Cecilia Keaveney
Ceist:8 Cecilia Keaveney asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs his views on the current level of uptake for the farm assist scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14554/01]
Other Questions. - Social Welfare Benefits.
Cecilia Keaveney
Ceist:14 Cecilia Keaveney asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the numbers availing of and the amount of funding involved in the farm assist scheme in each year that it has been in operation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14555/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 14 and together.
The farm assist scheme, which introduced the special arrangements for farmers on low incomes, came into operation with effect from 7 April 1999. Prior to this, farmers could receive unemployment assistance, generally referred to as "smallholder's UA". Naturally, it took some time for existing recipients of smallholder's UA to apply for farm assist and be reassessed under the new scheme. For this reason, in order for trends in numbers and expenditure to be meaningful it is necessary to look at the combined numbers for farm assist and smallholder's UA, rather than at farm assist in isolation.
At the end of 1999, there were 7,874 recipients of farm assist-smallholder's UA, of whom 750 continued to receive smallholder's UA. By the end of 2000, the combined numbers had increased to 8,051, of whom only 163 remained on smallholder's UA. Total expenditure on the two schemes was £29.8 million in 1999 and £34 million in 2000.
On 18 May, there was a total of 7,994 farm assist claims in payment, of which 4,700 are former recipients of smallholder's UA who currently receive an average payment of approximately £102 per week. New applicants to farm assist are receiving an average payment of approximately £84 per week. A residue of 128 claimants are still in receipt of smallholder's UA pending completion of reviews of their entitlements.
Arising from improvements I made to the scheme in the Social Welfare Act, 2000, income, including any off-farm self-employment income, is assessed at 70% for the purposes of the means test. In addition, £200 is disregarded for each of the first two children and £300 for each subsequent child in families. There are also changes to the way capital is assessed, with the first £10,000 capital held by the claimant disregarded and the balance treated more favourably than heretofore. These improvements, which apply from last October, were further enhanced following the implementation of the recent budget increases in April. The effect of these changes is that it is now easier for farmers to qualify for support under the scheme.
As regards the level of uptake to date, it should be borne in mind that the numbers receiving smallholder's UA had for various reasons declined from 9,900 in 1995 to 6,600 in 1998, that is, by more than 1,000 per year. As it seems likely that this decline would have continued, the 8,000 now receiving payment reflects a significant reversal of the trend in numbers who benefit from support. The scheme clearly makes a valuable contribution to supporting those at the lower end of the farm income spectrum, particularly those with children.
Will the Minister confirm that the initial uptake of farm assist was particularly slow? We understand the need to be careful with the details of people's income and so forth but part of the reason people refrain from taking up farm assist is the complications involved in applying. It is in the interest of farmers to apply for the scheme but they are prevented from doing so by the amount of red tape. Although farmers would prefer not to be on farm assist, the difficulties this year have led to many experiencing the treadmill of applying for it. They are finding it so difficult that they are asking the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to consider alternatives that would ensure quick release of assistance to those in desperate trouble. They cannot sell their animals and have no income but are finding it almost impossible to receive farm assist.
It is true that uptake of the scheme was slow. This is one of the reasons we went to great trouble to advertise it and exhort farmers to apply. Farm assist yielded an average increase of £28 per week for farmers, compared to smallholder's UA, a substantial increase. The money spent on the scheme has increased from £30 million in 1999 to approximately £40 million this year.
With regard to red tape, it is no different from that which applied to smallholder's UA. It might be the case that some farmers who are not used to claiming social welfare are reluctant to give figures but these are the figures they would have to give in relation to their income tax returns. I have implemented the changes requested under the PPF. The farmers' assocations asked for changes in the farm assist scheme which were implemented in the first budget under the PPF.
Given the difficulties this year, particularly with foot and mouth disease, will the Minister give a commitment that he will discuss the matter with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to see if an interim measure can be implemented to get people back on their feet or keep them on their feet? It has been suggested that it might be made easier for people to get onto the farm assist scheme. Even if it were reviewed in three or six months, it would get them over the hump. Perhaps the Minister would discuss the concept of a soft loan with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.
The people to whom I am referring do not want to be on farm assist but are suffering due to the current difficulties with foot and mouth disease. The Minister's county has experienced these difficulties. My constituency is involved mainly in beef and sheep production. As the marts are not open, people cannot secure an income. We need to address the immediate problem of farm incomes but I do not know what support is available for farmers to get through the red tape of providing all their details.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Why was there a slow uptake, given that the scheme was introduced to rescue farmers on low incomes? Why is it still not being taken up in view of the dire problems in farming? Is it more than red tape? What about the commitments given about basic income being ignored in the case of BSE and so forth? Is there something wrong with the administration of the scheme? What is the net increase in the number of farmers on the scheme, excluding those who were on smallholder's UA, lone parent's payments and so forth? Many of them switched over from other schemes.
The average weekly increase is £28.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): No, the number of farmers.
