We welcome Mr. Leonard Burke, principal officer, Ms Maeve Farrell, assistant principal officer, Mr. Colm McDermott, assistant principal officer and Mr. John Courtney, higher executive officer from the Department of Social and Family Affairs, who will make a presentation today. I remind the committee that it is parliamentary practice that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such as a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members who wish to make a declaration as regards any matter may do so now or at the beginning of their contributions. Members are reminded that if there is a possibility of a conflict of interest, a declaration should be made either now or at the start of their contributions. I draw the witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but this does not apply to people who appear before the committee. I am sure these witnesses are well aware of that. While it is generally accepted that the witnesses would have qualified privilege, the committee is not in a position to guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses who appear before it.
Farm Assist Programme: Presentation
Mr. Leonard Burke
I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to it on the farm assist scheme. We have distributed some slides that we have on powerpoint presentation. We do not have powerpoint facilities, but I would like to talk through the slides to give the committee some background to the farm assist scheme. Afterwards we will be happy to answer any questions regarding the scheme.
The farm assist scheme is a weekly income support for farmers, paid subject to a means test. It was introduced in April 1999. The background to the scheme's introduction is that a Teagasc survey carried out at the time identified farming families with incomes below a level where social welfare support is available. Persons involved did not qualify for a social welfare payment such as unemployment or illness benefits. Unlike the unemployment assistance for smallholders that existed prior to that, persons on farm assist did not have to be unemployed or available for full-time employment when the scheme was set up. The scheme expenditure in 2002 ran at approximately €59 million. In 2003 it was €62.8 million and it is estimated at almost €70 million for 2004. At present there are over 8,600 claims in payment.
To qualify for farm assist, a person is required to be engaged in farming, be aged between 18 and 66 and to satisfy a means test.
A farmer is defined as a person engaged in farming. Farming means farming farmland in the State which is owned and used by the claimant for the purposes of husbandry, or leased and used by the claimant for the purposes of husbandry; and does not form part of a larger holding and is used for the purposes of husbandry. Husbandry means working of the land with the object of extracting the traditional produce of the land.
Farming includes forestry and intensive pig farming. It does not include persons who rent out entire holdings or who are not using the land. One acre with a dwelling is not considered to be farmland.
On the scheduled rate of payment, there is a personal rate, an increase for spouse-partner where applicable and an increase for each qualified child where applicable, less any means that the person might have.
The means from self-employment are derived from farming and off-farm self-employment, and these are added together to get the total income from self-employment. The means are assessed with 70% of gross income less expenses necessarily incurred. There is a disregard for qualified child-children - €253.95 for each of the first two children and €380.92 for each subsequent child.
The briefing note contains an example of farm income from a mixed farm. It is for illustrative purposes only that we present this, but it gives an example of what might be considered the income and expenditure of a farmer with an unemployed spouse and three children. This example shows gross income winds up as €14,600. This figure, less the expenses incurred, gives a net income. The disregards are applied to that net income, in respect of the first two children at €253.95 per child and in respect of the additional child at €380.92, and the assessable income is 70% of what is left. That is divided by 52 to get a weekly rate, which is rounded to €51 per week. The scheduled rate of farm assist payable in that case would be €274.60 for a farmer with an unemployed spouse and three children, less the means involved. This gives the net figure of €223.60.
Payments received under the REPS or SAC scheme are assessed separately from other farm income. The income is assessed on an annual basis: the first €2,539.48 is disregarded and the remainder is divided by two, less expenses incurred.
On means from insurable employment, the average net weekly earnings are calculated as follows: where there is one or more qualified child/children, 60% of the average net weekly earnings are assessed as weekly means; and where there are no qualified children, there is a disregard of the first €12.70 for each day worked and 60% of the remaining earnings are assessed as means.
The formula used to calculate the means from capital, that is, property, investment and savings, is the same as for other social welfare schemes where there is a disregard of the first €12,697.38. One can see from the slide that in different capital brackets there is an assessment of €1.27 per week per €1,269.74. From €25,394.76 to €38,092.14, inclusive, it is €2.54 per week per €1,269.74. Subsequently it increases to €5.08 per week per €1,269.74. That assessment applies to units of £1,000 or €1,269.74 only, and the amounts are rounded down to the nearest thousand.
Where the spouse-partner is in insurable employment, account is taken of the spouse/partner's net weekly earnings less €38.09 per week if the spouse/partner works one, two or three days per week - an extra allowance may be made for travel expenses - and €88.88 per week if the spouse-partner works four days or more per week inclusive of travel costs, and half the balance is deducted.
