Mr. Niall Redmond:

I will not go back over old ground in respect of what we discussed, the different intents and rationale for different policies and how they are set up for different purposes, and all the unintended consequences that can arise. We have looked at these issues in great detail and it is not as simple as just applying the measures suggested. Deputy Healy-Rae raised the issue of sudden illness, which is an important point. In 2009, when the original Act was being developed and debated, that was an issue that came up in great detail. A clause was included in the scheme at the time providing that, in circumstances where a farmer or business operator, through no fault of their own, experiences a sudden illness or disability, for example, as a result of an injury, the three-year cap could apply provided he or she has been operating the farm or business and a family successor continues with it in his or her stead. That has been a feature of the scheme. What we are trying to do with the amendments is to build on that feature and broaden it so that the sudden illness and disability clause is not required. We have moved on that position.

The Deputy asked about companies. This goes back to a current that runs through this morning's discussion, namely, the issue of equity. One of the challenges is to segregate a type of asset for a particular policy purpose and to treat it differently from other assets. That is what we are doing here and that effectively exists already in the scheme, with the sudden illness clause. That also has to be consistent in terms of businesses and companies that are not farm-related. That will continue to exist in the scheme under this proposal.

Somebody who is operating a business will also qualify for the three-year cap if he or she meets the same conditions that would have to be met if he or she was farming land. One thing that differentiates businesses is that where a business is a limited company, the assets of the company are not the assets of the person. By and large, these assets are not taken into account in the financial assessment, although the person's share in the company may be taken into account. The assets of a limited company may not be taken into account because it is a separate legal entity. All of that exists in the scheme and we are broadening it with this amendment, particularly in removing the requirement to have suffered a sudden illness or disability. That is the angle we have taken in trying to build on that.

There are other safeguards built into the scheme as well, some of which we have discussed and some of which we have not discussed. For example, the Deputy mentioned couples and farming families. There is an asset disregard of €72,000, which means that in the case of a coupe, the first €72,000 is not included in the financial assessment. There are other safeguards in the scheme to try to create a level of fairness around issues such as that.

To return to the discussion with Deputy O'Connell on the issue of people's vulnerability, I was not suggesting that because someone is in a nursing home, he or she has, by default, some level of vulnerability. That is not the point I was making.