Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I had to leave to go to vote. If I ask a question that has been asked already, I apologise. There may be repetition for that reason. If the witnesses have already covered my questions, they should let me know and I will look at the transcript tomorrow or whenever it is available.

I want to follow on from Deputy Kerrane. I want clarification. Statistically, nothing might have changed, but we would not be here this evening if something had not changed. We never got representations from farmers about VAT reclaims before last July, August or September, or whenever this started. Therefore, something has changed. The legislation did not change, nor did the guidelines according to which the Revenue Commissioners work, but I believe the Revenue Commissioners’ interpretation has changed. That is what is causing the problem. Having listened to the discussion since I came back, I believe the Revenue Commissioners are splitting hairs in their interpretation. In my opinion, a milk tank is a milk tank, whether it is built into a new shed or put into an old shed. We are splitting hairs. It seems to be a case of getting the farmer at all costs. If I have to knock down a wall or widen a door to make a milk tank fit into an old shed, is that not construction? Would it fit the bill then?

The same applies to a meal bin. A meal bin is a meal bin, and the vast majority of them, even the small ones, are bolted down onto concrete with anchor bolts, as are portal frame sheds. If I am building a shed, I put down a concrete slab, put down pads in the corners with a slightly stronger foundation under them, drill holes and put the anchor bolts down through the base plates of the girders, thereby bolting the shed to the concrete. If I am putting a meal bin beside the shed or across the yard from it, I do the very same thing, irrespective of the size of the meal bin. It would be anchor-bolted down. There is the odd exception in that there are very small meal bins that you can transport around your farm on a tractor or whatever; however, they are still meal bins. A meal bin is a meal bin. I genuinely believe we are splitting hairs here and that the Revenue Commissioners are creating problems for the farming community and themselves through the change in their interpretation.

I seek clarification on what was said to Deputy Kerrane about nothing having changed. Was anybody refused a VAT return on a milk tank, calf feeder or scraper prior to last summer? Many have been refused since then, which represents a change.

Mr. Egan referred to scrapers. I am referring to the ones with the tracks and chains that are bolted to the ground. Such a scraper is a fixture, thereby attracting a VAT refund. The new modern robotic one is a machine, so you do not get the VAT back. Basically, the Revenue Commissioners are trying to stop advancement, including advancement for health and safety. There is nothing as dangerous in a shed as the little tracks, into which people walking around can stick a toe. If, for health and safety reasons or to modernise and become a little more efficient, a farmer decides to remove the tracks and install a robotic scraper instead, the Revenue Commissioners tell him it is the wrong way to go because it will cost 23% more. That is very wrong. We should be encouraging advancement, mechanisation and modernisation, whether something is bolted to the ground or mobile.