Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have received apologies from Senators Gavan and Murphy.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to the committee. This means that they have an absolute defence against any defamation action in respect of anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should comment on, criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable or to otherwise engage in speech that might be damaging to the good name of a person or entity.

Members participating remotely are required to do so from within the Leinster House precincts. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or entity outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The committee will now consider the impact of means testing on the farm assist and other social welfare schemes. This is the second meeting in a series that the committee intends to hold on the theme of means testing within the social welfare system. The committee is interested in the consequences of means testing and its future application across schemes.

The programme for Government contains a commitment to the effect that a review of the means test for farm assist, which will also have an impact on the rural social scheme, be conducted. Both schemes play a critical role in fostering social inclusion, economic sustainability and community resilience in rural Ireland. We want to ensure a fair approach to the assessment of farm assist to help increase the numbers of potentially eligible applicants on such an important scheme in order to enhance and increase all supports for farmers, fishers and rural residents facing financial hardship and employment challenges.

The committee acknowledges that the Department of Social Protection is undertaking a review of the means test across its schemes at present. We look forward to seeing the results of this review and collaborating with the Department on a system that will be equitable for all.

I welcome the following witnesses: from Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, Mr. Pat O'Brien, chairperson, farm business committee, and Mr. Paul Smyth, executive secretary, farm business committee; from the Irish Farmers' Association, Ms Alice Doyle, deputy president, Ms Claire McGlynn, social affairs policy executive, and Mr. Tadhg Buckley, director of policy; from the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, Mr. Vincent Roddy, president, Mr. John Joe Fitzgerald, vice president, and Mr. Padraig Devaney, Sligo chair; and from the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association, Mr. Sean McNamara, president, and Mr. Hugh Farrell, animal health and welfare chair.

I invite Mr. Smyth to make his opening statement.

Mr. Paul Smyth:

I thank the Chairperson and committee members for the opportunity to address the committee today on farm assist, which is such an important issue for those who are in need of it and so many farmers across the country who are in receipt of it and such schemes as the rural social scheme.

As we know, Irish agriculture plays a significant role in the Irish economy. In particular, the rural economy has the potential to grow if those factors that enable growth in the fabric of rural Ireland are available. It is essential that as many farmers as possible can stay within rural Ireland. Basically, a strong agriculture sector is important, not only for rural Ireland but also for farm families.

The ICMSA represents all farmers, particularly dairy and livestock farmers, and preserving the family farm structure is one of our key focuses. Therefore, those farm families that are receiving the lowest income, we believe, need to have as much protection as possible.

A key determinant in sustaining a business into the future is its viability. Economic viability is defined within the Teagasc farm survey as those that get remunerated to the minimum wage plus a 5% return on non-land-based assets employed on the farm but the latest results from the Teagasc farm survey show that only 27% of cattle farms or mixed farms are economically viable. The corresponding figure for sheep farms is 26% and for dairy farms, it is 93%. That 93% is taken from 2022, a year which saw record milk prices. With prices and input costs at where they are have been, in 2023 and 2024, beyond that economic viability, all sectors would be put under strain. Family-farm income is obviously an issue and those who are at the lower end of that income are subject to quite a lot of hardship in terms of remaining economically viable.

The farm assist scheme is a statutory scheme that provides support for farmers who are on lower incomes, but expenditure on the scheme has fallen over recent years, as was detailed in a report from 2021 which states that it has fallen by almost half from more than €100 million. The farm assist scheme has been utilised for many years, but we believe it should be utilised much more by those who are liable to come into that net.

Our main premise is that their incomes need to be taken into account in a more dynamic and current fashion. The look-back of when one’s income is assessed needs to be more dynamic and needs to take place on an ongoing basis. With price and weather volatility, serious income swings can occur from year to year as well as within years. Given the current fodder crisis, we are seeing how farmers who might be viable during most years will have issues with paying for fodder and grass. That is why we believe the farm assist payment needs to be more dynamic when looking at and determining the means of farmers. It should be considered what their means are today and that should be at the forefront of this committee's undertaking.

