Michael Finucane
Ceist:15 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will undertake to end the practice of including an own produce element in assessment of income for farmers.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Farm Income Assessment.
Michael P. Kitt
Ceist:37 Mr. M. Kitt asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in the assessment of smallholders for unemployment, the category of own produce consumed will be abolished.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 37 together.
The law relating to means assessment requires that an applicant be assessed with the "yearly value of any advantage from the use of property". Where the property is a farm, big or small, the "yearly advantage" is basically the gross income for the year less the cost of inputs and overheads. In addition account is taken of farm produce consumed, but the sum assessed is usually small and well below market value. Smallholders with access to own supply of turf or vegetables are considered to be in a somewhat better position than claimants living in urban areas and who have to buy these items at market value. The legislation provides for the assessment of this advantage. I am however, looking at the means testing arrangements generally to see what improvements can be made within the constraints of available resources.
The Minister will probably agree that this home produce consumed goes back into the antiquities of time when the social welfare officer went out and counted the chickens and quantified the amount of eggs etc. This, however, has no relevance to the present day and is an unfair form of discrimination against small farmers who may not have a vegetable patch. Likewise, the criteria does not apply to a person in a town who may have a garden and be drawing unemployment assistance. The Minister states the amount as small, often from £100 to £300 a year in value. It might appear large to the farmer——
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy. I am anxious to help him if he will help me.
I would ask the Minister to move rapidly in regard to means assessment and rub out this aspect because it is no longer relevant.
I am informed that chickens are not counted.
The eggs.
The items covered are turf, milk, potatoes and other vegetables and it is the yearly value of these that is taken into consideration. The Deputy asked about the amount of assessment. It is between £50 and £200. It is a matter which I have under consideration.
Would the Minister not agree that there is an inconsistency as to what constitutes home produce consumed? He refers to turf, milk and vegetables. Does the Minister not think it unfair that these products are taken into consideration in the assessment of smallholders but not in the case of a person who, for example, buys a wine making kit and makes wine for his own use or a person who produces honey for his own use?
I appreciate that there are inequities. I would remind Deputies that it has been in the legislation since time immemorial. I am conscious of what the Deputies are saying but all of these things have financial consequences. I will certainly look at the means testing generally to see what can be done.
In regard to a person's savings in the context of means tests, money in excess of £400 is reckoned to be valued as income to the person at a rate of 10 per cent. Could the Minister indicate to the House where a poor person would get a return of 10 per cent on an investment at this stage and why is that figure taken into account?
That has been the basis of assessment for a long time and it is a separate question. The question relates to produce. These are very specific questions put down by rural Deputies who know exactly what they are talking about and are specifying exactly what is involved. They want me to give some sort of commitment here and I have gone as far as I can by saying that I am sympathetic to them and that I am looking at this question.
The other question is a more major one and perhaps we can discuss it on another day.
I welcome the Minister's assurance that he is looking seriously at the possibility of eliminating this outmoded form of assessment which, after all, has been operated very arbitrarily by social welfare officers. In some cases there is nothing put down in respect of home produce; in other cases it can be between £300 and £500. I also welcome the Minister's assurance that he is looking at the whole question of assessment. Is he doing this in the context of introducing a single assessment, because we have a situation whereby the Minister's officials can arrive at an income determination for an applicant for unemployment assistance of, say, £60 and in the same week a community welfare officer could come up with a completely different figure varying by as much as £30 or £40 in relation to medical card entitlement?
I am certainly considering simplifying the means test as far as possible. The difficulty that arises with some of these things is that special extras are allowed in certain cases. For instance there are special allowances for the elderly in regard to savings that do not apply to people who are regarded as able-bodied and active etc. There are some differences there. The other aspect is the question of computerisation and linking of these things. Once they are linked together one can then work a lot more on the same test. I am trying to do as much of that as I can and I believe we will make a good deal of progress on it.