Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

The first measure I wish to note in the budget is the 13% cut in the allocation to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Almost the entire burden of that cut falls on the programme side of that Department. The largest cut in administration is to laboratory equipment, which presumably reflects the curtailing of research and training where the allocation is down by over €5 million.

The closing off of the early retirement scheme and installation aid for young farmers represents a saving of over €9 million. That is certain to have a malign impact on those farmers in the process of transferring responsibility for the family farm. It may be a small cut in the overall scheme of things, but it is significant nonetheless. Earlier I was contacted by the chairperson of the IFA in Kerry. He brought to my attention the impact these cuts would have on one family farm over a ten-year period which, with the early retirement scheme — plus installation aid, transferred to his younger son — amounts to €165,000. Where is the incentive for an elderly farmer to hand the farm over to a son or nephew, as has been the case in recent years due to the early retirement scheme, if that is no longer the case? All it will do is ensure that will not happen. It will be totally counterproductive.

However, it is in the area of programmes designed to develop the farming and fisheries sectors that the axe has fallen most heavily. Teagasc, in particular, has played an invaluable role in providing up-to-date research and practical support for farmers. At a time of radical change within the sector, which is subject to the pressures of structural change and challenges presented by the reformed Common Agricultural Policy, in addition to facing possible further changes under the health check, it is vital that the research and development resource, mainly centred on Teagasc, is capable of rising to those challenges.

Much has been said about the potential for farmers to expand into new areas of production, such as energy crops. While that potential exists, the level of participation to date has been low. That is why it is all the more important to encourage this through the provision of information and practical assistance. The cuts made in Teagasc will severely curtail that ability. Some will defend the cuts on the basis that savings need to be made. In reality, however, by reducing the research and development capacity of the sector one is actually creating further negative impacts downstream.

In a period of international economic recession and the pressures placed on an economy such as Ireland's by the vagaries of international fuel supplies and costs, it makes sense to ensure that we will have a viable domestic renewable energy sector based on the processing of crops suitable for the production of biofuels. Apart from the issue of supply, investment in that sector, which includes the grant scheme for growing energy crops, can help to stimulate production and processing, thereby creating new indigenous enterprise and employment. A short-term saving is, therefore, closing off a potential avenue to encourage localised economic growth. However, as Deputy Morgan stated in his reply to the budget, that is applicable to other sectors as well. There is clearly a strong argument for using the relatively healthy position of the State regarding foreign debt to borrow, if the money borrowed is used to stimulate the domestic economy and concentrate more on indigenous enterprise, rather than the increasingly precarious world of foreign direct investment.

While reading some of the submissions to the report compiled by the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I was struck by references to that issue. For example Tuatha Chiarraí Teoranta's submission made the point that while 21% of those in employment in Kerry are working in IDA supported firms, Leader-supported enterprises actually employ more people in the county and have a 70% success rate. That figure is even more remarkable given that Leader does not take in the whole county. That indicates that the Leader programme has succeeded in identifying indigenous enterprise that is not only effective in providing jobs and profits, but is for the most part sustainable. That clearly points to the opportunity that exists in promoting such enterprise on a wider scale and perhaps shifting some of the resources targeted through IDA Ireland at foreign business into the domestic sector, particularly at a time when there are grave concerns over the security of many of the jobs currently in foreign-owned businesses and especially those most vulnerable to the current financial crisis.

Such a shift in policy could have been made part of the strategy that underlies this budget, if one exists, but it should certainly have informed official thinking on the economy over the prosperous years of the Celtic tiger when successive Governments and successive Ministers for Finance had the luxury and the revenue flow to attempt a different approach, namely, to address the imbalance in the economy in favour of foreign direct investment supported by public money.

Another proposal which Sinn Féin made in our pre-budget submission, referred to by Deputy Morgan in his speech, is that in return for the State's intervention to support the banking sector through the Credit Institutions Bill, the State should take a stake in the Irish banks which, in combination with a levy on their turnover or profits, would ensure that the State is adequately compensated for its provision of such a vital service to the private banking sector.

The notion of bailing out banks is far from popular with many people who have been supporting the banks most generously for a number of years through mortgage and loan repayments, not to mention random and regular increases in alleged service charges. The notion of the State intervening in such a way would have been unthinkable up to a few weeks ago, but several states have gone further than the Government in doing what we propose, in taking a stake in those institutions, even to the extent of effectively taking them into State ownership. Not only would our proposal provide a guarantee of a future payback, assuming the banks recover, but it would also provide the State with leverage on some of the issues to which I referred, including bank charges, the way in which they handle credit and mortgages and the large dividends that accrue to top bank officials and major shareholders.

