Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)

I know that the decentralisation to Carrick-on-Shannon and Athlone is moving along at a snail's pace but decentralisation to Ballinasloe and Roscommon seems to have stalled. We have been informed that approximately 200 Land Registry jobs will not be relocated to Roscommon town until mid-2009. That is greatly disappointing. The demand exists and there are more than enough civil servants willing to relocate. I am aware of quite a number of public servants from County Roscommon working for the Land Registry who are willing to relocate to Roscommon. We have the technology, the expertise and the skill there and the General Register Office in Roscommon town is fully automated. It is a great disappointment that the Government has long-fingered the decentralisation proposal which would have benefited not only people in my constituency of Roscommon-South Leitrim but also the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, in his constituency across the River Suck.

I want an explanation why the Railway Safety Commission has not already been decentralised to Ballinasloe. When I asked the Minister for Transport last year when the commission would be established in Ballinasloe, he said it was not an early mover. I would like to know why not considering the legislation establishing the Railway Safety Commission was only passed into law late last year. If the commission was not established statutorily until late last year, why can it not be an early mover? It is a new State or semi-Stage agency. There is no reason it should not be initially formed in Ballinasloe.

Someone needs to explain what is happening as there does not seem to be a political push in the Minister of State's office or the constituency for the relocation. It involves a small number of jobs, approximately 20 in total, but there is no impediment to this happening. The agency is new and the people going into those positions knew it would be decentralised to Ballinasloe. The announcement of its decentralisation took place before the establishment of the commission. There is no excuse whatsoever.

One aspect of the Finance Bill 2006 to deal with tax evasion is that of giving Revenue powers to access bank accounts. This worries me, as I am sure it worries the Minister of State. We know of people in the west who were assaulted and robbed because they kept money in mattresses and biscuit tins. The Minister of State and I went on the public airwaves and dealt with people on a one-to-one basis to actively encourage them to put their money into bank accounts. We explained that the Department of Social and Family Affairs would deal with the matter in a sympathetic manner, which it and the Revenue Commissioners have done.

In many cases, the few euro the people had were purely to pay for their funeral expenses. We are now telling them that, after their money has gone into bank accounts, we will refer them to the Revenue Commissioners. It should be pointed out that all these accounts have had DIRT paid on them already. We are encouraging people, especially the elderly, to take that money out of their accounts. It is a retrograde step and it will undo the good work that has been done.

The big difficulty between today and when the Government took office nine years ago is that we no longer have rural gardaí. It has been the active decision of the Government over the past nine years to close down rural Garda stations. They are there in theory as they are open a couple of hours per month. As the Minister of State knows, anyone trying to renew a gun licence will not find a garda in the local rural station. Through the Minister for Finance's decision, we are encouraging people to take the money in their bank accounts out again even though DIRT is being paid on it.

It is not just me who is highlighting this problem. The OECD in a 2004 report raised serious concerns about the Department of Finance's proposed policy. It stated that citizens "may feel a certain unease at the powers that such techniques would provide to the tax authorities". Will the Minister of State examine this matter from the point of view of elderly people in our community, especially when the Government is not prepared to fund the maintenance and policing of rural areas?

I wish to make a number of points on agriculture. One relates to a very positive decision taken by the Minister for Finance in budget 2005, namely, allowing farmers to average their income tax liabilities over a three-year period from 2005 to 2007, the reason being that farmers were going to get a double payment in 2005, that is to say, their 2005 and 2004 single farm payments. They would have applied in 2004 and drawn on the entitlements in 2004 but the payments only issued in the subsequent year. As they got double incomes in one year the Department of Finance rightly agreed to average it out. It made more sense.

However, there are 5,000 farmers at present who still have not received their single farm payments. Approximately 5,000 farmers who received their payments since 31 December are now losing out on the average liabilities and will be stuck with a double single farm payment in 2006. Their 2005 payments will be made at the start of 2006. Hopefully, their 2006 payments will be made in the first week of December this year. Those people are caught in the situation of being unable to average their income tax liabilities over three years. They can only average it over a two-year period. Will the Minister for Finance review this matter on Committee Stage and ensure those farmers can, like every other farmer, average their liabilities over a three-year period?

The Department of Agriculture and Food has failed in responding to and addressing the queries made by farmers. Will the Minister of State, who was previously a member of that Department, get in contact with his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, and ask her to ensure that each and every one of those 5,000 farmers receives an explanation about what the difficulty is? None of us can get through to the Department to determine where the problem lies. If farmers telephone, many cannot understand where the problem is due to the amount of double Dutch spoken to them. Talk of swapping, changing and transferring entitlements is extremely confusing. It would be easier for a letter to be sent to each of the 5,000 farmers to explain where the difficulty lies and what must be done to resolve it.

Another issue that should be examined on Committee Stage is the position of farmers who purchased suckler cow premium quotas. There are many such persons in the Minister of State's constituency, as there are in mine. These farmers purchased suckler cow quotas but, because there is no provision in the tax code for writing off the quotas, they cannot receive tax relief against their purchasing costs. This is unlike the circumstances of people who purchased milk quotas, which is still an asset. Its value has reduced over recent years but the suckler cow quota has no value whatsoever now. Farmers spent much money but are getting no reliefs.

As the Minister of State is aware, since the mid-1990s there has been a requirement for livestock farmers to have suckler cow quotas to draw down the entitlements based on the premium payments. Farmers paid between €200 and €750 for those quota rights, which needed to be approved by the Department of Agriculture and Food at the time and was the State's recognition of the matter. However, since 2005 and the introduction of the single farm payment and due to the decoupling policy, those quotas have no actual value.

For example, a part-time suckler farmer with 20 suckler cows purchased ten new suckler cow premium quotas in 2001 at a cost of €600 each amounting to a total cost of €6,000. It is likely that this farmer borrowed most if not all of that money. The expenditure was made from his after tax income. The quota has now been abolished and is worthless but the farmer must still repay most of the borrowing associated with the purchase.

The farmer should be able to write off the €6,000 expenditure against his income tax as a balancing allowance. It is the case in respect of the milk quota and it makes sense that it would be the case for the suckler cow quota. There is a precedent, not only in the form of the milk quota. The case of the buddies of the former Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Callely, who were also close buddies of the Taoiseach — taxi drivers — was sorted out quickly. Their licences were worth nothing overnight and they have received income tax relief on the purchase price of licences. Why should taxi drivers be given the benefit of relief when farmers in a similar situation are not given this benefit? I hope Deputy Treacy will bring this to the attention of the Minister for Finance and officials at the Department and table an amendment to ensure farmers who have purchased suckler cow quotas receive the same benefits as farmers who have purchased milk quotas or receive the relief provided to taxi drivers.

The farming community has received the thin end of the wedge from this Government. When a similar situation arises in another Department, a different interpretation is taken. This is a litmus test for the Government and I hope the Minister will address this on Committee Stage.

I also hope the Minister will address the issue of compulsory purchase orders. The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, is familiar with this and the notice to treat has been issued to farmers.

See this speech in context