: I would like to re-state my support for the motion proposed last night so eloquently by my colleague, Deputy Noonan. He is a man of knowledge of the farming scene, having served in the farm organisations as President of Macra na Feirme and he has been also a practising farmer all his life. Therefore, he must know the practicalities of farming in detail. This practical and intimate knowledge of agriculture and his experience with the farm organisations give him the qualities necessary to make a good Front Bench spokesman and very soon an excellent Minister for Agriculture. Last night Deputy Noonan was referred to as a hurler on the ditch. I suggest that a hurler on the ditch is far better than a teacher on the ditch. In this case the hurler happens to be a farmer.
Deputy Noonan outlined in detail many reasons for Dáil Éireann to call on the Government to restore funding which was recently withdrawn from agriculture in respect of aids and services for farming development. He also put an excellent case for lifting immediately the suspension of the farm modernisation scheme. I hope I will strengthen the case still further for reverting to the Fianna Fáil policy on agriculture, which always has been one of recognition of the contribution of farming and agriculture to the economy, and of the potential of agriculture in our economy with proper support and encouragement.
Everyone here will accept that agriculture can grow much more and faster if we steer the proper course. This growth will stimulate our ailing economy by injections of finance as a result of exports and the creation of much-needed employment. We have heard already that more than one-third of our exports — 40 per cent — are agricultural, and that the export of agricultural goods is far more profitable than ordinary exports because the import content is practically nil. Our greatest asset is still that six inches of soil. This fact is not recognised by this or previous Coalition Governments.
Let us briefly contrast the attitude of the two Governments — Fianna Fáil who have been in power for 40 of the last 50 years, and the Coalition who, by default or otherwise, spent ten years in Government. Agriculture has grown enormously with great investment and development taking place. The only periods of stunted growth were when the Coalition Governments were in power. In 1974 when a farmer went to the mart in the hope of selling one calf no bid was made. There were many instances of farmers returning home with two or more calves in their trailers. The price of calves was such that farmers were literally giving them away. This situation came about because of sheer ignorance and carelessness on the part of the Coalition at a time which should have been our most beneficial years in the EEC. The advantages which were there for the taking were thrown to the wind.
In 1981 a conglomeration of Fine Gael, Labour and Jim Kemmy formed a Coalition Government, until Jim dropped them like a hot bun in January 1982. What was their performance in relation to agriculture? It was one of downgrading. They were only minutes in office when the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dukes, announced cuts of 5 per cent in the farm modernisation scheme and decided to discontinue the mobile equipment grants entirely. From that date to this the agricultural service industry of farm machinery has deteriorated very significantly. I was taking to a dealer today who told me he sold 78 tractors in 1978 but last year he sold 13 and this trend will continue. The trend of lessening interest in agriculture continued until that Government's real Taoiseach, Jim Kemmy, decided to pull the plug on that fateful January day, and that Government refused to update the costing of the farm modernisation scheme. Those costings were not updated by Deputy Dukes.
The present Coalition Government were only hours in office when they brought down the guillotine on agriculture. The farm modernisation scheme was scrapped and they tell us it will be reintroduced in the autumn. The only way that will happen is if Fianna Fáil are back in power, and the way things are going that is a strong possibility. Never have I seen so much unrest among farmers. When the next election comes the Minister will get his answer from them. I believe this Government have no intention of reintroducing this scheme. Their ploy is to soften the blow to the farmers. My suspicions were enhanced last night when the Minister for Agriculture refused to answer definitely when I asked if the scheme was to be reintroduced in the autumn. He dithered and then said smartly that no politician ever gives a definite commitment. I would change that slightly and say that no politician in a corner ever gives a commitment, and that Minister is in several corners.
The Minister said when the schemes are with us a while change is no harm, and then suggested a review would be desirable. That is a weak argument. Surely we do not scrap a scheme when we are reviewing it, but that is exactly what is happening. To all intents and purposes this scheme is being scrapped.
This Government have decided to tax all farmers knowing full well that at least two-thirds of them do not have a taxable income. For the first time they introduced a VAT rate on farm diesel oil. They have increased VAT on contracting charges. They have decided to close the five farm home advisory colleges and to impose massive charges on farm development for planning permissions. The other Coalition Governments were bad but this one in their first 100 days in office have proved to be an absolute disaster.
On the other hand, Fianna Fáil always redressed the imbalance in agriculture on our return to Government. In February 1982 we restored the farm modernisation scheme to its original level and reintroduced the mobile equipment grants. We prepared a four-year plan having heard the voice of farming. Then we negotiated the £100 million loan for farmers to increase the national herd. On our return to Government we will recognise agriculture as our greatest resource. We will nurture it back to a stage where the country, the economy and the people will benefit.