Regarding formal proposals, ongoing real-time assessment is required. To give an example from this year, while a farmer may not require the farm assist payment when based on his or her income in previous years, if his or her income has collapsed, such as in 2024, or if the increased costs of production are forcing the farmer into a situation where he or she does not have available cash flow, there needs to be a dynamic system in place for him or her. While there is some support there, it needs to be more dynamic.

The means disregard for schemes, such as the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, needs to be increased. We believe there should be a full disregard for environmental schemes, including the eco-scheme part of the basic income support for sustainability, BISS. There is currently a forgone cost with direct payments, including the eco-scheme, which has not been taken into consideration. This should be fully disregarded. The disregard should also be reviewed annually to account for inflation and the increased costs of compliance, which are having such an effect on farm families, as we have seen regarding the protests that are presently taking place.

The child disregards need to be increased substantially. Once those disregards are taken into consideration, we need to see the percentage being assessed, changed and improved. Farmers who are in receipt of the farm assist payment also may have paid PRSI contributions in previous years. This needs to be updated for those who are in receipt of the farm assist payment in a given year. There are other changes we believe are essential, such as looking at farmers who are subject to illness benefit but who are unable to be assessed properly through their own means. We believe this is the appropriate time to look at how that process is undergone. Mr. Pat O'Brien, the chair of the business committee, and I are open to any questions the committee may raise.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I now invite Ms Doyle to make her opening comments.

Ms Alice Doyle:

Our committee is represented by our director of policy, Mr. Tadhg Buckley, Ms Claire McGlynn, and me, the deputy president. I welcome the invitation to address the committee today.

The farm assist scheme plays a crucial role in supporting the livelihoods and well-being of low-income farmers in Ireland. It helps to ensure all farmers have the opportunity to participate in and benefit from agricultural activities, contributing to the sustainable rural development and well-being of rural communities. The farm assist scheme has more often been seen to benefit the western seaboard, but it has become more important for the eastern seaboard in recent times because of falling incomes and increasing inflation. According to Teagasc’s national farm survey of 2022, only 43% of farmers are deemed viable and 25% are vulnerable. For those who are deemed unviable and are struggling to make ends meet amid fluctuating market conditions, unpredictable weather patterns and rising input costs, the farm assist payment provides essential support that extends far beyond mere financial aid.

The farm assist scheme is a means-tested social welfare scheme. Applicants for the farm assist scheme are typically required to provide information about their income from farming activities, off-farm employment, self-employment, rental income and other sources. Farmers may also need to disclose details about their assets such as land, livestock, machinery, savings, investments and property ownership. If the applicant has a spouse or partner, their income is also included. Farming income is assessed as gross income over the past 12 months. Assessing farmers’ income as gross income is a major barrier to farmers being eligible for the farm assist scheme. Assessing the farm assist scheme based on net income provides a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of farmers’ financial needs, profitability and viability. By accounting for business expenses and aligning with taxation principles, net income assessment ensures fairness, equity and effectiveness in targeting support to farmers facing economic challenges and promoting the sustainability of agriculture in rural communities.

Farm income is often seasonal and subject to fluctuations due to factors such as weather conditions, market prices and input costs. Therefore, means-testing may not accurately reflect the cyclical nature of farm income, leading to inconsistencies in eligibility and benefit levels for farmers whose incomes vary throughout the year. Currently, recipients on the farm assist scheme are reviewed yearly, and we suggest this should be increased to a minimum of three-year intervals. Currently, recipients on the farm assist scheme do not receive credited social insurance contributions. This differs from those who are on jobseeker’s allowance and who qualify for social insurance contributions. This should be rectified and recipients on the farm assist scheme must receive social insurance contributions for pension purposes. Strengthening pension provisions for farm assist scheme recipients contributes to the sustainability and resilience of rural communities.

