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

Anyway, we will take it up directly with the Minister. It is important to remember that the farm assist scheme is a safety net for farm families. That is what it is. It is supposed to be a source of assistance to protect farm families from poverty. The point was correct that the Revenue Commissioners have an averaging scheme. The farm assist scheme, as originally designed, was an averaging year scheme, looking at a typical year rather than the last year. That has changed in terms of the way it is being reviewed on an annual basis. The committee needs to look at that as well as the cost of doing this annual assessment. We now have a bizarre situation where people who are in receipt of a social assistance payment because of inadequate income are paying accountants to prove to social welfare that they are entitled to a social welfare payment. That should never be and that was never the idea behind the scheme.

I wish to focus on one issue. All the evidence we have heard this morning has, in one way or another, touched on the issue of income foregone. First, in terms of Pillar 2 payments under CAP, but also the environment schemes under Pillar 1, it is income foregone or costs that have been paid out. Yet, it is considered under social welfare as income under the farm assist scheme. Along with the income disregard Deputy Ó Cuív is talking about, we need to get this acknowledgement of income foregone for those particular schemes enshrined in legislation.

I thought the evidence from Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association regarding designations and the fact this is an income loss on those farms was interesting. We should not be considering two farms side by side with the exact same type of farming practice as generating the same income if one of them is on designated lands. Deputy Ó Cuív made the case very well with regard to what is happening on Inis Oírr, where it is not worth their while to go into some of these environmental schemes. Someone who has 20 sheep or 20 cattle – there are probably not too many with 20 cattle in Inis Oírr – but people with small numbers should not be considered the equivalent of someone on the mainland where the lands are not designated. This is an issue the committee should be looking at in terms of the productivity of that land and the constraints as a result of that.

The ICMSA evidence on the Teagasc farm income assessments, which is based on the national minimum wage, was news to me. I should have known it but did not. I do not expect an answer but with the national minimum wage now increasing significantly and projected to increase significantly, will this see the viability of many family farms in the country fall to the floor as a result? Why is this not then being reflected in the farm assist? It should be reflected in the farm assist if these farms are below the threshold of viability. It is an issue that the committee needs to explore further. I think there is a lot of merit in looking at the universal basic income as a pilot case in this instance, and we will take that up with the Minister as well.

I refer to the income disregard for spouses. As a committee, one of the issues we have been dealing with – Senator Wall is looking at me – is the barriers to mainly women getting involved in the workforce in terms of home help. We have a huge shortage of those home support workers going into homes. The income disregard for spouses is another barrier to that happening, which is maintaining older people in rural communities. It needs to be looked at. We need to clearly reflect in the farm assist scheme that social welfare needs to reflect the variations there, such as weather uncertainties, market fluctuations and increasing prices. We have seen that particularly over the past three or four years, which has not been the case up to now.

I wish to move away from the farm assist scheme for one second and touch on a point that Deputy Ó Cuív made earlier.

The same issues arise in how the farm assessment is carried out, whether it is under the farm assist or under the State non-contributory pension.

Part of the difficulty is that social welfare inspectors do not understand farming and I will give an example of a recent case which I dealt with. A 68-year old sheep farmer in my own county applied for his State non-contributory pension. No notional figure was put in for expenses on the farm or for depreciation whatsoever. The lambing rate on his farm was determined by the Department at one and ahalf lambs per ewe. In the previous year for which the assessment was done, it was one lamb per ewe and the farmer never had any better than 1.2, which would not be unusual in County Roscommon. There was no figure put in for fencing. There is no lowland sheep farm in the country which does not have an expense for fencing. This sheep farmer is 68 years of age, on his own, with no figure put in for additional farm help.

There is absolutely no farm in the country, even with younger farmers, that does not have farm help in terms of sheep farming. That is not being reflected in the basic assessments that are coming through at the moment. The difficulty for that particular sheep farmer who came to me, and it could be a 68 year old sheep farmer under the State non-contributory pension or it could be someone under the farm assist, is they do not understand those forms and what the Department is saying here.

One of the things that needs to be looked at is the farm assist form but the farm assessment also needs to be considered. The National Adult Literacy Agency needs to review both of those documents to ensure that farmers can understand clearly what the Department is actually saying, because when I explained to the farmer, he was absolutely dumbfounded none of this was taken into consideration for his assessment. It is important we take a more holistic approach on some of these schemes. I do not know if anyone has a comment to make on that, perhaps Mr. Farrell? If Deputy Ó Cuív has any final questions then I will take them.