It is hard to understand why Fine Gael as a partner in Government ignore the plight of the farmer. It is hard to understand why they insult their supporters by removing aids and services which yielded handsome dividends and massive returns to the Exchequer. On the other hand, the Labour Party, or what is left of it, the other party in Government, is much easier to understand. Labour had to be paid off in some fashion for voting for the Social Welfare Bill even though every constituency council of the Labour Party advised against this. The Labour Party make no apology for their anti-farmer approach. Indeed, one of their leading members called for a nationalisation of all lands. The farmer will have to suffer on while these partners share Government.
The Minister last night questioned figures which Deputy Noonan gave as part of his argument. Deputy Noonan claimed that £147 million would be taken out of agriculture as a result of the budget. As always our figures are accurate and of course, now that all farmers are in the tax net, there is an obligation on them to give a proven statement of income which means they will have to employ an auditor at a cost of an expected £400 per farmer. This alone is a massive withdrawal from agriculture. Conservative estimates give a figure in excess of £40 million. This will be no advantage to the State but the Labour Party will be happy.
I should like now to quote from the Irish Farmers Monthly of March 1983. Under the heading “Cuts in Agricultural Expenditure” it says:
(a) Suspension of grants under the Farm Modernisation Scheme, £10.3 million.
(b) Abolishing group fodder scheme, guidance premiums, mobile equipment grants and farm account grants, £2.5 million.
(c) Suspension of Farm Retirement Scheme, £1.0 million.
(d) Suspension of Boyle and Dunkellin drainage schemes, £2.5 million.
(e) Phasing out of ACOT services — Farm Home Management/Poultry / Amenity Horticultural Services, £0.5 million.
(f) Abolishing Wool Council, £0.06 million.
(g) Closing Munster Institute, £0.027 million.
(h) Restriction of National 5% Interest Subsidy Scheme, £2.0 million.
(i) Reduction in Disease Eradication Hardship Fund, £1.85 million.
(j) Reduction in income limit under the disadvantaged areas scheme, £0.5 million.
(k) Abolishing Bull licensing, £0.134 million.
Total £21.371 million.
On "Farm Taxation" it says:
(a) 1983 Income Tax yield as estimated by Government will increase from £24 million in 1982 to £47 million in 1983. £23 million.
(b) 1% Income Levy. This levy will apply to farmers gross incomes which amounted to £940 million in 1982. £9.4 million.
(c) Youth Employment Levy. This levy has been in existence since 1982 and applies to all income and farmers therefore come within the net. It is based on a rate of 1% of gross income. £9.4 million.
Total £41.8 million.
Under "Services" it reads:
(a) Increased inspection fees at export meat factories on live cattle exports at dairy premises £1.0 million.
(b) Fees for visits by ACOT and Farm Development Services under the Farm Modernisation Scheme. £1.5 million.
Total £2.5 million.
Under "Inflation Impact" it reads:
The budget will contribute 4% to the consumer price index, or in other words result in a 4% increase in the inflation rate. It has been estimated that each 1% in inflation adds £10 million to farmer costs.
Total due to inflation £40.0 million.
Later on it reads:
The following summarises the total cost of the budget to the farming sector.
|
Expenditure cuts |
£21.371 million |
|
Income Tax and Levies |
£41.8 million |
|
Charges for Services |
£2.5 million |
|
Inflation impact |
£40.0 million |
|
Accountants Fees |
£20.0 million |
|
Total |
£125.671 million |
These were the figures we offered last night and since they come from the Irish Farmers Monthly I take it that all Members of the House would accept them as being accurate particularly as they have not been rejected by the Government to date.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy Dukes, said in 1977 that investment in agriculture yielded a 14 per cent bonus. If this is applied to the withdrawal of £1.47 million from agriculture it will demonstrate the massive losses to our economy. The Minister is probably sorry that he ever said that.
I would like to challenge the Minister to put forward figures that would contradict those we have produced or else to admit that he knew absolutely nothing about such figures when he was talking last night.
The Irish Farmers Monthlyis representative of the farming view whether the farmers are big or small. It says again in the March issue:
It is amazing to see a Government abandoning the grant for farm accounts when farming is emerging from the most serious economic recession ever. One of the main features to emerge from this recession was the lack of financial management on farms, and the necessity for the monitoring of their farming and financial activities by way of farm accounts was never more needed.