The farm assist scheme and the rural social scheme go hand in hand. The rural social scheme plays a crucial role in supporting rural communities and addressing social and economic challenges in Ireland. The rural social scheme aims to address the provision of certain services of benefit to rural communities by harnessing skills and talents available among our low-income farmers and fisherpersons while continuing to provide income support where eligible persons are in receipt of specified and primarily long-term social welfare payments.

The rural social scheme is considered an income support initiative to provide part-time employment opportunities in the community and voluntary organisations. Communities, in turn, benefit from the skills and talents of local farmers and fishermen as their involvement in local projects and initiatives contributes to the overall well-being of the individual and the development of rural areas.

In recent years, there has been a decline in participation in the rural social scheme. From 2016 to 2019, the rural social scheme had more than 3,000 participants, but since then, participation has been reducing. The reduction in the number of participants in the farm assist scheme is likely to be related to the changes in the means-testing in the budget reforms of 2012 and 2013, which saw the percentage of farm income and off-farm self-employment income which is assessed increased from 70% to 85% and then to 100%. We acknowledge that in 2014, the reintroduction of the 70% assessment came back into effect, but the number of participants on the scheme continued to fall and has not increased.

Together, the farm assist scheme and the rural social scheme play crucial roles in fostering social inclusion, economic sustainability and personal and community resilience in rural Ireland. By supporting farmers, fishers and rural residents who are facing financial hardship and employment challenges, these programmes contribute to the viability and well-being of rural communities, ensuring all residents have the opportunity to thrive and live in their local areas. Despite this, the number of participants on the farm assist scheme has reduced significantly, which points to the need for change. A full reassessment of the means-testing requirement is needed to ensure a fairer approach for people to access the farm assist scheme and help increase the numbers participating in such an important scheme. The requirement and appetite for change in the schemes are apparent and it is important to continue to provide financial security, social inclusion and service provision to the communities into the future. I thank the Chair and we will be happy to engage with any questions and suggestions going forward.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you. I invite Mr. Roddy to make his opening statement.

Mr. Vincent Roddy:

I ask our vice president, Mr. John Joe Fitzgerald, to make that statement.

Mr. John Joe Fitzgerald:

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Thanks for the invitation to come here today. In making this submission, the focus is primarily on farm assist and the rural social scheme, RSS. However, we are willing to discuss details relating to other social welfare schemes if relevant to the overall discussion. In the programme for Government, there was a commitment given to conduct a review of the means test for farm assist, which will also have an impact on the RSS. Clearly, this process is ongoing and it is positive that we are here today to outline our proposals relating to this.

Farm assist is a critical support to farm families across the country, especially in counties Donegal, Mayo, Galway, Kerry and Cork, where almost 60% of participants live. In an analysis of the figures, we see that 70% of participants are over 50 and that participation has fallen from 11,246 in 2011 with a budget of €113.72 million to 4,400 farmers in 2023 with a budget of €49.4 million. While many will point to the falling participation levels as a positive and an indication that farmers have improved their circumstances either at farm gate level or through off-farm employment, we should be open to other possibilities. Over time many participants may have reached retirement age and no longer qualify for farm assist while an increasing level of emigration from rural areas among younger people may also be deflating numbers. Another area we need to consider is the means test and how it relates to participants in the scheme and those who may have considered joining.

With high participation levels in hill areas and in counties where there is a significant level of land designations, we need to recognise the impact these designations are having on agricultural output. For farmers operating on designated lands, that is, special areas of conservation and special protection areas, their options with regard to farming activity and output is severely constrained by the designations. This constraint extends beyond farming, with options such as wind farms and other capital projects a no-go on these lands. Both at national and European level, these lands are seen as critical to addressing biodiversity decline but, unfortunately, the supports for farmers have been gradually reduced and we are now at a point where there is no direct support to farmers with these lands. This is despite the continuous talk of the need for a just transition. As farmers on these lands struggle to cope with the ever-increasing demands around protecting and enhancing these critical habitats, it is essential we find a way to support them.

