John Stuart Agnew, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, one of the positive attributes of farmers is their ‘can do’ attitude in overcoming the challenges of limited weather opportunities or emergency machinery repairs.

The obverse of this though is a recklessness in undertaking activities that could result in death or serious injury. The thought process is ‘I know what I’m doing, I have done it before, and it’s not going to affect anybody else’, and I have been guilty of this attitude personally – despite knowing two people who died in farm accidents, and two more who lost limbs. I’ve had some near misses myself, getting away with minor injuries instead. I see here a similarity with the attitude to drinking and driving held by most of my peer group in my youth. Over the years, social pressure has changed this attitude quite significantly, and social pressure could play a part in reducing farm accidents.

For a self-employed, one—man—band farmer, the onus of this social pressure falls on his immediate family. Using the right psychology, a great deal could be achieved here. A family discussion about inviting a health and safety officer to come and visit the farm for a chat would send a very powerful message. Changing attitudes is the key to reducing most farm accidents, but money can play a part as well. The second highest cause of farm fatalities, with vehicle incidents as the first, is contact with aggressive livestock. If all cattle farms possessed top—of—the—range mobile handling and restraining equipment, I think farmers would use it. If a Pillar 2 grant was available to finance it and Member States brought in punitive penalties for failing to use it, then farmers would use it.

I also believe that EU legislation on chrysotile, or asbestos, is making matters worse.