The suspension of the farm retirement scheme is a clear indication that the Government has abandoned the whole concept of structural reform in agriculture and has reduced any possibility of any land mobility in the future. There is no doubt that the farm retirement scheme needed to be updated by an increase in the level of grants offered, but abandoning it is effectively turning their back on land structural reform, which was one of the major disappointments of Irish agriculture in the first decade in the EEC.
I am glad that here tonight we have the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Deputy Connaughton, who claims that he is proposing massive changes in land mobility and land structure generally. I now challenge him to come forward with his ideas and to tell us how the scrapping of the Farm Retirement Scheme will be of any benefit to his proposals. The Irish Farmers Monthly says:
The inclusion of farm drainage under the Farm Modernisation Scheme clearly demonstrates the Government's lack of understanding of the current situation in Irish agriculture. In 1982 there was an estimated 5.8 million livestock units in the country, while the stock carrying capacity of Irish land at low levels of nitrogen use is estimated at 8 million livestock units. So, therefore, this clearly demonstrates that land quality is not a constraint on increased agricultural output as we are at only 70 per cent of the national average grazing capacity of the country at the present time.
That is one of the main reasons why our party had proposed to raise a £100 million loan in order to increase the national herd.
The reduction in the disease eradication hardship fund demonstrates the Government's lack of commitment to disease eradication and their unwillingness to help farmers in serious trouble due to TB or brucellosis. In 1982 there were 43,000 full-time farmers in the tax net. As a result of the raising of the threshold there are now an extra 80,000 full-time farmer in the tax net and an additional 50,000 part-time farmers. Farmers paid an estimated £34 million in tax in 1982. The amount due in rates would have been £18 million. However farmers withheld the rates because of the pending PLV case in the High Court which subsequently ruled that the system was unconstitutional. Very few farmers therefore paid rates in 1982.
In his budget statement the Minister said the removal of the threshold would result in an increase of about £2.5 million in farm taxation in 1983. This is a blatant misleading of the public and the Dáil. It can be clearly shown that farmers will pay an additional £23 million in income tax in 1983 as against 1982 if he, as he states, expects a total income of £47 million in the total income tax yield from farmers this year. However, this figure could be much higher when the income tax from farming is taken into account from those engaged in part-time farming. The Minister may like to contradict these statements made by me, statements backed up by the Irish Farmers Monthly.
I would like now to go on to the farm modernisation scheme and deal briefly with the effects of that scheme. Investment aids, grants for investment in farm buildings and fixed equipment are suspended until further notice. Farmers issued with approvals by the farm development service for development work on or before 9 February are not affected by the suspension. Guidance premiums for development farmers are terminated. Farmers whose plans include guidance premiums approved on or before 9 February are not affected. I do not accept the Minister's comment last night that this scheme has been an unnecessary one. Grants to development farmers for mobile equipment are terminated. Approval issued by the farm development service on or before 9 February are not affected. Likewise, with this scheme I believe the intention was that the scheme would be an incentive to farmers to keep machinery in a reasonable state. All the surveys carried out by many county committees of agriculture will show farm machinery at this stage at an all-time low. We have yet to see the results of that policy.
Under the interest subsidy scheme for existing applicants under the national interest subsidy scheme, aid will be limited to a subsidy on the interest due for one year only. With regard to charges for farm visits, a charge will be introduced for the first time for farm visits by the Department of Agriculture and ACOT staff in connection with the farm modernisation scheme. This charge will be implemented by way of a deduction from grants which are payable under the farm modernisation scheme. This charge, I understand, will affect all works for which approvals were made before 9 February.
Here I should like to challenge the Minister once again on something he said last night. He told us two visits would be sufficient to accommodate all grant projects. I would like to tell him now, as a farmer and as one who has gone through all this business on many occasions, that in a drainage project an inspector would have to call on at least six occasions. My figures would suggest then that it will cost £120. I appeal again to the Minister to make himself aware of the situation, to listen to farmers and not to lend his ear too rigidly to the Department because the person on the ground who has gone through the mill will know more than anybody else.
I am absolutely disgusted with this Government in their decision to close the five farm home advisory colleges. These colleges prepare girls interested in agriculture for farming. This preparation has proved to be a wonderful success. At least 50 per cent of those trained in such colleges went back to farming. That is surely proof of how successful these colleges were. It is recognised now that a farmer's wife has a vitally important role to play. Everyone will accept that two heads are better than one and the more educated a wife is the better it will be for that particular farmer and, overall the better for the country.
I appeal to all members to support our motion. I believe it will help to save the economy instead of sending it in a reverse direction.