One option to provide this support is recognition of the constraints outlined through the farm assist means test. On this basis, we recommend a radical change to how payments received through the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, are assessed. These recommendations include a full disregard on all payments for all environmental schemes, which will include the agri-climate rural environment scheme, eco-scheme and European Innovative Partnerships; for farmers who have more than 10% of their lands designated or up to 30 ha, there should be a full disregard for all payments under the complementary redistributive income support for sustainability, CRISS; and for farmers with 40% or more of their lands designated there should be an additional disregard for the first €5,000 of their payment under the basic income support for sustainability, BISS. The rationale for disregards on the CRISS and BISS payments is that farmers with these designated lands are subject to additional conditionality under the statutory management requirements SMR 3 and SMR 4 and good agricultural and environmental conditions GAEC 2 and GAEC 9 of the new CAP programme.

We also recommend that, for a spouse’s income, the disregard, which currently stands at €20 per day, should be increased to €100 per day. In relation to savings, we recommend a substantial increase in the disregards from the current amount of €20,000 up to €50,000. Finally, we recommend the piloting of a universal basic income model for up to 500 farmers currently on farm assist. These places would be on an opt-in basis, with farmers guaranteed the maximum farm assist payment, including allowances, for three years. These payments would be taxable and, after three years, farmers would have the option to revert to the farm assist or seek a place on the RSS.

Similar to farm assist, RSS is a critical scheme for farmers and our rural communities. A 2023 review of the scheme by RSS supervisors detailed how it not only addresses its original objectives but has produced far-reaching financial and social benefits that have enhanced the fabric of life in our rural towns and villages. The review also points to a cost-benefit analysis undertaken in 2009 that demonstrates exceptional value for money, with €2.89 of benefits produced for every €1 spent. The original concept of the RSS was to ensure farmers could continue farming while making a valuable contribution through their work to the local community. When it comes to accessing the scheme, this is a concept that must be supported.

On that basis, we recommend that a farmer who is eligible for RSS, subject to a periodic means test, should automatically be entitled to full personal rate, IQA and child dependant allowance, irrespective of means assessed under the means test. This is the way the scheme operated successfully from 2003 up until 2012, when the rules were changed, leaving very little incentive, particularly for those with a dependent adult or dependent children, to go on the scheme as they only benefit from 19.5 hours of work by a little over €1 per hour. Given the RSS has low numbers and the number of participants on farm assist is also small, all applicants who are eligible to go on the scheme should be accommodated.

We deem our proposals to be practical and realistic given the challenges and uncertainties farm families are facing. These schemes must be made more accessible to alleviate any unnecessary stress when farmers are already struggling to support their families.

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. We look forward to members' questions.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald. I invite Mr. McNamara to make his opening statement.

Mr. Sean McNamara:

Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. As representatives of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association, we appreciate the opportunity to address the committee regarding the profound impact of means testing on farm assist and other crucial social welfare schemes. Our submission seeks to shed light on the unique challenges faced by farmers in rural communities throughout Ireland, highlighting the necessity for fair and equitable access to support systems.

Farmers are the backbone of Ireland's agricultural sector, contributing tirelessly to their families and rural economies, yet they confront market fluctuations, weather uncertainties and rising costs, threatening their livelihoods.

In this context, social welfare initiatives like farm assist serve as lifelines, offering crucial financial aid to those in need. However, current means testing mechanisms, although aimed at assisting the most vulnerable, often overlook the complexities of agricultural income and expenses. Consequently, many hardworking farmers are unjustly excluded or inadequately supported, despite genuine financial hardship.

