Understanding and communicating effectively is still a significant element of the Government’s response. Farmers who need help will continue to receive assistance. The Department will continue its early warning system where emergency assistance is provided to farmers whose animals are experiencing serious welfare issues and where the farmer is unable to cope. Those that need it most will be helped. I encourage these farmers to contact the helpline at 1850-211990.

The Minister, Deputy Coveney, has been involved in trying to manage a very difficult situation for many months. This situation did not just arise in the past several weeks. Last year's poor summer with high levels of rainfall and a lack of sunshine resulted in poor and smaller quantities of silage. The onset of winter came early, which meant that grass growth ceased earlier than normal. In addition, it was extremely wet and farmers were obliged to bring their animals indoors. Some had to keep their animals indoors during the summer and the autumn. The Minister engaged with farmers, in conjunction with Teagasc, through the winter months to extend and maximise the potential of their fodder. Regrettably, the winter lasted six weeks longer than normal. As a result, grass growth is five weeks behind the level at which it should be at this time of year. This has resulted in a real and measurable fodder shortage with which the Minister is dealing.

We have seen fodder arrive from France and the UK in the affected areas of the south and the west over the past few weeks in a targeted response with the cost of the transport covered by the emergency reserve fund. I welcome the collective response by all those people and organisations involved in the agricultural sector such as the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, as well as the co-ops, including Drinagh Co-operative, and food companies such as Glanbia and Dairygold, all co-ordinated by the Minister.

The Minister has led from the front all the way through this crisis like he has done with the other issues that he has had to deal with since taking office just over two years ago such as the horsemeat crisis, reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy and the European Presidency to mention a few.

Recent warmer weather has alleviated the difficulties a little for now but the Minister and his Department are now focusing on the longer term effects of the prolonged inclement weather. I would call for greater flexibility in the rules to allow increased and appropriate uses of fertiliser to, for example, reverse the decline in the phosphates level in the soil, incentivising or encouraging greater cultivation of fodder crops and continuing engagement with the co-ops and financial institutions to deal with the inevitable cash flow difficulties that will surface later this year.

I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Coveney, on his response to this issue.

The purpose of the Bill is to close off a loophole which, as the digest produced by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service indicates, could conceivably cost the State in the region of €88 million. The actual amount might not be as much as that. However, if it is in the correct ballpark then a huge amount of money which should be taken in is going uncollected. It is difficult to listen to some people accusing the Minister of accusing the Garda and public of some kind of conspiracy. Accusations were put forward to the effect that the Minister had admitted that gardaí and members of the public had been complicit in tax evasion. That is completely off the point. This matter is somewhat more nuanced than that and perhaps certain Members just do not get what is involved. The lack of controls relating to this matter could lead to a perception whereby motor tax evasion could conceivably occur. The position in this regard must be tightened up.

The motor taxation collected by local authorities is submitted directly to the Exchequer and then redistributed to those authorities through the local government fund. Ultimately, some but not all of this money is spent on our roads. I am of the view that the majority of moneys collected through the motor taxation system is not reinvested in the national and non-national road networks. I accept that the following matter may not be capable of being addressed in the Bill before the House. However, as time passes and as the position relating to the amount of funding available to local authorities via the property tax, etc., becomes clear, in circumstances where local authorities can raise their own funding then the motor taxation that is collected by them or other agencies should be ring-fenced for road maintenance, reconstruction and resurfacing. Road users are extremely concerned that the tax they pay is not invested in these areas. There is an element of cross-subsidisation in this regard and its days are numbered. I look forward to such cross-subsidisation coming to an end.

I raised a particular matter last week and I was disappointed that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government was not in a position to provide the relevant figures. I refer to the motor taxation which applies in respect of vintage cars.

In the UK, the taxation on vintage cars is nil in most cases. I ask that consideration be given to minimising or removing the taxation of vintage car owners through registered clubs. These clubs do fantastic work in raising money for charities and they would welcome an alleviation of their tax contributions. I was hoping to have the figures for this debate, but they are not significant. Treating the clubs in this way would benefit them and acknowledge the fact that we value their work on behalf of charities throughout the country.

I am concerned about the administrative charge for the pre-removal declaration. It discourages compliance with the legislation. I accept that mandarins within the Department would like to maximise the revenue accruing from the closing of this anomaly, but if we are asking people to take steps to pre-declare so that they can be more tax compliant and responsible car users, it is unfair to charge them as well. We should encourage the declaration system, not discourage it.

