Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Egan. I have spoken in the Dáil on this issue on a few occasions since March 2023. I had started to receive calls on the VAT refund issue around that time. It was the first time I had ever received calls about it. I have received numerous calls about the VAT refund issue during the past 12 months. Therefore, I have to take issue with the suggestion that the interpretation of the refund did not change. From what I hear when I talk to my constituents, it seems that items that were previously reclaimable - I suppose "refundable" is the correct word - are being refused. I accept that the opening statement gives a lot of clarification and I really appreciate that. The meeting with the farming organisations was very worthwhile. I hope we can get full clarity on what is and is not refundable.

I will begin with the issue of slurry bags. This was the first issue that was brought to my attention in March 2023. I see from the opening statement that slurry bags are still excluded. I find that very hard to comprehend because small to medium-sized farmers mostly use lagoons which usually hold 80,000 gallons to 100,000 gallons of slurry. When such a lagoon is used on a farm, the prospect of being able to move it to another location is very remote. It would be extremely difficult to do so. I cannot understand how that can be classified as a moveable object. It was the first item that was brought to my attention as regards the VAT refund.

Calf feeders were the second item that was brought to my attention. Salespeople who promoted the sale of these products at the ploughing match did so on the basis that the VAT on them was refundable. Suddenly there were refusals of VAT reclaims with regard to automatic calf feeders. Previously, calf feeders were refundable. There was a grant under TAMS and farmers were doing their sums on it. The fact that VAT was reclaimable and there was a grant under TAMS definitely promoted the use of automatic calf feeders. It has been stated here that if cubicle mats are bolted to the floor, they are refundable. When a calf feeder is installed, it is most definitely bolted to the floor and becomes a fixture in a building. I do not see any mention of automatic calf feeders in the opening statement. Will Mr. Egan address that particular item when I finish?

Another thing that concerns me is meal bins of 10 tonnes in size. There are a lot of farmers on a smaller scale who would not buy a bin of 10 tonnes. When one puts in a bin it is very much secured - it has to be, for safety reasons. Regardless of whether a bin is 5 tonnes, 6 tonnes or 10 tonnes in size when it is put in place, it is put into a concrete base of a certain strength. The manufacturer of the bin will insist on seeing the strength of the concrete the bin is being put into. The bin is then bolted to that concrete. I cannot understand why there is a size limit for a meal bin. Regardless of whether the bin size is 5 tonnes, 6 tonnes, 10 tonnes, 12 tonnes or 14 tonnes, it has to be made very secure.

Mr. Egan said that the items which do not meet the conditions of the order "include heat and health monitoring systems and slurry bags". I understand that health monitoring systems can include collars on cows' necks or boluses that go into their stomachs. Can I have clarification on what Mr. Egan means by heat monitoring systems? Is he speaking about water heaters? What exactly is he referring to there?

I have been presented with refusals on milk tanks. Again, can I have clarification on this item? If the building has to be modified for the installation of milk tanks, will it qualify for the refund? That clarification is welcome.

I see in the opening statement that if there is a new build, the equipment will qualify as well. There is a lot of clarification in Mr. Egan's opening statement. I have received a significant number of representations about the VAT refund. This number has increased as the year has gone on. Previously, I could count on one hand the number of representations I received on the issue. For whatever reason, the volume of refusals increased dramatically at the back end of 2023 and into the spring of this year.

I welcome the opening statement and the clarification. It mentions farmers registering for VAT. If my understanding is correct, approximately 86% of farmers are not registered for VAT and approximately 14% are registered. From my understanding, tillage farmers and farmers who might do some level of contracting are the ones who predominantly register for VAT. Farmers receive a VAT refund on the product they sell. Unregistered farmers get a refund which changes year by year in the budget.

There is a very complicated formula for calculating that, and it can vary up and down. It has dropped in the past two budgets. It peaked at 5.2% and is now 4.8% or 5%. That is, I suppose, a separate matter, and that is a formula that has stood the test of time.

I very much welcome the witnesses coming here today. Mr. Egan, you said 96% of claims were approved for payment. If that is the case, I must have got the other 4% across my desk. I have definitely got a large number of them in recent months, and I am sure other public representatives here will supplement what I am saying in that regard.

Those are my initial observations, questions and remarks. Much of it was commentary, but I think I posed a few questions to the witnesses. Before we go to the rest of the members, Mr. Egan might address them.