Data from the Department of Social Protection reveals a puzzling decline in farm assist recipients, contrasting the profound financial challenges faced by all farming sectors, compounded by Brexit, Covid-19, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We contend that this decline may stem from the arduous and convoluted application process. To qualify for farm assist, farmers must undergo a rigorous means-testing process conducted by the Department of Social Protection. This process involves an exhaustive examination of all sources of income, including farm income, off-farm self employment, farm scheme payments, income from leasing of land, and income from employment. The assessment also considers capital assets, maintenance payments, and other financial factors. The complex nature of the process is creating barriers for farm families wishing to access farm assist and other social welfare schemes. These barriers include the following. The exhaustive examination of income sources poses daunting hurdles for all farmers, but especially for those with limited access to accounting or administrative support. Variability in farm income means that farmers often experience fluctuations in their income from year to year due to factors beyond their control, such as weather conditions, market prices, and policy changes. The reliance on previous year's earnings to assess future income may not accurately reflect their current financial situation, leading to potential underestimation of eligibility for farm assist.

In farming households, the income earned by one spouse, civil partner or cohabitant may be used to support the entire family, including farm expenses. Therefore, including that income could inaccurately inflate the household's financial status, making it seem like the farm does not need assistance when, in reality, it does. Even if a spouse has a stable income from a non-farm job, it may not be sufficient to offset the unpredictability of farm income. Farmers fear that accessing social protection payments may jeopardise future pension entitlements. Farmers are put off by the length of time it takes to have their applications processed. When needs are immediate, farmers need immediate assistance, not endless bureaucracy.

To address these challenges, we propose the following. The means testing process for farm assist should be streamlined by reducing unnecessary complexities and paperwork to make it more accessible to farmers. Interim payments should be facilitated during the application process to offer immediate support and to maintain farmers during the assessment process. The means test should adopt a more flexible approach that considers short-term fluctuations, while ensuring long-term sustainability. Adjustments should be made to account for exceptional circumstances or unforeseen events impacting farmers' financial stability. To this end, the option of a multi-year income test assessment should be considered. Consideration must be given to significantly reducing or eliminating the inclusion of spouse, civil partner or cohabitant when assessing eligibility for farm assist. The current capital assessment disregard of €20,000 must be increased in line with other social protection schemes. Depreciation rates for farm assist should be increased to a standard rate of 10%. Pension entitlements must be protected. Ensuring that means testing does not negatively impact future retirement benefits would alleviate concerns and encourage more farmers to avail of the support they need. The ICSA recommends that recipients of farm assist should receive credited social insurance contributions for pension purposes.

We urge the committee to carefully consider these proposals and work towards implementing reforms that reflect the realities of agricultural life and promote sustainable development in rural Ireland. I thank the committee for its attention to this important matter. We look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue with the committee to achieve positive outcomes for Irish farmers and rural communities alike.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring in all four groups. I will bring in the two groups that were specifically asked a question first and then the other two groups. I ask everyone to try not to repeat something that some of the other groups have already responded to. We have four groups and we are trying to manage it. I will bring in the INHFA first, followed by the ICMSA and then the other two farm organisations.

Mr. Vincent Roddy:

I thank Deputy Ó Laoghaire for the questions. I do not know why there is not awareness. I do not know whether it is necessarily due to the smaller number, and it is declining. Perhaps it is down to how the means test is considered. This is a big factor. I know it has been said a good bit but we do need to find a system to accommodate the fluctuation in farming incomes. With regard to the stamps, I know there were changes in the rural social scheme prior to 2012. I am not sure whether they included the stamps. I am not too familiar with it.

With regard to the disregards for the environmental schemes it depends, as Deputy Ó Laoghaire outlined, but the average for ACRES is approximately €6,000. It depends on the ACRES stream and this is a rough guess. On the ecoscheme we are speaking about €60 to €70 per hectare. For a 30 ha farm this is approximately €2,000. We have always said, of course, and we emphasise it, that farmers on designated lands, where options have been limited because of EU law as applied here, are being left behind. This has to be accommodated somewhere. I do not know whether it is necessarily for the Department of Social Protection but we believe this should be a consideration. We look at the other schemes such as the basic income support for sustainability, BISS. The average BISS payment in the country is approximately €150 or €160. There is also the complementary redistributive income support for sustainability scheme, which has an average payment of €43 per hectare for the first 30 ha. I do not know whether this answers the question.

