Mr. Niall Redmond:

I thank Deputy Kelly for those questions. In terms of the length of time it has taken us to get to this position, it is probably fair to say, and it is not news to anybody in this room, that the scheme and the primary legislation that underpins it is complex. It contains many complex and competing issues that we have to examine, not just in terms of looking out to farms and businesses but also the impacts any changes to the scheme would have in respect of the sustainability of the scheme going forward. Next year, the scheme will reach over the €1 billion mark in terms of budget. It is a very significant scheme in terms of expenditure for the State and we will have to think carefully about any changes to it that could impact on its longer-term sustainability. That is part of the reason we spent so much time trying to identify the issues and the legal complexities and trying to address those in the heads of the Bill. We would like to have done it quicker but, unfortunately, the nature of the legislation and the background to it did not permit that. However, we are making progress now.

To deal with the Deputy's last question on our intentions around progression of the Bill, we have no desire to hang around in terms of moving this forward. We have drafters appointed now who are working with us and who will start drafting the Bill soon in respect of that. The sooner we can get that finished and into the Houses for debate and to progress it, the better. We have no reason to delay it any further, other than dealing with any issues that may arise that may need to be examined. By and large, however, we are as ambitious and as anxious to move it forward as quickly as possible.

In terms of the specific questions, on the issue of leasing, which the Deputy and the representatives of the IFA outlined, we have looked at it in great detail. Part of that was in respect of the complexities involved. When we look across Government at different policies it is important to get to the hub of the intent of any policy. The policy intent behind the agricultural tax relief relates predominantly to land mobility. This amendment to this scheme is about the protection of the family farm within the family unit as a source of employment and income going forward. It has a different policy intent. I do not believe it is incompatible necessarily with land mobility policy. The reason land mobility policy exists to some extent is because the farm, by and large, had not been worked. This is about keeping the farm that is being worked working and providing safeguards to protect the viability in respect of the financial debt that may run up in that regard. I do not believe they are compatible.

The issue here is that we have to think about all other classes of assets that may be part of the financial means assessment in the scheme. To move away from the policy intent that the farm would be protected for the next generation in terms of working the land would depart from that policy intent.

It would potentially have a domino effect in respect of other assets that people may have and create discrimination in the equitable administration of the scheme. It probably brings us all the way back to the subvention scheme that the fair deal tried to replace by undoing some of the inequitable principles embedded in that scheme. We do not want to take a retrograde step. We cannot include third parties in this because it does not meet the policy intent, which is to protect the family farm for the next generation who will farm the land. That is why those conditions are in the scheme and the conditions around sudden illness and disability provisions which are currently in the 2009 Act also cover that in respect of the requirement to be working the land.

In terms of clawback and the heads of the Bill, we have tried to improve the situation and in the head dealing specifically with transferred assets we tried to recognise that for a variety of reasons, including retirement, the farm may have been transferred to a family member already before the nursing home care is required. To address that we have allowed for the cap to be applied to such situations which currently is not the case. We have also allowed for the fact that under the existing provisions there is a hard cut-off of five years. We have introduced here a possibility for the land to be worked in only three of the last five years. We have moved to try to improve the position. The five-year transferred asset period has been a feature of the scheme since day one. Part of that is a particular safeguard to protect the scheme bearing in mind that it is based on means. The majority of people are honest and work with what is there but the safeguard put in place in 2009 was to stop people putting assets beyond the scheme nefariously rather than by accident. We have tried to recognise what happens on the ground in respect of succession. We have introduced what I think is a positive amendment in that respect to try to apply the cap to those situations as well.

Retrospection of the changes creates a difficult precedent in that we are trying to reach back legislatively to apply conditions to people who did not know those conditions existed. I suppose they did not exist at the time in respect of what is being proposed here. That is a challenging precedent to try to introduce to the scheme and it has knock-on effects irrespective of whether we talk about seven days or seven years ago. We have examined that in detail. We think the challenges and the risks are quite high for potential knock-on impacts. In our assessment it is not possible, particularly in the retrospective application of conditions that did not exist at the time.