Vol. 561 No. 6
4 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of people who were in receipt of farm assist prior to the recent press campaign encouraging people to apply for farm assist; the number of additional people who qualified for farm assist following the campaign; the number of people who were in receipt of farm assist in 2002; the number of people who were assessed for farm assist in 2002; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5045/03]
The focus of my Department's recent publicity campaign in relation to the farm assist scheme was a promotional video which describes who may benefit under the farm assist scheme, how to apply and how means are calculated. It also gave practical examples of farming families who have qualified for a payment under the scheme. The publicity campaign ran from September to the end of December last year.
At the week ending 15 June 2002, there were 8,345 farmers receiving a farm assist payment. At the week ending 7 February 2003, there were 8,547 farmers receiving a farm assist payment. In the first seven months of 2002, from 1 January to 26 July, 734 claims for farm assist were registered. In the 12 week period from the week ending 28 July 2002 to the week ending 18 October 2002, 493 applications for the scheme were made. This indicates a marked increase in the rate of farm assist scheme applications in the period immediately following the publicity campaign.
In 2002 a total of 2,804 farm assist customers had their means reviewed. I appreciate the difficulties that farmers and their families are currently encountering. My Department recognises these difficulties and takes account of any loss of income or any additional costs incurred due to adverse weather conditions.
The farm assist scheme is a practical response by my Department to the circumstances of low income farmers and represents a long-term safety net for many of them. The increased take-up of farm assist, as indicated, shows that increasing numbers of farmers are benefiting from the scheme. Details of farm assist claims for each of the months from January 2002 are set out in a table which I propose to have circulated in the Official Report.
Additional information
Farm assist claims in payment January 2002 to January 2003.
|
Week Ending |
Number of Claims |
|
25 January 2002 |
8,309 |
|
22 February 2002 |
8,338 |
|
29 March 2002 |
8,347 |
|
26 April 2002 |
8,367 |
|
31 May 2002 |
8,385 |
|
28 June 2002 |
8,331 |
|
26 July 2002 |
8,358 |
|
30 August 2002 |
8,359 |
|
27 September 2002 |
8,358 |
|
25 October 2002 |
8,417 |
|
29 November 2002 |
8,438 |
|
26 December 2002 |
8,498 |
|
31 January 2003 |
8,529 |
I am aware the Minister did not introduce this farcical scheme, as I have often described it here. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Woods, recently stated that the expected uptake of the scheme was 15,000 and he was disappointed that fewer than 8,500 farmers had applied. Now that we have exceeded that figure by 47, we have made significant headway.
How many farm families have an income of €13,000 per year, the figure stated by the Minister for Agriculture and Food on television during the tractor cavalcade? Does she accept that other self-employed people are also entitled to some form of income supplement and that such people, whether farmers or other self-employed people, should be entitled to family income supplement as opposed to this farcical scheme?
Let us consider the announcement by the Taoiseach of 1,500 new jobs in Tesco. Can the Minister advise me of the number of small shopkeepers who will be put out of business as a result? Family income supplement could be very beneficial to those families.
The Minister spent €100,000 on advertisements, and I appreciate she looked well in them but according to her own figures, of the 2,000 people who applied to have their cases revised, 723 got an increase on 23 January while 1,104 were subject to a decrease. That was after the most severe weather we have experienced in many years. The personnel in the Minister's Department were supposed to be sympathetic but proof of sympathy comes in the form of euro. This scheme, and the Minister's advertisement campaign, do not appear to have delivered those euro. I ask the Minister again to examine the possibility of changing from the farm assist scheme to family income supplement for all those self-employed people who are entitled to it.
The Deputy asked about those receiving the €13,000 or more per annum. Under the farm assist scheme, 554 farmers are currently receiving €250 per week. There is a scale avail able but in the main, the majority of people get between €100 and €149 per week.
That is a long way off €13,000.
I indicated there was an increase following the campaign. I advised the deciding officers that I would accept the current income for the purposes of taking into consideration the weather problem we experienced. As the Deputy is aware, this would have been taken over from the small holders. In the context of appreciating farming and the way in which the means test is done, farm assist is a better scheme because the disregard is much better than that in many other schemes. It has created its own contentions also in that 70% of the self-employed income is taken into account for means test purposes. That is the largest disregard in the Department. There are also disregards for children, which is not necessarily the case in many of the other schemes, from €126.97 to €253 for the first two children and €253 to €380 for subsequent children. The scheme is favourably targeted at farm families and there has been a greater appreciation of the types of income and the disregards. I would not agree to the change to the family income supplement scheme because that is based on a certain type of work and hours employees do, which is difficult to quantify.
Question No. 5.
The Deputy will agree that farming is a 24 hour occupation and it would be very difficult to quantify it.
Farm income supplement would still be better.
I still believe that farm assist is better for farm families.
Why was there a decrease rather than an increase?