Mr. Fitzgerald mentioned the universal basic income. I want to clarify that we are speaking about 500 places and not 5,000.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I bring in the ICMSA I want to clarify with regard to what Mr. Roddy said in his evidence that it is under ACRES and is €6,000 per farm, not €6,000 per hectare. I want to clarify this.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

We would accept Deputy Ó Laoghaire's offer.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

The ACRES payment is €6,000. In some cases it depends on examination of the area and its vegetation. It can vary. Something else involved in these ecoschemes is organic farming. Many farmers are going into organic and they are being encouraged to do so. This automatically reduces their ACRES payment if there is an overlap. We do not think this is consistent because there are so many variables in the ACRES scheme while we know what is happening with organics. We should not be crucified on this point.

I will go back to SAC payments. Previously everyone got so much money for a SAC for five years. All of sudden it had no value. I have visited farmers in various parts of the country where SAC land was flooded. It cannot be farmed and nothing can be done with it. This land has no value. The scheme has a short lifespan whereas there should be continuous payments if the land is taken and designated. Something we need to look at is a long-term payment and not a happy payment to get people out the door and close the gap. We need to look at this. This is where we need to go in this regard.

There is a big issue with the stamp and we hope to get it resolved. It stopped a lot of people from applying. They were led to believe that if they applied for the scheme, they would not qualify for the pension. They had to decide which to opt for and they suffered in the short term. We need someone to look at an emergency fund for applications on the spot. We are in a year of dire straits and we have never been more in need of it.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To clarify, SAC designation and payments are not within the remit of the committee. We do not want to delve into the remit of the agriculture committee. I understand the point Mr. Farrell is making. We could speak on it at length on it but we want to focus on the means test and its treatment by the Department of Social Protection.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

On this point, we need to look at it in such a way that we do not set value on these payments because we do not trust how long they will be there for.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes and I accept this point.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Mr. Pat O'Brien:

While the average payment for ACRES might be €6,000 there are costs involved. It does not all go to the farmer. Farmers are paid according to the actions they take and there are costs involved in these actions. It is not all income.

With regard to the uptake of the schemes, the amount drawn down has fallen by 53% since 2011. The older cohort is moving out of it and many people who are now eligible are not aware of it. Their backs are to the wall before they realise they need it. It is then based on the previous year's accounts and they may not be eligible according to those accounts. By the time the accounts show they do need it they may have moved out of the bracket. It has to be based on a real-time assessment and not an historical assessment.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I invite the IFA to respond to the questions.

Mrs. Alice Doyle:

We have three different questions and there are three of us here. Ms McGlynn will deal with the lack of awareness.

Ms Claire McGlynn:

The lack of awareness is a significant issue for farmers looking for the farm assist scheme. We mentioned earlier that it is becoming more prominent on the eastern seaboard. With the lack of income and fluctuations farm assist is becoming more important but due to poor historic awareness people are not aware of what is involved in it.

There definitely needs to be more awareness of what is involved in the means assessment. Also, there is a stigma around applying for farm assist due, I suppose, to a mindset that they are getting onto a social welfare payment. It is important to make people aware that the scheme is there as an assist for farmers.

Mrs. Alice Doyle:

When most people go looking for social welfare, they are coming from being employed to being unemployed and they usually have bodies that advise them carefully as to what their social welfare entitlements are. In farming, it is a different set-up. It has become "on hard times" for whatever reason and, because of that, there is not always somebody to advise you as to what is available to you.

