Dáil debates

Wednesday, 15 October 2008

Financial Resolution No. 15: (General) Resumed

 

6:00 pm

Photo of Michael CreedMichael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the budget. Lest the public consider our contributions unjustified criticism from a party that has not nailed its colours to the mast, Fine Gael has published its alternative policy approach to the difficult financial time the country faces. We have identified, for example, that there is a price worth paying in respect of the security that civil and public service employment provides by proposing a pay pause for that sector. We have identified savings across all Departments and sought the elimination of the multiplicity of quangos that have been created. We have presented an alternative view.

Today we have an opportunity to provide a critique of the Government's policy and approach. While there is an international dimension to what is happening in this country, by international comparison the situation here is far worse due to the successive policy decisions of the current Taoiseach when he was Minister for Finance over the last four budgets. The infatuation with the construction industry at the expense of the exposed trading sector of the economy, which was the original driver of the Celtic tiger economy, has cost an enormous price. Alone among EU countries, Ireland has rapidly rising unemployment, the single greatest barometer of economic failure.

I will deal with several issues concerning my area of responsibility, that is, agriculture, fisheries and food. I am disappointed the Minister has left the Chamber because it is obvious he is now clearly the weakest link in Cabinet. He has sacrificed the industry with the potential to drive the economic recovery. It is not an option for farmers to relocate to eastern Europe or Asia as their future is rooted in the Irish economy. There are more than 100,000 employed directly in the industry and perhaps as many more employed indirectly in the food and associated service industries.

The agriculture industry has considerable untapped potential but it has been betrayed. One of the main structural problems facing the industry is that 92% of farms are run by farmers over 35. In recent years, there has been a three-pronged approach to encouraging mobility such that highly qualified, young trained farmers could have access to the means of food production, thereby driving the agriculture and food industries. The three prongs are the early retirement scheme, the installation aid scheme and the stamp duty exemption scheme.

The Minister lauds the fact that the stamp duty exemption scheme has not been abolished but the reality is that, in 12 months, there will be a significant decline in the number availing of the stamp duty exemption for young qualified farmers simply because their parents will not hand over their land-holdings because of the abolition of the early retirement scheme. Young farmers will not be encouraged to take the batons from their parents because the €15,000 installation aid grant, traditionally paid directly into the pockets of young qualified farmers, will not be available. Shame on the Minister. It is a vote of "no confidence" by the Minister in the new generation that the industry desperately requires to be involved. It is unforgivable of the Minister to behave in this fashion.

There has been a significant reduction in payments in two other areas under the agriculture budget, the suckler cow welfare scheme and the disadvantaged areas scheme. In this regard, I refer to a press release of 14 December 2007 by the former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Mary Coughlan, when announcing the suckler cow welfare scheme, which was to run until 2012 and result in an annual payment of €80 per cow, or €82 for every cow if an application was made on-line. She stated, "Ireland is a food trading country, and our beef industry which has a self-sufficiency of 820%, serves a huge number of customers throughout Europe and the world." She added, "we have adopted a structured approach to the beef sector, the overall aim of which is to equip it to meet the challenges and exploit the opportunities available in the coming years." She concluded by stating, "I am confident the scheme will be a success, and will contribute over the next five years and beyond to the continued improvement in the quality of Irish beef, so vital if we are to improve our share of the lucrative European market." This statement was made less than 12 months ago, yet the scheme is now being butchered significantly.

This is a variation on a theme that is becoming quite common under the Government and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Only last October, the farm investment scheme was suspended. It was launched the previous July and was expected to run for five years. What is clearly emerging is a form of political leadership in the Department that makes decisions on the hoof and has no strategic long-term plan for the industry. It betrays the new generation that is committed to agriculture and attending agriculture colleges throughout the country to obtain the young farmer qualification known as the "green certificate". This generation wishes to take the baton but now finds the door to the industry has been closed by the abolition of the early retirement scheme and installation aid. It is unforgivable.

In addition to these cuts, one must consider the cuts affecting Bord Bia, Teagasc and Bord Iascaigh Mhara. I will not criticise these cuts excessively until I know their exact impact. I do not believe any organisation is beyond becoming more efficient but the percentages across the bodies in question — 8%, 9% and 10% — are on the high side. The research and development potential of Teagasc should not be compromised. It is by innovation that we will make progress and develop new products that will give the industry opportunities for the future.

I am particularly concerned about the transfer of the marketing role of Bord Iascaigh Mhara to Bord Bia. Within Bord Bia, which does a fine job promoting Irish food, the budget for the seafood sector should be ring-fenced. I am concerned that the seafood industry will lose its identity. It is extremely important that it have ring-fenced funds within Bord Bia comparable to those made available to it to date under Bord Iascaigh Mhara. I am concerned because I have been unable to trace any line in the budget following up on the commitment the Minister made last year that the funding for decommissioning the whitefish fleet would be made available again this year. It is unavailable.

The abolition of installation aid and the early retirement scheme, the butchering of the suckler cow scheme, which will probably result in the promised payment of €82 being reduced to approximately €40, and the significant curtailment of disadvantaged area payments for claimants with more than 35 hectares constitute a real betrayal of the agriculture sector, which has the potential to lead us out of the difficulties we face.

I will comment on aspects of the budget that do not pertain to agriculture. Many speakers referred to the most unkind cut of all, that is, the withdrawal of the medical card from those over 70. Despite the best efforts of the Government to spin this issue, 125,000 of the 139,000 who hold a medical card today will not retain one after the new means test. This, allied with hospital charges, general practitioner visits, accident and emergency charges and drug refund scheme changes, will have an enormous impact on their financial well-being. Their mental well-being will also be affected because they will fear becoming sick and not being able to afford to see a general practitioner.

Added to this is the fact that in recent years many elderly people, because of the security of having a medical card, surrendered their medical insurance policies. Such people may now be obliged to pay for medical insurance again but will find they will have to wait a defined period before being covered by any health insurance company. This, allied to the fact that many of them will be liable not only to the Lenihan levy of 1% on their incomes but also to a 2% health levy, is alarming. Losing the medical card may constitute a single whammy but all the other charges result in a multiple whammy for the elderly. The Government should reconsider these cuts in the health sector.

Let me consider two other issues. Great political capital was derived in my constituency because of the proposed decentralisation of some 100 laboratory jobs in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to Macroom and of 80 jobs in the Office of Public Works to Kanturk. This proves to have been a political charade played out at the expense not only of those employed in those offices but also of those locals who legitimately expected secure employment to be delivered to their towns. This is particularly the case because the towns are reeling at present due to increases in unemployment rates of more than 50% in the past 12 months. The Government has a considerable case to answer regarding these commitments and how it misled people over a prolonged period.

I will now address the education cuts. Solemn commitments with regard to class sizes were given at public meetings I attended in the lead-up to the last general election. Now we will have the largest class sizes in the OECD. We must take into account that many of the OECD countries are not nearly as wealthy as this country, yet we are failing to provide the passport for young people into secure employment by virtue of education provision, which is unforgivable. Added to this is the cowardice of the Minister for Education and Science, who during the summer flew the kite to reintroduce college fees by the back door but who has not got the political bottle to stand up and announce that it is effectively college fees by another name.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.