I have noted the scale of the problem. According to the research done by the Library service, which I commend, the Comptroller and Auditor General's figures on vehicles using the M50 identified a significant problem, in that cars that had been declared as being off the road were using the tolls. The figures speak for themselves.

The Bill's measures would go a long way towards acknowledging the immense tax contribution of road users to road maintenance. Regrettably, not all of their taxes are used for the roads. This issue should be addressed.

I wish to ask a technical question on arrears. If a car is sold with motor tax arrears outstanding, the new owner should not be liable to pay them. We need a system to ensure that this does not happen. It is already the case in respect of commercial rates. If a tenant takes over a vacant building on which rates arrears are outstanding, he or she must pay them if they have not been settled by the landlord. This inhibitive system should be addressed.

I welcome the Bill. It is a necessary step in bringing compliance and fairness. For those who are compliant and pay their motor tax, it is inherently unfair that others take advantage of a loophole in the system. If the Bill accrues additional revenue for the Local Government Fund, so be it, but that revenue should be ring-fenced in future for car users and enthusiasts. We would all like this to be the case, particularly those of us in areas of rural Ireland where public transport is sporadic at best and non-existent at worst. Our road network is our lifeline and we would like to see greater investment in maintenance, reconstruction and resurfacing works through the local authorities, which could do with the extra money necessary. I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to contribute on the Bill.

Typically islanders have been dealt with favourably, and the Minister of State is aware of this, with regard to social protection and payments from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, in an effort to progress, promote and incentivise local people contributing to island life. In this regard I appeal to the Minister of State to consider the negative impact this would have. I would not expect the Minister of State to allow a school with four, five for six pupils to benefit because I know the line must be drawn somewhere. Schools which dropped to such numbers would not be sustainable and would be detrimental to the students themselves. In this particular case the school is making an effort to bring in students and it is doing so. If it loses a teacher it will never get that second teacher back. The island has a population of 114 so the idea of coming up with 20 national school students is a bridge too far. It will remain cut off and it will have a very negative effect for the school and the general population of the island as it will suck the life from the island. It is not like the mainland where there are options. I agree with the Minister of State that some options, such as amalgamation, are not available. I thank the Minister of State for his response.

As the Minister is aware the population of our islands is in decline and has also varied considerably throughout the years. Those islands have unique challenges. I ask the Minister to consider the impact enrolment assessments have on island life. By allowing a second enrolment count to take place on 30 April - which by coincidence is today - where an island school is in danger of losing a second teacher and becoming a single-teacher school the Minister would ensure that these variable factors are fully taken into account in determining the number of teachers allowed in our island schools. This refers to the recent Department of Education and Skills circular 13/2013 on staffing arrangements in primary schools, specifically section 3.5 on island schools.

I have been made aware of the drastic consequences which could negatively impact our island schools if their numbers were below eight students on 30 September last, as they would lose their second teacher forever. The numbers would have to rise above 20 before a second teacher would be reinstated. This figure would raise the barrier too high and would make maintaining a national school on most of our islands unsustainable. If we cannot continue to keep national school children living and going to school on an island we will make our islands uninhabitable for anyone with children aged younger than 12 years. Nobody here wants to see our island populations decline further. They are a resource and not a millstone and it would be great if they could be treated as such. The children of the islands are the future of the islands. I call for tolerant flexibility in considering teacher numbers in island schools. Not only would the schools close but ultimately the islands would shut down.

These schools do not have the option of a merger as schools on the mainland do. I take the point that options exist for national schools in rural and remote areas where student numbers are falling, and schools have always closed in rural Ireland because of a lack of children. It is different on the islands where the option of a merger or an amalgamation does not exist, and it is quite a serious issue. If a school was reduced to a single teacher and this teacher fell ill I do not need to explain to the Minister of State the consequences this would have in a national school in a remote area would be particularly exacerbated on an island. Getting a substitute teacher to an island is more difficult than getting one to a remote mainland area. I would like to think this would be considered in the execution of these staffing arrangements.

The circular was issued long after the day the enrolment count was taken. I ask for a recount to be taken to ensure a fair figure is arrived at so the special position of our island schools is maintained and they can be given every opportunity to continue to educate our young islanders on the islands. I have a particular example in mind of how this issue will possibly impact an island. It is appropriate to enlarge the debate and broaden it out to offshore islands. There are seven inhabited offshore islands off the coast of my constituency of Cork South-West. There are also islands off the coast of Galway, Donegal and Mayo which will be particularly hard hit by this issue.