The fact that governments, which are far from being ideologically disposed to nationalising or taking a major stake in the banking system, have proceeded in that direction is an illustration of the seriousness of the crisis and there is nothing to prevent the Government from taking such steps. Indeed, there are good precedents from the history of the Fianna Fáil Party for such bold interventions. The Minister referred on Tuesday in his opening remarks to the role played by the Seán Lemass led Government in the late 1950s in attempting to stimulate economic development. He could have gone further back to the 1930s when his party also gave the State a leading role in such matters.

The reason they did so was not that they were ideologically committed to State-led development but to compensate for the failures of native capitalism and capitalists who, as the late Kevin Boland once said, thought that patriotism consisted of breeding the winner of the English Derby. The people who had money in this country in those days — their successors are among our current banking dynasties — simply had no interest in this State. They much preferred to invest their money in the London Stock Exchange than provide much needed capital for industrial development here, so successive Governments had to compensate for that through State investment and attracting foreign investment.

In the banking system in this State and further afield the priority is to maximise profit only and the banks have no scruples in playing roulette with hard-earned savings of decent people or in abusing the victims of their scrupulous greed. Now the same people have landed themselves in a terrible mess, after a period in which they got more than their fair share of the wealth produced during the boom years. They ought to be damn grateful, therefore, to the people for helping them out of this jam, something few bankers are willing to do when the boot is on the other foot. We have seen daily the repossession of homes of people who were experiencing difficulty in repaying their mortgages, but no such flexibility or sympathy is shown to them. In case the bankers forget about us, the best way to ensure a return is surely for the State to take an active stake in the Irish banks and ensure that part of their profits will flow back into the Exchequer.

If the State takes a substantial stakeholding and imposes a levy, hundreds of millions of euro would accrue to the State. The relevance of that in the current budget is obvious as it would mean that many of the inroads into ordinary people's standards of living made this week would not be necessary. Instead of having to save €100 million by denying people over the age of 70 a medical card, the State, while at the same time underwriting the private banks, could ensure a revenue income far in excess of that brought about by attacking the most vulnerable in society.

This is the most disgraceful measure taken since I came into this House. Many people today and yesterday withdrew their savings from the banks for fear of losing their medical card. Many had health insurance up to the age of 70 and then, having had the comfort of knowing that their health would be protected by the medical card, find themselves today between a rock and a hard place.

The Government must revisit this matter and look at the enormous pain and anxiety being caused to the elderly in society. It is a shame that a government would attack the most vulnerable in society as this Government has done this week. I know full well from backbench Deputies on the Government side of the House that they have been inundated with telephone calls from the elderly all over the country. These are people at the end of their lives who have supported this State, who have built this State and who contributed to the Exchequer in recent decades and they now find themselves victims of a greedy unscrupulous Government which mismanaged the economic boom. It squandered billions of euro, yet penalises the most vulnerable, the poor and the aged.

The 1% levy applies effectively down the line to people on the minimum wage and below it. Whereas the 2% levy means absolutely nothing to multi-millionaires, the 1% levy is a significant imposition on the most vulnerable in society. Fianna Fáil once stated it was the party of the poor, but it is now, with the Green Party, the party of the rich. Robbing the poor to support and pay the rich is what was done in this budget.

I spent half of this morning in contact with farmers all over my county and, indeed, in other parts of Munster. They are devastated with the significant cuts to the Department and to the future of Irish farming. The Government has almost written off the fishing industry. What has happened and what has been done here this week is a shame. It is the worst undertaking that I have ever seen a government attempt.

The Minister stated that he personally believes senior bankers should receive no more than €500,000 per year, and here we have the Government penalising old age pensioners. Surely in the current situation, with the Irish taxpayers basically saving their necks, he might do more than hint. After all, the Minister did not hint to the over 70s that they might not be entitled to a medical card, nor did he hint to people on the minimum wage that they might like to pay tax, which is what the income levy is. Indeed, if one misses a mortgage repayment or a loan repayment the banks do not send a letter hinting that you might like to catch up on it whenever you feel like it. They send a solicitor's letter stating that they are foreclosing on your mortgage and repossessing your property.

No one denies we are in a crisis that requires addressing, but while we are doing so we must ensure that those who have benefited most from the good times and those whose greed was in large measure responsible for ending the good times pay their fair share, and not place the burden on those who even in the best of times were struggling, such as people on low wages, the elderly and working class people employed by those such as developers who made vast profits. The elderly are now to be denied a medical card as well. This budget, what has been proposed and what has been done in the past couple of weeks in this House has done nothing for the betterment of the people most in need in our society and in our communities.

See this speech in context