Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 30 June 2016
6. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Social Protection his plans to reverse the cuts imposed on the payments made to persons by the previous Government under the farm assist scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18706/16]
View answer9. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Social Protection when he will review the farm assist scheme as promised in the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18711/16]
View answer19. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Social Protection if he is aware that changes to the farm assist scheme introduced in budgets 2012 and 2013 have had a very negative effect on many low-income farmers; if he will reverse these measures at an early date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18712/16]
View answerUnder the farm assist scheme, a scheme to help small farmers to make a viable living, for every euro earned on the farm €1 is taken from the payment, which takes away any incentive to farm profitably. Is it the Minister's intention to reverse the cuts to the scheme and go back to the situation where farmers got to keep some of the fruits of their labour?
With the permission of the Acting Chairman, I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 9 and 19 together.
The farm assist scheme provides income support for farmers on low incomes and is similar to jobseeker's allowance. Farm assist recipients retain the advantages of the jobseeker's allowance scheme such as the retention of secondary benefits and access to activation programmes. The 2016 Revised Estimates for my Department provide for expenditure of €85 million per year on the farm assist scheme.
Changes introduced in budgets 2012 and 2013 brought the farm assist scheme into closer alignment with the jobseeker's allowance scheme's treatment of self-employed people. Farming families with the lowest incomes were the least impacted by these changes as the headline rates of farm assist were maintained.
Farm assist customers continue to receive more beneficial treatment than other self-employed persons as payments received under the agri-environment options scheme, the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, and the National Parks and Wildlife Service farm plan scheme are assessed separately from other farm income. Farm assist remains a flexible payment and any farmer experiencing lower levels of income or cashflow issues due, for example, to bad weather can ask his or her local Intreo office to review the level of means applying to his or her claim.
The programme for Government contains a commitment to undertake a review of the farm assist scheme, recognising the challenges facing farmers on low incomes. I have asked my officials to review the farm assist scheme from a policy and administrative point of view. This review has commenced and its recommendations will be considered in the context of the budget for 2017, subject to the overall budgetary context. I would very much welcome the views of the Deputy and his party on what changes might be made.
I accept the point the Minister makes about other self-employed persons, but they should have become more like those on the farm assist scheme rather than having a 100% penalty on income earned if one is poor. As I was beginning to despair that the Minister would just read out the standard answer we get to these questions, it is welcome that he is reviewing the scheme. Is he willing to attend the Oireachtas committee dealing with rural development to discuss this major rural issue in order that we can consider in detail the ramifications of the policy decision made? Are farmers getting any relief under the farm assist scheme by virtue of being on the NPWS scheme? As that scheme is not in operation, the Minister's officials have been gilding the lily a little in suggesting that there are any significant advantages for a farmer. Yes, farmers on the GLAS scheme are getting a small advantage, but it is minimal.
I welcome the review committed to by the Minister. In case it takes a long time, however, a good initial step would be to reverse the decisions made in budgets 2012 and 2013 to abolish the disregards. I ask the Minister to implement that with immediate effect. The farming community across all sectors of farming, be it dairy, beef, poultry, pigmeat or whatever, are facing a very serious income crisis which has been ongoing for some time. Many small-scale farmers who come to our clinics and are in touch with us weekly have practically no income at present and are in very serious circumstances. They are very anxious to see the farm assist payment brought back at least to the 2011 level because at the time there was a basic income supplement through farm assist that is not available at present. This year has been one of the most difficult for the farming community in many years, and there is a real crisis, particularly among the smaller-scale producers but also the medium and larger producers also. Farm assist can help out the smaller-scale farmers about whom I am very concerned. I appeal to the Minister to deal with this with urgency and reverse the changes made in budgets 2012 and 2013.
It is a genuine review and a programme for Government commitment and it has just commenced. I do not expect it to take too long because I would like to have options costed and ready for the budget discussions. Any change will, however, require primary legislation; therefore, it will be next year at the earliest before they come into force.
I take Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív's point about the 100% penalty, not just for people on farm assist, but also for self-employed people in general. It is a 100% disincentive effect. I am due to meet the IFA next week to hear its views on this. I am also trying to schedule a meeting with the Irish Creamery Milk Supplier Association, ICMSA, and my officials in the west and north west, who would be most used to dealing with this scheme on a practical basis, are being asked their views as to how it might be improved.