On increases for the spouse-partner, the full rate will be payable where the spouse-partner's gross earnings are less than or equal to €88.88. It will be reduced where the spouse-partner's gross earnings are over €88.88 and less than or equal to €210. It is not payable where the spouse-partner's gross earnings are in excess of €210.
The cash value of any other income, such as occupational pensions or income from letting of land, is assessed on a euro for euro basis.
Farm assist is not payable with a training allowance, for example, if a person is on a FÁS training course; where there is another weekly social welfare payment being made; or while a farmer is a full-time student.
The method of payment is on a weekly basis, either directly into a bank or building society account via electronic funds transfer or into the post office by means of postdraft. The secondary benefits available if one is getting farm assist may include the fuel allowance and the Christmas bonus.
On the controls of the scheme, whereas with unemployment schemes people are required to declare that they are unemployed, there are no signing arrangements for those in receipt of farm assist. However, they must make an annual declaration to the local office or branch office of payment and cases are referred for means reviews as appropriate.
Periods spent on farm assist, similar to other social welfare schemes, count towards qualification for FÁS training courses, community employment schemes, the back to work allowance and back to education programmes.
At present there are over 8,600 claims in payment. The volume is subject to changing conditions such as bad weather, the foot and mouth disease outbreak with which the committee will be familiar, the change in EU grant aid, etc. Means review can be requested at any stage if there is a downturn in business.
That is an outline of what the scheme entails. There were 8,514 persons in receipt of farm assist in 2002, and 8,380 in 2001. There were 7,874 recipients in the year the scheme was introduced. It is anticipated that there will be approximately 8,800 persons in receipt of the scheme in the current year.
I thank the officials from the Department for coming to brief us on this issue. Their visit arose out of a question I asked, not specifically on this but on the new move of 2,500 who are on farm assist on to a scheme like community employment, but I also welcome the opportunity of discussing how this scheme is run.
Mr. Burke gave us the facts and no doubt they are correct. When 40,000 farmers marched on Dublin because of the economic crisis at the time, this scheme was the major part of the resulting agreement where 20,000 farmers were to benefit. The Minister stated that the number would be 15,000. As the officials can see from their own figures, 7,000 or so benefited the first year. Of those, there are some who have changed from disability allowance and others who changed from the payment for a widow/widower because of the scheme's assessment of 70% of gross income.
The real problem I and some of my colleagues have with the scheme has nothing to do with the data given to the committee by Mr. Burke but has to do with how the scheme is operated and dealt with by individual officials of the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
For the sake of declaration, my background is in farming. I spent 23 years involved in IFA at local and national levels and I have some idea of how the system works. It was understood that this scheme would be so good that at least 15,000 farmers would enter it. I have used strong language in Dáil Éireann in the past while expressing my thoughts on how the scheme has worked out. I do not feel any differently today.
I recently came across a case in which a farmer was in dire straits. We must be careful in our phrasing in case people are recognised outside the House, but his financial situation was desperate. He was means tested for carer's allowance - because his wife was looking after his mother - and for the farm assist scheme. He received nothing under either of these schemes because the doctor decided his mother was not absolutely in need of care, although she had to be hospitalised instead. The man's income was €769 per week, but his supporters and I had to spend the last number of months reorganising his finances to try to make sure he lived and that he obtained private health care. It is impossible to find out how it was that the audited accounts which showed how things were could not be accepted in dire circumstances.
Another case was in another part of my constituency, County Cavan. A man produced the relevant figures when dealing with his farm accounts. Calves which he clearly showed were worth €100 apiece were put down as being worth €200. Things like this are inexplicable. There are so many different problems of this nature that it is unreal.
We often hear about people not divulging information who are at fault and are later caught out, but in one case a man had no hesitation in saying that he owned a derelict family property in the local village. No remarks were passed on this at the time, but when there was a revision - he was financially much worse off last year - an auctioneer's valuation was suddenly demanded. The man's farm assist allowance was cut dramatically, although the house provided no income whatsoever. Personnel from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs were helpful with their advice on how to get around this problem, but in general many obstacles are put in people's way.
Just the other week I came across a couple with a child at university, who had been cleaned out during the BSE crisis and were getting back into stock. I appreciated the co-operation these people received - they received farm assist, so they did not have to draw down on capital. The farmer ended up buying far less stock than he had hoped originally. The results of the couple's means test this year showed a sale of about €12,700, but he had not sold those animals because he needed them to continue building up his stock. The sale was there as a paper exercise.