I will turn over to Mr. Buckley, who will deal with the schemes and that whole area.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

One thing to note is that the direct payments that come into Ireland come in in two pillars. There are: Pillar 1 and Pillar 2. Pillar 2 is based on the principle of cost-incurred income forgone. One gets that payment on the basis of either one incurs a cost or one foregoes income. At present, one can deduct expenses under the assessment but one cannot account for income foregone. For instance, one may have to reduce the productivity of one's land and one gets a return payment. One cannot factor in the productivity loss as an expense. The environmental schemes, such as the new suckler cow welfare scheme and the sheep improvement scheme, and the many other Pillar 2 schemes as well, are based on that principle of cost incurred income foregone. I would argue there is an argument there that they should be disregarded in their totality because of that principle.

The same goes with the Pillar 1 payments Mr. Roddy mentioned earlier. The eco-scheme has a similar principle. For instance, one of the eco-scheme measurements is space for nature. If one is above a certain space for nature, one qualifies. One has to do two practices to quality for eco-scheme payment and one of them is the base for nature. Obviously, if one has a higher space for nature, that is a very positive thing but one's productivity on the farm is reduced then. It is a good thing to have higher space for nature but one cannot deduct that expense. That is in Pillar 1 payments. There is an argument that this principle could certainly be used, from the committee's perspective, to say how do we justify a full disregard. There it is. It is an EU principle.

Mrs. Doyle may go into the rest of the PRSI issue.

Mrs. Alice Doyle:

The third area that the committee asked to look at was the PRSI section. In the past, if one were on farm assist, one did not pay PRSI. That left a number of farmers who, when they came to pension age, were short of PRSI payments, maybe only could get a part-payment, certainly, in some cases, very little, if any, and certainly did not get the full payment. That has been somewhat rectified now that one can pay PRSI but one does not have to pay it. That is to do with farm assist. It is important that PRSI is paid, the allowance is made for paying PRSI and the farmers are encouraged to pay that PRSI.

On the rural social scheme, PRSI is paid. That is an important part of that. It is important that PRSI is paid. If not, we will be left with farmers, as somebody has already said, without pension, which is essential for the future of the farmer in his or her older age.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would say to Deputy Ó Laoghaire that farm assist was originally the farmers' dole and there is a social and cultural aspect to this. People are reluctant to apply. It is only when their back is to the wall that they will consider it because it is seen as throwing in the towel in terms of a viable farm enterprise.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

On that point, it stands out that nobody contacts anyone offering assistance to it. If we were working in a shop and we were paid under the minimum wage, there would be alarm bells ringing in every direction. There is Revenue and returns are going back to it from every farm and everywhere else. It alone should be ringing bells and saying what is on offer. It should be combined with it to signal that back to the relevant parties and make people avail of it. We are the forgotten group, as we always are as far as we are concerned, for the simple reason, as I mentioned previously, that if we were in any other job, the minimum wage would kick in straight away or else the employee is in trouble. We are self-employed producing food for very little money. We have no market price. We have to take what we are getting, which is a bad way to market anything. No business stands on that ground. This is where, through Revenue or some other identified sources like that, they should be coming back on people or do a survey automatically of farmers at different stages in the year that triggers that off. That should be run off.

Mr. John Joe Fitzgerald:

From my own point of view, the farm assist application form has more the 20 pages and needs to be simplified.

As well as that, many farmers who are on farm assist have a fear of the inspector. That comes across as well, even talking to farmers in Kerry about it. With the assessments once a year, but then the assessment every three years, there is a bit of fear there. That is why a lot of them do not apply for it. In my father's time, I always had the fear of seeing the dole man coming through the door, and the inspector. That fear is still there in a lot of people.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

I would make two points. In the past two weeks, the Department of agriculture wrote to 116,000 farmers. They got a letter relating to changes relating to nitrates rules. Every farmer who is farming has a herd number. Even if one is a tillage farmer, one has a so-called herd number even though it is a bit of an oxymoron. Obviously, there may be an issue in sharing that data across Departments but the Department of agriculture could certainly write to farmers to make them aware of the scheme.

