Vol. 497 No. 2
31 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will apply the family income supplement to the self-employed sector in view of the ongoing major financial crisis within the farming sector. [19989/98]
59 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the cost of extending family income to farmers and the self-employed; the number of farmers who have applied for and received supplementary welfare allowance and special needs payments since 1 August 1998; the amount paid in these payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24606/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 31 and 59 together.
The family income supplement — FIS — scheme is designed to provide an incentive for low paid workers with families to take up or remain in full-time employment. My Department has now completed revised Estimates of the cost of extending family income supplement to the self-employed which indicate that such a measure would cost between £70 million and £80 million. This cost is based on a substantial take-up and would be in addition to the existing expenditure of some £43 million under the unemployment assistance scheme paid to self-employed people, including smallholders, on low incomes.
Deputies will be aware that under existing arrangements, self-employed people, including smallholders, whose income falls below the rate of unemployment assistance — UA — appropriate to their family circumstances are entitled to claim UA. In the context of the difficulties facing farmers affected by the recent bad season, a number of initiatives are being introduced to increase access to the scheme by low income farmers. For instance, farmers already on the scheme are being encouraged to come forward for re-assessment of means; efforts are being made to increase awareness of the scheme and to emphasise its applicability to farmers and in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and Food, the means assessment procedure is being reviewed to ensure it takes full account of the recent deterioration in farm incomes. I understand, however, that there has not been an upsurge in new claims or in requests for reassessments in recent weeks.
Deputies will be aware that I have met with representatives of farming organisations to explore the potential within the social welfare system of providing additional income support to farmers on low incomes. Any proposals emerging from this process will have to be considered in a budgetary context.
The number of farmers who have applied for and received supplementary welfare allowance and special needs payments since 1 August 1998 is 12, at a total cost to date of £1,586.
Previously when I asked this question I was told that what I am suggesting could not be done because of budgetary implications, a point of view which is seemingly reinforced by the figure of between £70 million and £80 million mentioned in the Minister's reply. The Government is not willing to put up the money. I have no wish to grant FIS to all farmers — it would have to be means assessed so that only those deserving it would receive it. Does the Minister agree that the unavailability to people, who are self-employed and whose incomes are exceptionally low, of an allowance which is available to everybody else constitutes major discrimination? Will the Minister see to it that the discrimination is eliminated?
In relation to farmers on extremely low income, there is a scheme, namely, the smallholders' dole, which is not available to other sections of the community, under which between 7,000 and 8,000 farmers receive £33 million from my Department. FIS was put in place for good reason, to assist low income employees, and it has been significantly changed over the years. It is important to note that extension of FIS was not a commitment in Partnership 2000, although the issue of whether FIS should be extended to the self-employed was discussed. As a result of the difficulties farmers have faced in recent months I have spent quite considerable time examining the issue, meeting with the farming organisations and fleshing out the difficulties in the system. It is important to point out that 86 per cent of the 900,000 people in receipt of payments every week receive less than £100. It is worth bearing in mind that a significant number of people on low incomes have no opportunity to top up that income as the self-employed have in some cases. I can put it no better than my predecessor, Deputy De Rossa, who said when questioned on this that it would be very difficult to police an extension of the family income supplement to the self-employed. That is probably one of the reasons it was not extended over the years.
I am looking at mechanisms to see whether there is any way in which we can assist low income farm families who are experiencing difficulties. As a result of the difficulties about six weeks ago, my Department exhorted all those farmers who were in difficulties to make application to have their circumstances reviewed or to make a new application for small farmers' dole. Some 24 applications have been received to date from 1 September 1998, 20 of which have been successful. The average time taken to process applications from registration to first payment was 19.5 days.
I have put on record a number of times my grave reservations about extending FIS to the self-employed, whether farmers or others, and I do not propose to change my position because I happen to be in Opposition. In looking at other options to assist farmers who are genuinely in need as a result of low income, will the Minister ensure any changes he may make to the unemployment assistance scheme will apply equally to all families and not only to self-employed families?
Deputy De Rossa is aware that changes made in one area can cause discrepancies which may not have been anticipated. That is one of the reasons we are looking closely at the situation represented to us in relation to low income farm families.
Have the Minister or his officials looked at the tax and welfare integration group report and how anomalies between tax and welfare could be ironed out? The group recommended that we examine the introduction of an integrated work-benefit. Has any work been done in his Department on that matter?
That report is being looked at in the context of the present deliberations.
Will the Minister accept that the small farmers' assistance route is not the answer to the problem of the self-employed, particularly farmers, given that only 24 new applications have been received since the scheme was advertised in September? The figures speak for themselves. Will the Minister accept that under the social welfare assistance programme a husband, wife and child on an income of £120 per week can top up their income by a total of only £4.90 per week, whereas under the family income supplement the top up would be £52.30 per week? On that basis will he agree there is a major anomaly and discrimination against low income self-employed? Will he accept there is an unanswerable case for the extension of the family income supplement to the self-employed?
If there is an unanswerable case why did the Deputy not use his influence when in Government to extend FIS as had been requested by the farming organisations and his own political party? Obviously he did not have influence in Government and that may have something to do with the fact that my predecessor was Deputy De Rossa.
As to the reason only 24 people made application since 1 September for smallholders' dole, given that it was publicised and people were free to apply, the Deputy may say the scheme is not significant. Others would interpret it as indicating that the situation is not as bad as made out to be. I am not saying that but it is an interpretation that could be taken from the fact that only 24 people have applied. I suggest to any farmers that the quickest way to obtain any social welfare assistance is through the smallholders' dole as constituted for farmers on extremely low incomes. The Government is sympathetic to cyclical difficulties. The extension of FIS, particularly for the self-employed and farmers, would create a difficulty where the assessment of income would be set for 52 weeks of the year. This is not the situation in farming where there are some very good and some very bad months. FIS is not designed for that type of cyclical work. The Government is looking at whatever mechanisms are available but is conscious of knock-on effects in other areas.
Did the Minister examine the credit scheme in operation for farmers in Northern Ireland?
Do I understand the Minister is looking at a scheme, other than FIS or the small farmers' dole, specifically for farm families and, if so, will he tell us about it?
Did the Minister say he had already advised his social welfare officers to take into account the decrease in farm incomes? Certainly that is not the information I have from those who have been reassessed. I came across a case recently where a payment was reduced from £45 to £28 for a person whose wife is handicapped. There was no realisation of the drop in income in that assessment. It is not sympathy but money farmers will need before Christmas.
Perhaps Deputy Crawford would supply the details of the case. My information is that 24 applications were received, 20 of which are now in payment.
What about reassessment? Are people being called in?
The criteria for assessment are contained in legislation which has been amended over the years. If the event of falling income, social welfare inspectors would have to take that into account despite the fact that we would be unable, in the absence of legislation, to change the criteria of assessment. In relation to Deputy Moynihan-Cronin's question, I have stated in the House and outside that we are looking at the options available. Everything we look at will have to be decided in a budgetary context. In reply to Deputy Brady, I thank him and other Fianna Fáil Deputies who took the time to go to Northern Ireland to see how the equivalent scheme works there. I thank them for their information, though my Department was already aware of it, as was I. As I said earlier, the family credit system in the North is being changed to a tax credit system, so it is not exactly analogous to the situation here.
