Mr. John Bryan:

We are well aware that there are budget targets that must be hit, but it has been obvious over the last number of years that soft targets are being picked, and agriculture is one such sector. I see hope in increased demand for food and expanded world markets, such as the Pacific Rim, China and Indonesia, but we will get into those markets only if primary production is maintained. We had the good news stories of Kerry Group investing several hundred million euro and creating 2,000 jobs in Maynooth, and Glanbia building big plant in south Kilkenny. Those are the positives, but alongside that there is a very low-income sector of farmers who live on approximately 50% of the average industrial wage. A huge number of farmers create significant added value, whether by keeping the local shop or mart open or by producing exports for the economy. Budgetary figures fall out if we lose growth, and one of the few sectors that has created a level of growth is agriculture. That is why it is critical that we examine these vulnerable sectors and maintain the jobs. The multiplier effect was demonstrated by a UCD report two and a half years ago and again this year by Professor Alan Renwick. It was found that €1 put into agriculture creates €4 worth of economic activity in the country. If we want growth we must put money into it.

The college grant question is almost a separate debate but it is intertwined with this one. There are ten speeds of agriculture. There is the farmer who has a well-developed business in which he or she has invested, and he or she can go to the bank manager to get a loan. My children got no maintenance grants because I was reasonably well developed. That was grand. I had an income. Income is the fair way to do it. There are thousands of farmers out there who want to change their tractors or upscale their dairying but the bank says "No." If the Government does away with the maintenance grant their children will be deprived of the right to go to college, because the banks work purely on a system of repayment capacity. They are not worried about whether one has €750,000 worth of land or €2 million worth of land. If one has no repayment capacity, one will not get a loan. If the Government introduces a means test based on asset value, that will mean 30,000 or 40,000 very low-income farmers will have two choices: sell a field, or allow their children to be discriminated against in Ireland. That would be totally wrong.

Cash on hand and shares, which are disposable, are a different kettle of fish. However, some farmers are struggling to maintain their farms. They may have kept them for a few generations hoping a young farmer will come in, or they may have to work off-farm to subsidise it. Several young farmers do that, subsidising those farms for years. It is unrealistic to tell a parent that the only way his or her child will get fair play is to sell a field. Irish banks are very conservative. Every day, applications for loans that I would regard as viable for farmers to increase their businesses are being turned down. During the week our Kerry chairman told me about farmers selling two cows to pay a bill. That is reducing farmers' stock, which creates economic activity.

If the Government wants to be fair to people, it must not take into account working assets such as land and stock. Otherwise, it will force a huge proportion of people to say the only way their children can go to college is if they wind up their farming activity. That will not be good for the economy or for rural Ireland. I agree with the assessment of income based on a three-year or five-year average. In all walks of life, picking one year's income is not the fairest way. One of the misconceptions was that one could purchase capital. It is not allowed.

Whether I built a shed or bought a combine harvester - I do not have tillage - is not taken into account. Any capital expenditure made or wages paid to family members are disregarded. It is a tighter criterion than the income tax criterion. I would hate to see a sector of our society deprived of education. We should take pride in the number of people who go into third level education.