I would be happy to attend the rural development committee with my officials. It is a case of scheduling a meeting; therefore, if the Deputy wishes to contact my office, we will try to get that done. I would be interested to hear the views of the committee. The Deputy is right about the NPWS scheme but there is an older scheme that it replaces which is still there in some way.
Regarding Deputy Brendan Smith's comments, we strongly encourage anyone whose income is substantially down, who has fallen on hard times or who is in trouble to go to their local welfare or Intreo office because, even if they are not entitled to farm assist, they may be entitled to something else if they have no income at all. They may be entitled to the basic supplementary welfare allowance, BASI, for example; therefore, I certainly encourage them to engage with their community welfare officer or their welfare office if their income is minimal or gone for whatever reason.
Is the Minister willing to consult with the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, which, for a small organisation, probably represents a disproportionate number of farmers on the farm assist scheme? Further, when he reviews the farm assist scheme and the means test, could he also consider the rural social scheme in tandem with it? This scheme was also subject to a very regressive means test decisions taken by his predecessor, who seemed to have a dislike for farmers for some reason. Will he review that as part of this package? It needs to be reviewed because in many cases, particularly couples with children, people are working 19 hours per week for the princely sum of €22, which is €1 extra an hour.
I thank the Deputy.
Finally, does the Minister agree that there is a perception that farmers in some way can hide their income but that the reality is totally different? His Department-----
I thank the Deputy.
I have 55 seconds on the clock.
That is to be shared with Deputy Brendan Smith.
I apologise. The Department owes exactly the income from the grants because it gets the statement from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The Department of Social Protection also knows how much stock was sold because of the animal identification system, AIMS, which is under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine; therefore, the Department knows exactly what a farmer's income is. More likely than not, farmers forget about the expenses-----
The Deputy will have one more opportunity to contribute further.
I endorse the comments of my colleague, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, on the rural social scheme. If there were more places on it, it would be of great benefit to many individuals and communities because excellent work is carried out on the scheme and Tús also. These are areas where devoting a small amount of additional resources would enable so many more people to participate on the schemes, bring so many benefits to local communities and support the work of so many good, active community voluntary groups that carry out a very valuable service throughout the country. They provide a service that at times the State should provide.
I would welcome input from Natura and its views on the reforms. I am not familiar with the organisation, but I welcome its input. I am not sure I will be able to personally meet everyone but my officials certainly will. I would be very happy to attend the committee and hear the Deputy's views.
Regarding the rural social scheme, in fairness to my predecessor, it is not fair to say she was anti-farmer-----
The farmers would not think so.
She was a member of the Labour Party.
Anything done to the rural social scheme, in terms of additional money received, would have to have regard to additional money received for a CE placement, for example. Farmers should be not be treated less favourably than people living in the cities, but I do not see why people in cities should be treated less favourably either. Any changes made to the rural social scheme would therefore have to take account of what is being done with CE, Tús and Gateway schemes also. As I stated, this is under active review and I want to have options for the budget. It may not be possible to reverse everything done in 2012 and 2013. However, I would like to have a steer from the committee and others as to which of the measures introduced would be the best to reverse and would make the most difference for farmers on marginal land with small holdings who are struggling to make ends meet.
We always hear the mantra that if we tax very wealthy people over 50%, the incentive is removed. Does the Minister accept that the same principle must apply, even more so, when we means test over 50%? When we means test at 100%, which has been the tradition in the Department, we remove all incentive. We recognise this in other schemes where we means test at 50%. Does the Minister accept that, across the board, means testing at 100% or 70% flies in the face of what economists always tells us applies to taxpayers, that if one takes more than 50% of people's earnings away from them, they lose incentive?
I accept the Deputy's point about the disincentive effect. People will not try to earn another €50 per week off farm or doing something else if the €50 will be deducted from their payments. However, the Deputy, as somebody who held my office in the past, will understand any change has knock-on effects on everything else and, when one has limited budgets, to fund changing the 100% to 70% or 80%, one might have to reduce the qualifying figure for the means test. One must examine these matters in the round and assess what any change would cost and how it might impact on the scheme and on other schemes. The Deputy's basic point is common sense. While I do not want to predetermine the outcome of the review, one of the things I am minded to do is to decrease the 100%.
The Minister is moving in the right direction.
Others say it would not be the most effective action, and that the most effective action would be to increase the disregards for children. The consultation process will be about this.