How far do we go to help people? I want to see the scheme working. I want to see farming families allowed to keep their dignity, which is what the scheme was originally set up for. There are many other cases of which I am aware. It may be that people come to me because of my farming background, but I seem to see many people in situations such as this. It is difficult at times to see how social welfare officers can completely ignore the reality of people's income.
I appreciate the work of the Department's officers in some areas. When there was a serious problem with poultry in my county, individual farmers were assessed as having nil income. Now, mushroom units are being closed up completely. Some of these units are on sites with limited acreage. How will these be dealt with? Some of these people have been obliged to shut down overnight. I met a person last week, similar in age to myself, who genuinely intends to try to obtain employment elsewhere or from another business. He suddenly found himself in dire straits, with his bank and everybody telling him he had to close the door. Technically, he might not be eligible for farm assist because of the size of his farm, but he was a full-time farmer and has suddenly found himself with no income. He has a wife and family.
Perhaps, after I receive a reply to my questions, I might be allowed to ask another few. I welcome the representatives to the committee. I am not saying these things just to be critical but in a positive spirit. I want us to investigate how we can make this scheme work. It was intended to be helpful and progressive. The Minister, at my request and that of a few others, spent about €100,000 last year on advertising this scheme. We felt there was a need out there and the Minister, coming from Donegal, felt the same. However, there is a genuine fear and mistrust among people who are in desperate circumstances.
One man came to my office the other day for a medical card. I asked him whether he and his wife were on farm assist. He said they were not. I asked him how they were surviving and he said they were not really. One look at his circumstances showed that he was clearly eligible for farm assist. I immediately filled in a form applying for farm assist, before I dealt with the medical card issue. We need to make sure that people in rural Ireland, who are often lonely, get what they are entitled to and what they need to survive.
Mr. Burke
If Deputy Crawford requires us to examine some individual cases we will need to take the information from him. The Deputy mentioned the background to the request for us to come before the committee today. That was not made clear to us. It is envisaged that up to 2,500 persons will avail of the rural social scheme, which will be administered by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. It will be available to people who were previously in receipt of farm assist. In 2003, 1,350 people who were formerly in receipt of farm assist availed of community employment. In theory, it is open to them to apply for the rural social scheme.
The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs is putting together the nuts and bolts of that scheme at the moment, but I do not know how far they have advanced. It was envisaged in the information put into the public domain at the time that those who would transfer from community employment to farm assist would free up places on the community employment scheme. I do not know whether those places will be available only to people who come from a farming or rural background - that is a matter for FÁS and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
As the Deputy mentioned, the Minister put considerable resources into promoting and advertising the scheme in late 2002 and throughout 2003. A video was shown at local marts and there was advertising on local radio. Officials from the Department attended special information seminars which were organised by the IFA for the farming community at venues around the country. Social welfare inspectors attended those seminars to take part in a question and answer forum and to deal with people on a one-to-one basis after the presentation. There was intensive publicising of the scheme, particularly between September and December 2002 and through 2003.
The inspectorate carries out assessments on a factual basis. With us today is Mr. John Courtney, an inspector, who will give details of the assessment process. There are farmers who are in receipt of other social welfare schemes and, therefore, may not avail of the farm assist scheme. That could account for some of those who have not applied for the farm assist scheme. Where people are dissatisfied with the results of an assessment, they can appeal the decision of the deciding officer in the case.
Mr. John Courtney
I cannot comment on individual cases but I will try to give a broad outline. The case mentioned was that of a mushroom farmer who went out of business. In such a situation a sympathetic view would be taken and we would encourage him to apply for the farm assist scheme. If he has no income and his land cannot be used for profitable purposes in the foreseeable future, it is possible that a nil means assessment could apply in that case.
The problem is that he does not have acreage; he just has the mushroom site.
Mr. Courtney
That could come under the terms of the farm assist scheme. If he has gone out of mushroom farming, farm assist regulations would cover him.
The assessment of the capital value of a derelict dwelling in a town was mentioned. If an asset can be made profitable by being sold, we are required to obtain its capital value through the Valuation Office and that is considered as capital.
The valuation was divulged and there was no question about it when he applied for farm assist. It was only in the review that the demand was made. This puts people off. The person was not trying to be underhand but suddenly in the review he was asked for a valuation of a property from which he was getting no income.