It is hard to say. The number was decreasing. In 1998, the figure was approximately 6,600. It is now 8,000. There has, therefore, been a reasonably dramatic increase. The figure was reducing in the years before that but is now increasing.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): It was introduced when they were in dire trouble. There must be something wrong.
There is an element of red tape in all social welfare schemes. Obviously, an official will have to examine the applicant's situation before they decide a claim. In relation to the foot and mouth problem, changes were made in the assessment because of the difficulties farmers were experiencing. However, as I explained to the farming organisations when the scheme was originally negotiated, the social welfare system will never replace farm income. Every scheme in social welfare is a safety net for those who fall below a certain level of income.
Will the Minister discuss the matter with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development?
Obviously, we will discuss these issues in relation to budgetary matters. However, it should not be thought that the scheme will be revamped. Ultimately, it is for those with extremely low incomes.
Paul Bradford
Ceist:9 Mr. Bradford asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs his plans to amend existing arrangements for payments of supplementary welfare allowance to asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15153/01]
The main objective of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme is to make up the difference between a person's means, whether in cash or in kind, and their needs. Where a person has access to some resources in kind or in cash, through the social welfare system or otherwise, the relevant legislation requires that this be taken into account in determining entitlement to supplementary welfare allowance. This occurs in the case of asylum seekers who arrived since 10 April 2000. They are provided with full board accommodation, including all meals and other services, under the system of direct provision operated by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In such cases the recommended weekly allowance is £15 per adult and £7.50 per child to provide for personal requisites. Furthermore, where there are other reasonable expenses, exceptional needs payments are made by health boards.
I have established a working group comprising representatives from relevant Departments to examine certain issues related to the assessment of need for supplementary welfare allowance purposes. The terms of reference of the working group are to review the existing arrangements for the payment of basic weekly supplementary welfare allowance to those who have means other than cash to partly meet their basic needs; to review the circumstances in which those claiming supplementary welfare allowance rent supplement are refused on the grounds that they are not in need of accommodation; to consult with interested parties and to make appropriate recommendations.
Membership of the working group consists of nominees of the health boards, the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of the Environment and Local Government in addition to representatives of my Department, which is chairing the group. I understand the group will report its findings and recommendations to me shortly. With regard to asylum seekers who entered the country before the introduction of direct provision in April 2000, they will continue to receive full rate basic supplementary welfare allowance and rent supplements as appropriate.
Mr. Hayes
Does the Minister believe it is acceptable that asylum seekers in this State awaiting determination of their applications are in receipt of a weekly payment based upon a payment provided to people in institutional care, a fact which was admitted at a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs? Does he accept that by excluding from SWA asylum seekers who arrived here after the date outlined, he is in breach of the Social Welfare Act, 1993, which obliges the State to cover everyone, including refugees and asylum seekers, in order that people may be provided with a sufficiency of means to meet their needs?
I do not accept that asylum seekers are excluded from receiving SWA. They are in receipt of SWA. Account is taken of the fact that such people are in receipt of full board and accommodation. The yardstick used by officials in determining the amount of add-on money for normal requisites was based on other analogous situations such as that referred to by the Deputy. Arising from public comment and representations to the Department on this matter, I decided to establish a working group to consider this issue which is new territory for us. I remind the Deputy that all asylum seekers with families are entitled to very substantial child benefit payments, which from next month will incorporate the increases provided in the recent budget.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The impression has been conveyed recently that the Department of Finance controls the Department of Health and Children and it now appears that the Department of Health and Children controls the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. At £15 per week or £2 per day, the level of smoking and drinking among asylum seekers will certainly be curtailed.
I thought the Deputy would favour that.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I hope the review group will be realistic. It is absurd to offer a sum of £15 to any adult who wishes to do something with his or her time other than kick stones around the street.
The £15 figure was set in April of last year and I accept that it should be reassessed. We must bear in mind that asylum seekers are in receipt of full board and accommodation from the State. I have requested the speedy production of the report so that we can re-examine this matter.
I understand that since the introduction of the direct provision, at least 500 minors have entered the State, many of whom are attending school full time. Given the constant proclamations of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment on ongoing labour shortages, even in light of the revised downward growth rates, does the Minister intend to consider allowing people awaiting determination of their applications to work in the economy? Some 18,000 work permits have been issued this year to date and many other asylum seekers are also very anxious to work. In light of the overall level of social welfare provision and the work of the current benchmarking committee, income levels are appalling in many respects but £15 is a derisory amount.
The issue the Deputy raises, which relates to income adequacy, is not within my remit but it has been considered by the Cabinet sub-committee dealing with this area. I do not have the exact figure in regard to SWA payments for asylum seekers but, combined with the costs incurred by taxpayers in regard to the provision of accommodation, the overall costs in this area, which were not in the system three or four years ago, are significant.
Mr. Hayes
Will the Minister give us a commitment that he will increase the provision prior to or at the next budget on receipt of the working group's report?
I cannot give any commitment at this stage to increase the payment. These recommendations were implemented unilaterally in April last year from the then budget. We will consider the report of the working group on its production.