Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have made a detailed submission to the committee and I hope it will be considered. It dovetails with the earlier presentation by Mr. Joe Healy. The IFA made a valid proposal, which is that the test relating to farming replicate what is already in primary legislation in the way of agriculture relief. It is of fundamental importance that there be consistency across government in this area because otherwise confusion will be created. The objective of the provision before us is to remove current anomalies in the fair deal scheme and, therefore, it should not create other anomalies but if we do not take the agriculture relief as the definition, that is what we will do.

In his response to colleagues, Mr. Redmond stated that this was a land mobility policy, which should not be looked at in terms of the NHSS. I appreciate where he is coming from but he is creating a further anomaly in the system and we will have to come back to amend this again as it will undermine the clear objective and policy of Government to provide for land mobility. If the legislation is drafted as currently proposed, many people who would wish to go into long-term leasing will not do so because they will be discriminated against if they do.

In his defence of not moving from this position, Mr. Redmond stated that it would threaten the equity of the scheme and that there is a constitutional issue in terms of equity. I am glad that he raised the issue of equity. Taking the example that Mr. Healy gave, can Mr. Redmond explain the justification for the current proposals regarding the lease of land for the first three years? We can argue about what should happen after three years, but I would like to tease out the position in regard to the first three years. First, 3.5% of the capital value of that farm is taken into account under the NHSS. Second, the rental income from the land is also considered income under the scheme. Third, if that money goes through the older person's bank account, which in all likelihood it would, that money is considered capital on deposit. This means the same land is charged for three times under the scheme. I ask Mr. Redmond to explain to me how that is equitable, constitutional or fair.

This does not only happen in regard to farm land. It is also the case in regard to a private home. Currently, there are five vacant homes in the ownership of elderly people in long-term nursing home care for every homeless family in this country. The dots do not join up. There are 9,000 vacant homes in respect of which the owners have gone into long-term nursing home care and in a bizarre twist of the current policy under the fair deal scheme, we are effectively banning the rental of these homes because they will be hit on the treble under the penalty system that is currently in place under the scheme. This penalty is such that in the case of a house owned by an older person in long-term nursing home care, the capital value is taken into account at the rate of 7.5% per annum. On top of that, if the house is rented, the income generated is also taken in account. As I said, that money is likely to go through the older person's bank account, which is considered capital on deposit subject to charge at a rate of 7.5%.

There are 9,000 vacant houses, some of which - it may only be a small cohort - families are prepared to rent out but the difficulty is that they would be subject to a charge three times. This is not equitable. It is even more bizarre that under the national broadband scheme 1,000 Mbps high-speed broadband is being provided outside some of these vacant homes that could accommodate families. Infrastructure is being installed yet these houses remain vacant, with weeds growing around them. This penalty is undermining the stated Government policy of trying to reopen vacant houses.

Following on from Mr. Healy's submission, and as set out in my own submission, what we need is equity, fairness and transparency. A property should be charged only once under the means assessment. Under the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection non-contributory old page pension mechanism, where a capital asset generates an income, that income is taken into account. For example, if a farm is leased out, the lease income is taken into account. If the land is farmed, the income generated is taken into account. If the farm is not being farmed or leased, the capital value of the land is taken into account. A house that is the principal private residence is excluded under the social welfare scheme. In the case of any other property, the capital value of the property or any income generated from it is taken into account. I have no difficulty with people paying their fair share. I am not seeking a sweetheart deal for farmers or older people; rather, I am seeking equity. A property should be means assessed only once, not twice and definitely not three times. This is the fundamental anomaly of the NHSS as currently applied in terms of the lease of farm land and the rent of houses.

The argument will be made by the witnesses and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that the way forward is to progress with what has been proposed and to revisit the issue another time. The difficulty is that this scheme has been under review since 2012. I had a commitment written into the programme for Government that this would be fast forwarded because of the failure to progress it over the four years prior to the drafting of the programme for Government. Thanks to the support of individuals such as Maura Canning of the IFA, we have made progress. I accept that the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Daly, has done a lot of work and each of the witnesses has done a lot of work in that regard. I am aware of the barriers and bottlenecks they have dealt with in terms of other arms of government because I was involved at Cabinet in pushing through them. Now that we have the opportunity to take anomalies out of the system, to introduce an element of fairness and equity into the system, we should do so.

I ask the witnesses to incorporate the definition of "agricultural relief" in the Finance Act 2019 into the provisions of this scheme and, in terms of capital assessment, to treat property equitably, as provided for under primary legislation for the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. All we are looking for is equity in this area. Conservatively, there are more than 50,000 vacant houses throughout the country. The fair deal scheme boycott is one element in that regard. Another element in regard to the blockage of these homes is the issue of probate. People in County Roscommon and the adjoining county of Galway have to wait, on average, three and a half months for it to be processed. If one is unfortunate enough to live in County Kilkenny, the process takes four and a half months. In Cork city, it takes two and a half months and, in Waterford city, it takes three and a half months. These are areas of the country where there is demand for housing yet the probate system is blocking the release of houses onto the market. There are 1.75 million houses in the country. We need to utilise them in the best way. We need to work with older people and their families to unblock any blockages in that regard. I hope committee members and officials of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection will examine the blockage that has been created by the fair deal scheme and address the anomaly in respect of farm leasing.