituency, especially in its disadvantaged areas, where the average farm size is, perhaps, slightly less than 31 hectares.

The Minister indicated that the decision to reduce disadvantaged area payments was taken reluctantly. When faced with difficult choices, he decided to prioritise expenditure on schemes such as REPS. Would the Opposition prefer to have a reduction in REPS rather than disadvantaged area payments?