This is unfair. I was a valuer myself and there is no guarantee under the current planning process that a person will get planning permission for an existing old house. Any site now is worth between €30,000 and €50,000 but a person who had that much money would not be applying for the farm assist scheme. He would be a developer.
I have found this many times. It happened to farmers applying for unemployment assistance. They would have a small bit of land with no stock because they are not farming but because they have land, its notional value is taken into account. That is wrong. I know what Mr. Courtney is saying. The land is there and it should be worked but those who find themselves in that situation do not have the resources to do so.
Mr. Courtney
I assume that when the Valuation Office comes to evaluate a property, it takes all factors into account. We are not involved in the evaluation of the property. The Valuation Office does that and we are bound by that assessment.
I was in the business. The evaluation is to assess the value of the property, not to determine planning permission. That is a matter for the owner. If I were to value a property, I would say it was worth €30,000 with the proviso that it could be sold as a site and planning permission obtained for it. I could not guarantee that because it would have to go through the planning process. That €30,000 is then put down as income but there is no guarantee it will come in. The Department should examine this.
Mr. Courtney
If the Valuation Office places a value on property that the client feels is unfair it can be appealed. It is possible that an independent appeals officer might take a different view.
There is another issue. A person who did not sell stock that was needed for replacement would see that shown as income.
Mr. Courtney
Our assessment is intended to last for three or four years and we would estimate that a person might sell stock in the coming year. It is not necessarily a profit and loss account over the course of the previous year. If we can see that the person is building up assets in the coming year, we are entitled to assess a potential income for the next 12 months.
The person must have something to live on in the meantime. If a sum of €12,190 that does not exist is transferred from the top line to the bottom, it is a farce. In many cases it is reviewed a year later. The logical thing to do, therefore, is to go back after a year and see if sales have taken place. To transfer it to the bottom line at the start of the process and say a family suddenly has that income is ridiculous.
Why not allow the situation that prevails in accounts in normal farming where some stock relief is allowed? Where the stock starts off at a low level and increases, the numbers are on hand at the end of the year. To ensure there is no miscalculation the stock relief provisions apply and there is an out-turn of what actually exists as opposed to a putative outcome.
Mr. Courtney
We look at each case individually. If a person had run into disease problems and his herd had been depopulated and he was restocking, we would take account of that. We might do a review 12 months or two years later. We would be fair.
In this case the sale of stock was €12,366. The yearly value was €12,760 because there were other bits and pieces but the estimated possible value of sale stock was €12,000 so it equalled the income he earned.
Mr. Courtney
Without knowing the details of the case, I cannot comment.
Deputy Crawford will pursue that on an individual basis.
I thank Mr. Burke for explaining the scheme so clearly. When the scheme was set up for farmers, it was to complement the family income supplement for wage earners. How does it compare with a person on family income supplement? Would he get more money than the person on farm assist? This was a bone of contention between the farmers and other workers over the years. Farm assist was introduced to remove this anomaly.
The disregard for REPS is a good idea because fencing and similar work costs money. It depends on how the person assesses the income. Does Mr. Courtney accept audited accounts and loans for purchase of quota or land? These are the things that could make all the difference because some social welfare officers are inclined to say that the main income from any farm at the moment is the grant. If one took the man's grant that would be his income because there is very little to be added to that. Even in Mr. Courtney's example he has not gone very far above the grants. The subsidy in that case was €3,850 and Mr. Courtney came up €4,700 which is not too far off. Many people would want to know if audited accounts are accepted.
Mr. Courtney
We do not take the audited accounts. In many cases they are for 2001 or possibly 2002 so they are out of date and there are items in audited accounts that we do not necessarily take such as capital allowances, or where a car might be allowed for in the audited accounts. We would look at the actual situation such as how much is the car used for farm purposes, whereas the audited accounts might allow three quarters of the full car expenses. If money is borrowed for farm purposes we do allow the interest paid on a loan.
I compared the family income supplement with this scheme.
Mr. Courtney
I understand what the Deputy is getting at. It would be different depending on the income. I do not have the statistics. I would have to make individual case comparisons.
Mr. Colm McDermott
There are differences between the two supplements. The family income supplement applies only to families with at least one child. The farm assist applies regardless of children or marital status and over 3,000 of the farm assist cases out of the total of 8,000 are single people who would not qualify for family income supplement. I do not have the numbers for the families with no children, etc. Farm assist is more flexible and general than family income supplement.
