Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

I completely agree with the Deputy. What strikes me is that we have a taxation system that has a method of assessment with which people are very familiar. It does not make sense to me that we have such a different and complicated assessment method on the other side. What the Deputy has said in terms of negative taxation is a very fair and principled approach to take.

I will ask our deputy president to deal with the question of the income disregard on all schemes. There is certainly an argument to be made there with regard to the conditionality of any scheme. On the capital allowances front it is 15% over six years, with 10% available in year seven. It is six years at 15% and one year at 10% but there are accelerated capital allowances in some schemes now. For slurry storage, for example, it is 50% over two years. That was available in the past too, under the old farm investment scheme. That scheme also had accelerated capital allowances, so the principle exists in terms of accelerated allowances.

I previously worked in banking and would have come across hardship cases. One might hear of a farmer who owned 100 acres and had a balance sheet of €1.5 million but no cash, as in no income. The asset assessment for farming in particular, is problematic because farmers are often asset rich but cash poor. Furthermore, some farmers on designated land have had their balance sheets decimated because of designation, but that is another issue which others might want to discuss in their contributions. The asset test is-----