There has been an increase from 8,345 to 8,547 at the end of this month.
I ask the Minister to take Question No. 5.
But not in euro.
In families, which is more important.
5 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of rent allowance and mortgage interest payment recipients who will have their rent allowance or mortgage interest payments reduced as a result of the introduction of the new prescribed minimum contribution applicable to rent and mortgage supplements; the underlying principles behind the aforesaid measure; if the said proposal and subsequent decision was subject to poverty-proofing in accordance with the NAPS; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4851/03]
The supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which is administered by the health boards, provides for the payment of a weekly or monthly supplement in respect of rent or mortgage interest to any person in the State whose means are insufficient to meet his or her needs.
Rent and mortgage interest supplements are subject to a means test and are normally calculated to ensure that a person, after the payment of rent or mortgage interest, has an income equal to the rate of supplementary welfare allowance appropriate to his or her family circumstances, less a minimum contribution which recipients are required to pay from their own resources.
When last set in 1994, the rate of the contribution represented approximately 10% of the minimum social welfare weekly payment rate. In November, I announced my intention to restore the minimum contribution to an equivalent level.
In this regard I introduced regulations which provided for an increase in the minimum contribution from €7.62 to €12 per week which represents 9.6% of the current minimum social welfare weekly payment rate. Some 50,000 households in receipt of rent and mortgage interest supplement payments are affected by this measure.
Any increase in the level of the minimum contribution has an impact on the net income of people affected. The recent increase, however, merely restores the relationship which existed previously and I am satisfied that this relationship is reasonable.
In addition, this year's budget provided for an increase from €10 to €23 in the amount of income from a social welfare pension that can be disregarded in the rent supplement means test for pensioners aged 65 or over. In some cases this increased disregard is more than sufficient to cover the increase in the income levels of many older people on pensions, which will result in people actually receiving a higher rate of supplement as well as maintaining their budgetary increases.
The budget and Estimates process has regard for poverty proofing under the national antipoverty strategy.
Will the Minister accept this is an attack on the most vulnerable section of society, namely, those who do not have enough income to put some sort of roof over their heads? Will she agree that in effect it is a rent freeze? Instead of capping the rents landlords can impose upon unfortunate tenants the Government used this method to try to introduce a rent freeze. Will she not agree also that Threshold and other organisations indicated that this freeze on the maximum amount of rent will lead to an increase in homelessness? Is that not a concern of the Minister's Department? Was this measure subject to poverty proofing, which is an essential part of the national anti-poverty strategy? Will the effect of this regulation make it more difficult for people, particularly in urban areas like Dublin and other areas throughout the country, to find suitable rented accommodation? Is it not as clear as the nose on one's face that if landlords wish to get rid of a tenant, all they have to do now is increase the rent, the arrears will mount up and they will have achieved their objective with the helping hand of the Government? Those people have nowhere to go and the result will be an increase in homelessness. Is that not of major concern to the Minister?
Anything that causes difficulty for people would be a concern of mine and in the context of the NAPS, all issues decided in my Department are done in the context of the social inclusion measures. A residential property market analysis of the facts indicates clearly that average rents have decreased by 5% in the 12 months to January 2003.
What planet is the Minister talking about?
That is an analysis of the facts, which are always difficult to find, especially in the House.
Second, the cap is set on the basis of the average rent in each health board and the information made available to them through the CPI. Third, I will continue to review the position following evaluations and consultations with community welfare officers. I reiterate again that there is flexibility in the scheme to allow CWOs to decide on a case by case basis to support someone who may be over the CAP and not have a situation which, in my opinion so far, is highly exaggerated. In an analysis, the CWOs indicated to me that in some circumstances landlords have reduced rents and, as a consequence, facilitated those in the private rented accommodation sector. I do not agree that this measure will lead to homelessness. It has flexibility to ensure that does not happen.
Why did the representatives of the community welfare officers' association describe this move as a massive retrograde step? I am aware it is causing concern for community welfare officers. The Minister wants flexibility but if a tenant desires to top up his or her rent to ensure they get the maximum amount while still qualifying for rent supplement, is it the position that under the regulation that is now strictly forbidden? Will the regulation continue to give discretion to community welfare officers? That should be clarified – does the community welfare officer still have the discretion to help people and ensure they do not end up homeless?
The Deputy's colleague, Deputy Broughan, almost had a heart attack last November when he thought I had made up the regulation. The regulation was always there and I reiterate there is flexibility on a case by case basis. We must make sure that people are not supplementing their rent to the detriment of anything else in the household – we do not want people to spend all their money on rent and not have anything left over for food or clothing. There is flexibility in particular circumstances where people cannot reasonably find accommodation within the threshold. However, it is obvious from much of the analysis that there is little sense, if one has rent decreases, in having the same maximum. The reality then would be to reduce the maximum, which is not going to happen.