Like the Chairman I welcome the officials from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. This very important scheme arose from a decision in 1999 and it gave dignity to farmers who were not able to make a living from their holding yet did not want to have to take employment outside. It has to date put in about €70 million per annum amounting to €8,000 or €9,000 for each of those farmers. The scheme works extremely well. The level of complaint or representation is at the lowest level possible under any scheme in comparison to nursing home subventions or disability allowance for people whose spouse is working. The concept is a different and more generous method of assessment than any other scheme.
It is good to know that 3,000 single farmers are on this scheme without having to sign up for unemployment assistance or FÁS schemes and are allowed the dignity of continuing to live on their small holding. I compliment the Government decision which created the scheme and the section of the Department that operates it which does an excellent job.
A problem does arise in hardship cases in which herds are tied in on account of disease because that can have an ongoing effect. It may not always be appreciated that where there is an income available to deal with daily bills, if that income is no longer available it can have a knock on effect as regards interest rates on others. It creates a hardship that is not always appreciated. I doubt if one can get €600 or €700 for wool these days. I would love to think that kind of income was available in my part of the country but the recent price for wool scarcely pays for the shearing.
The capital assessment causes some problems and I appreciate Deputy Ring's point that it is not easy to handle. The scheme takes into consideration those many thousands of single farmers, particularly in the west, and I am glad to see that the figure is 3,000. The scheme was innovative but the Department officials might consider my points later. I hope it continues and if others can or should qualify a further advertisement would be appropriate.
The figure of 8,600 people nationally on the scheme seems low. Are people scared off by the application process and the notional income for stock? It is possible because people can be frightened when they know they are going to be assessed in a particular way. Although they do not have the money they have difficulty explaining away the situation.
Deputy Crawford referred to the mushroom industry. In County Monaghan particularly, many people have been given a one acre plot of land to build a five-house unit for mushroom or chicken farming. These industries have been coming under much pressure recently and many people will be in difficulties. Technically, farm assist does not recognise a one acre site as a farm site, although many are and a reasonable earning could be made from them.
Mr. Burke referred to the extent to which a car is needed. In rural areas, cars can be the only method of transport. It is not as if rural people can hop on a bus, as public transport often does not exist in certain rural areas. Greater allowance should be made for the fact that many of these people are living in rural areas without public transport.
It is an excellent scheme that fills a void at critical times when people's incomes are in jeopardy. It is, however, diminished by the element of taking putative income into account. I understand that it is laid down in regulations, but the committee asks the Department of Social and Family Affairs to re-examine it.
I take Mr. Courtney's point that accounts for 2001 run to 2002 and 2003 to 2004 and that the programme requires an historical review. However, that has prevailed for a long time. I recall in the 1980s that some people were behind in their farming computations. However, this is no longer the case. Most people are up-to-date in their applications for higher education grants and so forth. The situation is now less an historical review but more an actual review. For example, if I apply for farm assist in March and my accounts to the 31 December 2003 are available, then that must be the most relevant period. If not, why not when my accounts are two months old and properly audited?
Due to regulations, the Department is also involved in evaluation of animals, which forces it to become a valuer. If the Department decides the number of animals that will be sold over the next eight to 15 months, this too engages it in an exercise of valuation.
As one who has previously worked in this area, I am also amused that an applicant is not allowed a car. The maximum that would be allowed for car expenses on a farm would be about two thirds, as it is for telephone and ESB costs. An applicant is entitled to these. Even if the Department were to reduce that by one third, one gets the real value attributive to that.
Why can the Department not take the actuality of the situation as reflected in the most recent accounts which may be only two months old and allow that to be the form of means assessment? I am flabbergasted by this process. Why cannot what pertains in another Department, such as the Department of Education and Science with the higher education grant system, not pertain in the Department of Social and Family Affairs?
Mr. Burke
The Department is not in a position to review every case every year. This means the Department takes an assessment that is sustained over a period. The income from the previous year is assessed on the basis as it gives a guide as to what might happen in the coming year. However, if a situation requires a review on the part of the applicant, there is nothing to stop the applicant having a review. Deputy Finneran referred to hardship cases, but again they are open to review. With regard to intensive farming, such as the mushroom industry, it too comes within the scope of the scheme and people can apply.
Other members have referred to this as a good scheme, but it is just a scheme. There is no point in pretending that this was set up to suit the farmers. It was established to take farmers off the live register and suit the Government. Those in this scheme are not calculated in the live register returns.
Only 8,000 people have taken up the scheme because more people are leaving agriculture. Young people will no longer be depending on €80 to €130 per week from these schemes. They are taking up factory jobs where they will receive €300 to €500 per week. They are not prepared to put up with what their fathers and mothers put up with.
