Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 May 2001

Vol. 537 No. 1

Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.

Jack Wall

Question:

55 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the proposals he may bring forward on low income farm families following a recent presentation by the Irish Farmers Association to the Social Family and Community Affairs Committee. [15291/01]

The Deputy is referring to proposals contained in a recent presentation by the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs.

This covers a wide range of areas of the social welfare system where the IFA are seeking improvements, including farm assist, social insurance and pensions. The main issues are set out briefly as follows.
The IFA is seeking a change in the treatment of capital expenditure for farm assist purposes. Briefly, the position is that it has not been the practice to include the cost of investment in buildings or their depreciation in means tests, on the basis that it is not the function of the social welfare system to subsidise investment in upgrading the assets of a farm or other business. However, my Department is currently examining the issue of environmentally related capital expenditure which is incurred by farmers in order to comply with EU and National standards.
The IFA has also proposed the introduction of a new PRSI category for the spouses of self employed contributors, including farmers, who are not currently covered by the system. The PRSI status of farm women was considered by the Advisory Committee on the Role of Women in Agriculture which reported last September. Given the complexity of the issues, the committee recommended that a working group with legal, financial and technical expertise be established to further consider the development of models which will afford farm women financial recognition for their input into farming. This group, which includes representatives from my Department, was established by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in April and I will be giving detailed consideration to their findings when available.
Regarding the extension of disability benefit or invalidity pension to farmers, there are no plans at present to extend social insurance cover for disability benefit, or invalidity pension, to the self employed. The self employed and others who are not covered for disability benefit are eligible to apply for supplementary welfare allowance if they require an income maintenance payment during periods of illness. In addition, people who are suffering from an illness or infirmity which may reasonably be expected to last for a year or more and who do not qualify for invalidity pension are eligible to apply for disability allowance.
The National Pensions Board examined the question of extending cover for invalidity pension to the self-employed and, in its final report in 1993, recommended against extending such cover at that time. The board felt that cover for permanent incapacity for the self-employed would be best met through a means tested invalidity allowance. The board's recommendation in this regard has since been met by the introduction of the disability allowance in October 1996.
In relation to the IFA proposals for easier access the voluntary contributions scheme, access to this scheme is limited to people who have paid PRSI for at least three years and there is currently no provision for retrospective payment. It would be inequitable to relax these conditions for one group, such as farmers, and not for other groups. In addition, if retrospective payment of voluntary contributions were allowed, there is a danger that people would manipulate this situation in order to pay the minimum contribution necessary for pension purposes.
As regards the possibility of paying special pensions to farmers who were already over the age of 60 when social insurance for the self-employed was introduced in 1988, a balance must be struck between the different demands for pensions concessions, and the need to preserve the benefit-contribution link by requiring an adequate level of contributions for benefits. I consider that the current arrangements represent a reasonable balance between these two factors, and I have no proposals for changes in this regard.
Top
Share