I presume the Minister of State is aware of the circumstances related to qualification for farm retirement grants. The case I raise is one of many, of which I am sure he is well aware. In this case a young man inherited his father's farm and decided to start farming at an early age. He subsequently inherited and leased his uncle's property and the combination made a reasonably viable holding. In accordance with advice readily available from the Government, he decided after a couple of years that he would be well served to improve his education to ensure he would be better equipped to deal with the world. When he decided to do so the farm retirement pension which had been awarded to his uncle was stopped. That put the young man in a difficult position because the retired uncle is now obliged to find somebody to take his place.
I received a reply from the Department on foot of representations made in this case. It indicated that under the scheme—
. "farming as a main occupation" shall mean farming in accordance with Article 5 (1) (a) of the Council Regulation 2328/91 which prescribes that: "The proportion of income he or she derives from the farm is 50 per cent or more of the farmer's total income and the working time devoted to work unconnected with the farm is less than half of the farmer's total working time".
That is the crunch factor. The question at issue is how much of the young man's time is devoted to farming. Someone has arbitrarily decided that more than 50 per cent of his time is spent in education when it is not. On reviewing the case I found that roughly 23 weeks, or 115 working days of 4.5 to five hours per day, are devoted to his education. I do not know how much those who prescribe the scheme know about agriculture, but a five hour day would not be considered the greater portion of a working day. This young man spends roughly 115 out of 365 days devoted to his education.
If a change in this scheme is required it should be made. This is the year in which we are expected to approve the Amsterdam Treaty and seek the support of the people for it. We encourage people to follow the advice we have given them over many years to improve their education to be better equipped for the future. However, when they do so we penalise them because they do not conform to the bureaucratic regulations. It may be that the Commission decided this matter and, if so, it decided wrongly.
I appeal to the Minister of State to change this policy because it is the greatest contradiction I have seen in bureaucracy. This young man is attempting to do what he has been encouraged to do.