For the sake of the few thousand people left on the scheme, I hope the Department of Social and Family reviews it. Some social welfare officers have a great understanding of how the scheme works and stock value in the overall agricultural context. However, there are some officers who do not know the difference between wool and potatoes. Some of the calculations from the Department on stock values are more for racehorses, when they should be for yearlings. Some of the officers believe these farmers are going to Naas for the thoroughbred to be brought out when the horses are really half the value given. Overall, the officers on the ground do the best they can. I agree that if there is a difficulty, they will allow a review and an independent valuation. There is a good farmer in my area who will give me advice on stock values which I can then use to make the case with the welfare officer.
Mr. Burke spoke of the new scheme announced by the Government. It proposes 2,500 FÁS places exclusive to those on the farm assist programme. However, is it correct that they will not be able to draw benefits from both schemes?
Mr. Burke
It is not exclusive to those on farm assist but also for those on disability grants. The details of the scheme have not been worked out. However, as the Deputy has correctly pointed out, they cannot be on a FÁS and rural social scheme. It is anticipated that the people previously in receipt of farm assist who are on community employment schemes would migrate to the rural social schemes. This has to be worked out by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.
I welcome the Deputy's remarks on the inspectors' ability to deal with situations on a factual basis as presented. To that end, regular training on casework, which Mr. Courtney was involved in, is provided to the inspectorate.
There is no doubt that there is a bit of give.
I welcome the opportunity for a discussion on this issue. I hope it will be dealt with in a positive manner. There are obviously clear anomalies that have prevented sizeable numbers of people from getting into the scheme. When one looks at the numbers on the small farmers' dole before the scheme, income levels have disimproved at farm level. However, when one subtracts those who have changed from disability and widow's benefits, there has been no great increase on the farm assist scheme, which is supposed to be better. I accept that Government Deputies have to apologise for this. However, people in rural areas are genuinely worried about the assessment system and why others have not joined it. In that context, I am highlighting some of these concerns so as to have them dealt with.
I am thrilled to hear Mr. Burke saying those on disability grants will be included in the new scheme. I raised that with a number of personnel within the different Departments only a few weeks ago and could get no guidance whatsoever. I have a case of a young man with a genuine disability who does not actually own the farm. It was indicated to me that he could not join the scheme, and under the present FÁS regulations he cannot continue on a FÁS scheme. Those issues must be dealt with in a sympathetic way because a person with disabilities in a rural area in particular finds it much more difficult to find some form of employment. The FÁS scheme is extremely valuable to such people.
I thank the witnesses for coming in and welcome the opportunity to put some of these issues publicly. I emphasise that they are put in a positive manner to see if things can be improved. Lastly, I wish to refer to the comments of a former Taoiseach when he talked about the introduction of farm accounts many years ago. He was then Minister for Agriculture, and I sat at a meeting in which he said that there was no problem in producing audited accounts. I am extremely angry that people at this sort of level actually go to the trouble of producing audited accounts. In this day and age, things are hopefully a lot more genuine - and maybe they were at the time the statement was made - and they cannot be accepted as a genuine indicator of where that farm is going. They give an historical background of maybe one, two or three years, but they are accepted for many other purposes.
The last time I looked it up there were 16 different assessments, one for medical cards, one for education grants and others for God only knows what. We are discussing today how we should be able to use a single registration for a birth or death certificate without having to get one for every Department. We must take facts as they are on the ground and where farmers are in dire situations I would hope that a more sympathetic view would be taken.
I thank all the members of the Department of Social and Family Affairs - Leonard Burke, Maeve Farrell, Colm McDermott and John Courtney - for coming here and participating so fully and answering some searching questions from my colleagues. We have certainly gained a valuable insight, and we appreciate the presentation and its format. It is very useful for all the committee members. The level of interaction with the members indicates that it is a scheme that attracts a significant degree of tension and has a significant degree of importance in rural areas in particular. Hopefully the witnesses have taken account of some of the points made. We know the position they are in, but hopefully they might take those views back. We thank the witnesses and the members for their contributions and we look forward to having the witnesses here again in the near future to elucidate the intricacies of some of the schemes.
Mr. Burke
Before I go, Chairman, I should have got back to the capital assessment earlier. That is across all means-tested schemes, so from an equity point of view one would be looking at removing that from all schemes.
I think we know the import of that.
The joint committee went into private session and adjourned at 3.15 p.m. sine die.