asked the Minister for Lands why two persons (names supplied) in County Laois are not permitted to sell their farms to the Land Commission under the EEC farm retirement scheme.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Farm Retirement Scheme.
29.
(Cavan): The two applications in question were very fully investigated by the Land Commission but as the applicants were leting their lands they did not at that time satisfy the requirements for eligibility. However, I will have the two cases re-examined urgently in the light of arrangements I have now made with the EEC and which I will be explaining shortly in reply to Questions Nos. 30 and 34.
May I now ask a supplementary question arising out of Nos. 33 and 34?
We have not reached No. 33 yet.
(Cavan): It would be more appropriate because it solves the Deputy's problem in principle anyway.
In relation to one of those cases which, for convenience, I shall refer to as the Castletown case, is it not the position that under the existing arrangement the farmer must have devoted at least half his working time to the holding during the five years immediately prior to making the application? In the case in question is it not correct to say that the man concerned had let his land for only about six months before the order was made and the scheme introduced and that, therefore, it could be claimed that he had been working the land for four-and-a-half years in which case he would have spent more than half his time in this capacity?
(Cavan): In respect of one case here I notice the names and addresses of about half the Members of the Dáil. However, the Deputy may take it that up to now it was a condition precedent to the scheme applying that the applicant must have had in each of the five years devoted 50 per cent of his time and derived 50 per cent of his income from working the land which was the subject of the application. I am pleased to tell the Deputy that in reply to the next two questions I shall be indicating that this situation has been changed.
Therefore, the two people of whom I am talking will have their cases considered?
(Cavan): Yes, and I am told that they have an excellent chance of qualifying. Although the Deputy has become involved in this at this late stage he will probably try to claim some credit for it.
My only concern is that the applications will be successful.
30.
asked the Minister for Lands the steps, if any, that are being taken to include lands rented on the 11 months system in the retirement scheme under Directive 160.
34.
asked the Minister for Lands the date on which he asked the EEC Commission to amend the farm retirement scheme; and the terms of the amendment submitted.
(Cavan): With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 30 and 34 together.
The amendment which I was concerned to introduce into the farm retirement scheme was to secure a flexible interpretation of the condition in Directive 160 that an applicant must have been working his lands for the previous five years. As it stood, this condition meant that resident farmers who by reason of age, infirmity, or for any other compelling reason had to let their holdings as a temporary measure to secure a livelihood were denied the benefits of the scheme. We have made many informal approaches to the EEC Commission on this matter since the scheme was brought in. Indeed, speaking in the Seanad in April last I indicated my criticism of the fact that many applicants who were letting their lands because of ill health, financial or other valid reason but who were still living on their farms were being excluded from the scheme. I am, therefore, very pleased to be able to announce that such deserving applicants, provided they are otherwise qualified, can now be admitted to the scheme and will be eligible for the benefits of the directive.
I am glad to hear this. May we take it that in relation to this scheme those who are letting land will not be excluded for this reason? These are the people who will wish to retire.
(Cavan): The Deputy may take it that anybody who has no other occupation, is living on or near his land but who is letting it because of ill-health, old age or because he is not making a go of it or for some other valid reason, will not be deprived of the benefits of the farm retirement scheme under Directive 160 solely because he is letting. In other words, if he is otherwise qualified, he will come within the terms of the scheme.
Can the Minister say when this decision was made? My reason for asking is that there is a need to change a number of the directives and it appears that the Minister is able to bring about such changes.
(Cavan): I saw this flaw in the scheme almost immediately after its coming into operation.
So did I.
(Cavan): I have been working on it since. I cannot give the exact date of the change but within the past two weeks or so I arranged with Brussels that the liberal interpretation in regard to 50 per cent working time and 50 per cent income would get the broad interpretation I have indicated here.
31.
asked the Minister for Lands the number of farmers who have been sanctioned for inclusion in the farm retirement scheme during 1974 and to date.
(Cavan): The number of applicants adjudged eligible for the benefits of the farm retirement scheme up to 31st December, 1974 was 169.
The number of applicants adjudged eligible to date is 550.
For Deputy Callanan's benefit, I might add that the announcement I have just made should bring in another 130 of those processed already.
I agree but having regard to the supplementary asked a short while ago by Deputy Lalor, I cannot understand why people who let land only about six months before they apply for participation in the scheme are excluded.
(Cavan): The Deputy will find that very few, if any, were excluded in such circumstances.
I had one such case in my area.
We are not having questions. Question No. 32.
(Cavan): If there was any such case, I should like the Deputy to draw my attention to it because I am aware that the Land Commission went out of their way to give a broad interpretation to the then interpretation.
32.
asked the Minister for Lands the number of farm retirement applications which have been dealt with and the total number of applications received to date.
(Cavan): For the benefits of the farm retirement scheme 1,417 applications were received up to 30th October, 1975, but 179 were subsequently withdrawn. 853 cases have been processed and the results are as follows: 392 have been adjudged eligible on the basis of sales to the Land Commission; 158 have been provisionally approved on the basis of proposed sales/leases to farmers with approved development plans under the farm modernisation scheme—operated by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries—providing for additional land and 303 have been adjudged ineligible.
Was it on the grounds of letting that the 303 were adjudged ineligible?
(Cavan): About 130 of those, or 43 per cent, were excluded on the grounds of letting but subject to everything else being in order these will now be eligible.
Can the Minister give any information as to the reason for excluding the other 60 per cent or so?
(Cavan): Apart from those excluded because of letting, 21 or 7 per cent were excluded because of holdings being reduced by more than 15 per cent in the three years previous to the application; by reason of family settlements, 37 or 13 per cent were disqualified; off-farm employment was responsible for the exclusion of 46 or 16 per cent; because of the sold-pre-scheme provision, 20 or 7 per cent were disqualified; because of acquisition proceedings in progress, six or 2 per cent were excluded; because of lands unsuitable, 11 or 4 per cent were excluded and others accounted for 23 or 8 per cent being excluded.
According to the figures given, only 2 per cent was in respect of land which was acquired by the Land Commission for land settlement purposes.
(Cavan): That is so.
33.
asked the Minister for Lands if he has received or expects many applications for retirement pensions from farmers who wish to hand over their farms to sons, farming in their own right and with approved development plans providing for extra land.
(Cavan): Two applications have been received from the category of farmers referred to by the Deputy. These have been approved and will shortly be finalised. I cannot say how many more such applications may be made.
Am I to take it that approval is being given in cases of transfers from father to son?
(Cavan): No. Transactions from father to son will qualify only if the son is already a farmer in his own right or has a development scheme requiring additional land.
To avoid any misunderstanding, the position is that the son must be farming in his own right on another farm?
(Cavan): Yes.
Therefore, if the farm is being signed over, not willed, to the son he will not qualify under the scheme?
(Cavan): That is so.
That is wrong.
(Cavan): If we had time we could argue this question. The Deputy knows that the scheme was never intended to apply to such cases but that its object is to make more land available in order to bring small farms up to a viable standard.