asked the Minister for Lands the action he proposes to take to encourage the owners of very small farms to retire under the new voluntary retirement scheme.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Farmers' Retirement Scheme.
11.
(Cavan): As the farmers' retirement scheme does not prescribe any minimum to the size of the holding which an applicant must hold, the benefits of the scheme are available to all small farmers provided that the lands offered are considered suitable for the purposes of the scheme and that the applicants satisfy the criteria of farmers whose main occupation is farming. Liberal interpretations are applied to these requirements.
The main benefits of the scheme comprise a premium of 10 per cent of the purchase money subject to a maximum of £1,500 or twice the lease rent subject to a maximum of £3,000 for all qualified applicants; in addition those of 55 years of age or over are eligible for a life annuity of £600 in the case of a married person or £400 in the case of a single or widowed person.
In the event of the death of a beneficiary the surviving spouse qualifies for a life annuity of £400.
These payments are in addition to the purchase money or lease rent.
A beneficiary, if he so wishes, may retain the dwellinghouse and an accommodation plot of up to two acres. The benefits under the scheme have been widely acknowledged as being very generous and compelling and they are available to any small farmer who wishes to apply for them and who fulfils the required conditions.
Does the Minister propose introducing any modification or any more attractive terms in respect of the farm retirement scheme?
(Cavan): I do not know exactly what the Deputy has in mind but, as the Deputy knows, the scheme as drafted provided for an adjustment in the annuity to have regard to the increase in the cost of living. That is being amended.
Deputy Tunney and Deputy Leonard rose.
May I call on the Deputy who tabled the question—Deputy Leonard.
Would the Minister not agree that the scheme introduced in May, 1974, has been disappointing when one takes into account the small number of farmers deemed eligible under the scheme?
(Cavan): To be quite candid, I do not think it has been disappointing. It came into operation on 1st May, 1974. There were about 1,500 applicants and about 130 of these have been finalised —that is, even the legal requirements have been met—and that has brought in about 5,000 acres to the Land Commission. About another 130 have reached the stage where price is agreed upon and about 1,500 applications in all have been received and applications are continuing to come in at the rate of about six a week. That would be roughly about 200 acres a week. There was one complaint about the scheme and that was it did not apply to lands let under the 11-months' system. I was able to arrange with Brussels to have that rectified and those who are now otherwise qualified are not debarred simply because their lands have been let. I do not believe this scheme will solve all the land problems but, as I said elsewhere, I think it will play a significant part in improving the situation.
Would the Minister not agree most applicants are more interested in leasing the land rather than in actually selling it?
(Cavan): I am amazed to hear the Deputy say that because the contrary is the case. Of the 130 cases that have been finalised about 120 are direct sales to the Land Commission and only about three are leases.
I would refer the Minister to an article which appeared in Farm and Food Research, January and February. It gives different information from what I am getting from the Minister now regarding leasing. They specifically mention that many are interested in leasing. Would the Minister not agree that with the fall in money values an annuity of £600 for a married person and £400 for a single person is not sufficient? There should be periodic adjustments.
(Cavan): I have just said in reply to Deputy Tunney that the scheme makes provision for adjustment in the annuity or pension in order to have regard to the increase in the cost of living or inflation. That is under consideration at the moment and I hope to have the pensions adjusted before the second anniversary of the scheme.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, I would like to state first I am glad that has been changed. That was as a result of pressure from this side of the House.
And from this side as well.
But mostly from this side.
A supplementary question, please.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, what I find mostly is that old age pensions and what goes with them are affected in the case of the person who retires.
A supplementary question, Deputy, please.
Yes. Arising out of the Minister's reply, if the Minister could get in touch with his counterpart in the Department of Social Welfare to ensure the pension would not be withheld from the person who retires that could lead to an improvement. The retirement pension is taken into account and they lose the old age pension.
A question, please.
Arising further, if they do not retire and just leave the land there unworked they can get the old age pension and all the other amenities that go with it but the retirement pension, if they offer the land to the Land Commission, is taken into account and so they do not qualify for the old age pension. The Minister should get in touch with his colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, and see that a social welfare old age pension would be given as an incentive to old people to opt for the retirement scheme.
(Cavan): With all due respect to my friends on the left and the right, no pressure was necessary from anybody in order to persuade me to have land being let included in the scheme. I saw this shortcoming in the very early stages and had it adjusted with the minimum of delay. A lot of the publicity and comment on this scheme has been ill-informed and not helpful. Before the scheme came into operation, if a man retired and sold his farm for £10,000, he got no old age pension, no bonus, nothing except the purchase price. Under this scheme, if he sells his farm for £10,000 or £20,000, he gets a bonus up to £1,500 and a pension of £12 a week without a means test. The EEC directive only requires that that pension be paid between 55 and 65 years; we pay it for life. What Deputy Callanan wants us to do is to permit a man to sell his farm for £10,000 or £20,000, give him a pension of £12 a week or an adjusted pension, whatever it may be, and then, under the social welfare code, an old age pension, completely forgetting that he has £10,000 or £20,000. I think that is going too far. I was glad to see that one agricultural writer who has been campaigning for just that for several months said, in the latest edition of his journal, that, of course, nobody suggested that he should get two pensions and that all that he wanted was the fringe benefits. I am having a look at the fringe benefits to see if that can be done.
May I ask finally——
I have allowed a lot of latitude on this question. I am calling on Deputy Brennan and then passing on to another question.
Could I ask the Minister if he is serious when he states that a man cannot get two pensions, that a man selling his land heretofore was deprived of a pension because he sold his farm? That was not necessarily true.
(Cavan): It certainly was true when Fianna Fáil were in office.
It was not, and I would hate to use an unparliamentary word to tell the Minister what I think of his statement. The income derived from capital is the interest on it and it is assessed accordingly in the bank. A sum of £10,000 would not deprive a man of the non-contributory old age pension, and in saying that the Minister is demonstrating his lack of knowledge on the matter. If a man has a contributory old age pension, he draws it together with the retirement pension from the surrendering of his land. Deputy Callanan is right——
The Deputy is making a statement now.
Is the Minister aware that the greatest disincentive to the scheme for which he has taken some credit is the fact that the pension derived from it is taken as means when a man applies for a non-contributory old age pension? If he has a contributory old age pension, he gets the two pensions.
The Deputy is debating this matter. That is not in order. I am calling the next question.
(Cavan): Very briefly, may I say the greatest damage being done to the scheme is irresponsible comment from the other side of the House as well as from other people.
(Interruptions.)
(Cavan): If the Deputies want a reply I will give it to them. Under the last regime, if a person had five shillings a week he would be disqualified for the old age pension.
That is a lie.
The word "lie" ought not to be attributed to any Member of the House.
(Cavan): It is not a lie. If a person got £10,000 that was capitalised and deprived a single man of the old age pension——
It did not.
(Cavan):—— and without going into it in detail, it deprived a married man of most of the old age pension. What Deputy Brennan wants me to do is to permit a man to sell his farm for £10,000, £20,000 or even £30,000 as has been the case, and on top of that to give him a Land Commission pension and then to give him a second old age pension.
Which he would get anyway.
(Cavan): No, that is not reasonable. It is not doing the scheme any good, and it is certainly not serving the interests of the small farmers who want land.
No. 12.
I think you are very unfair.
That is another attack upon the Chair, after allowing the utmost latitude. I cannot hope to please every Deputy in this House and that is obvious.
You are not pleasing me anyway.
I am sorry if that is so. The Deputy has been given as much latitude as anyone else in the House.