asked the Minister for Lands the number of applications in each of the three years 1974, 1975 and 1976 under the farm retirement scheme; the amount of land involved; the number of farmers now in receipt of a pension; and if he is satisfied with the progress being made.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Farm Retirement Scheme.
25.
(Cavan): For each of the three years mentioned the number of applications received for the benefits of the farm retirement scheme is as follows: 1974—1,062; 1975—385 and 1976, to 25th November, 169. Two hundred and ninety seven of these applications mostly received in 1974 were later withdrawn.
It is not possible to indicate the precise area involved as areas are not available until cases advance substantially beyond the preliminary stage. In 343 cases completed or near completion the total area involved is 14,676 acres. The number of cases completed is 229. Of these 224 are receiving their annuities and five qualified for premium only. In addition, price negotiations have been successfully completed in 114 other cases and the legal formalities are being completed. I am reasonably satisfied with progress made to date. The level of applications is not, of course, as high as in the initial stages but as with any new scheme many of those who applied for consideration at that time did not have a genuine intention of participating.
Those making application now, however, are fully aware of the conditions that have to be fulfilled and, accordingly, they are more likely to be genuinely interested in availing of the scheme. The retirement scheme by adding substantially to the pool of land available for reallocation is making a valuable contribution to the structural reform programme.
In view of the figures given by the Minister concerning applications, is the Minister not aware that this scheme is no longer attractive to retiring farmers? Would the Minister agree that they would be better off selling by public auction? The figures are evidence that the scheme is no longer attractive.
Questions, please.
Would the Minister have another look at it to try to make it attractive?
(Cavan): I do not accept what the Deputy says. In the first year it is natural to expect infinitely more applications than in succeeding years because there has been publicity for two years before that. The scheme was brought into operation on the 1st May, 1974. There has been a steady stream of applications since. There were 86 in the last six months. The scheme is reasonably successful. I would have been happier if more people participated in it. The best way of selling the scheme is for those interested in it, including Deputies, to point out the advantages of the scheme and to stop knocking it.
There are no advantages.
Order, order.
(Cavan): The advantages are that the farmer receives cash for market value. If he is over 55 and married, he receives a pension of £800 a year for life plus a bonus of 10 per cent of the purchase money up to a maximum of £1,500 in the case of a sale or twice one year's rent subject to a maximum of £3,000 in the case of a lease. He can continue to work, if he is able, in any other occupation including agriculture as a paid hand. These are very attractive elements in the scheme. He may also retain the dwelling house and two acres of land and live where he has always lived. I am convinced that this is an attractive scheme for those for whom it is intended. It is a great pity that those genuinely interested in getting farmers who are not successful or who are unhappy in agriculture out of it and getting their land into productive hands do not sell the scheme. Deputy Allen wanted to know if the farmer would not be better off to sell his land by public auction. That is a matter entirely for himself. There is no compulsion in this scheme; it is voluntary from beginning to end.
The pension the farmer now gets is taken as means in relation to the old age pension. Would the Minister not consider that the scheme would be more attractive if a change was made on that score?
(Cavan): I am asking Opposition Deputies to be reasonable and to approach this in a reasonable way. They suggest that the farmer who gets up to £20,000 or more for his farm and a pension of £16 a week should have that ignored for old age pension purposes.
The Minister is taking the maximum.
Order.
(Cavan): I said up to that. That is not reasonable and if Deputies opposite think about it they will not think it is reasonable.
(Interruptions.)
Order, order.
(Cavan): Directive 160 is under reconsideration in Brussels at the moment and the reconsideration will likely be completed within a few months. We will have another look at the scheme in the light of that. I have not been idle in regard to this. As I said here before, since the scheme came in two years ago it has been extended to include lands which had been let and the pension has been increased from £400 to £530 for a single man and from £600 to £800 for a married man.
Order, order. I am calling Deputy Tunney and Deputy Callanan for a brief supplementary question.
Would the Minister accept that there is no better man in the country than the farmer to assess the merits or the attractions of the scheme and, since he is not accepting this scheme as the Minister would wish, that means he wants it to be more attractive?
(Cavan): Human nature being what it is, everybody wants more than they are getting—everybody appeals for a better deal. I am satisfied that, out of the 1,600 or more applications that have been made, less than 300 have been withdrawn. The people who have made application are standing their ground and want to have their deals completed. The shrewd, long-headed farmers who want to avail of this scheme are availing of it. The weak-minded people and those who are not well up are being misled by mischievous propaganda, not coming entirely from this House, which is doing no good but a lot of harm.
I am always trying to sell the scheme——
A question please, Deputy.
Were there only 270 long-headed and sensible men in the country in 1975? That was the last figure the Minister gave, and the applications have been reduced from that. Whether we like it or not, the value of money has decreased so much that people are afraid to accept this pension and would prefer to hold on to the land.
I am afraid the Deputy is imparting information rather than seeking it.
I appreciate the Minister's point of view, but the fact is that the scheme has not been successful.
I am calling the next question. No. 26, please.
(Cavan): The scheme has been reasonably successful and payments have been kept up to date.
No. 26, please.