As has been said, there is a need for a two-pronged approach. It is: awareness and simplification. They are both impacting use.

To put it in context, there are 75,000 suckler farmers in Ireland. A good share of them are part time and they have other income. Their average income, according to Teagasc, for the past three years was €9,200. There are clearly a lot of farmers who are entitled to at least apply and look to get it, and they are not doing so. The figures are stark when one looks, for instance, at the suckler farmers. Obviously, there are other low income sectors such as other livestock and sheep farmers. There are others in other sectors who have fallen on hard times. The point is when one looks at the numbers of farmers who are at the low-income level versus the participants, there is clearly something amiss.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Someone's phone is not on silent and it is interfering with the audio. Would everyone make sure that their phones are on silent or, if possible, on aeroplane mode?

Mr. Paul Smyth:

On the point that Mr. Buckley brought up about the simplification of the application form, for many farmers who want to apply for farm assist the form is quite complex. Even to get someone to fill out the form for them costs money and that is an impediment.

Asking someone to help fill out the form is acknowledging that one has a problem and that too is a barrier. It is about simplifying the process.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the delegations for coming in and thank them for their presentations. I listened to the presentations in my office and we also have written copies of them.

One of the big shocks in my life was as a 23-year-old. I was given a job as a small farmers' co-operative manager back in the Joyce Country of Connemara. I had no dealings ever with social welfare until then and I was extremely shocked, and I am still shocked, at the penal process involved. The situation has improved but very marginally. In those days 100% of the income was taken off. So if a person earned £3,000, and in those days the currency was in pounds, then when that sum was subtracted it left people with no farm assist. The payment was called farmer's dole at that time. The Department even went as far, in those days, as penalising people for consuming their own produce. If it found you had a garraí of fataí, which is a small garden of potatoes, or cut a little bit of turf, it reduced your social welfare accordingly. Then the Government wondered why there was no incentive to small farmers who absolutely required this to survive and better themselves.

I always see social welfare means testing as negative tax. A person in the tax system who earns a lot of money hands a certain amount up to the State. If a person is in the social welfare system and starts earning money then the Government starts deducting money and it goes to the State or it saves money to the State but I do not see an awful difference in the principle. When I say I do not see a difference in principle, the most a person will pay in income tax and the universal social charge, USC, is 50%. I do not count PRSI because that is paying for one's future. I always say to farmers that 4% for PRSI is their best investment ever. There is no insurance policy in the world that will give a person the equivalent for that amount of money. On the other hand, we shrug our shoulders at 70% of a cutback on the income earned by the poorest of farmers on farm assist. I am trying to explain where I come from on this. I represent an area that has many small farmers. I have read the papers and I think we are all going in the same direction of travel, but one thing that our guests have emphasised is simplicity, with which I agree. There are different versions of the exemption for farm grants. Why make it complicated? I am interested in hearing the response of our guests to the following. Why not make it uncomplicated? Farmers will have received a sheet from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine at the end of the year or the beginning of the following year for the previous year, so why not say that the first €5,000 is exempt? Let us forget about the complex philosophical reasons put into schemes just to drive people mad. The argument might be made that we want to encourage people into ecology but the BISS or the ANC scheme do not really count. That is not fair either, however. I say that because I have farmers on Inis Meáin and Inis Oírr. Inis Oírr has the smallest farms, with farms of fewer than 5 ha. Those farms are in the highest nature bracket because, as everyone will know, the land there, like that found in the Burren, is limestone pavement and the farmers farm in a very traditional manner with very little mechanisation. As the farms are under 5 ha, and more than half of the farms on Inis Oírr are under 5 ha, very few of them have joined ACRES. That scheme is done field by field and the island farmers might have ten or even up to 20 fields in their 5 ha, but these farmers still need the grants. They should not be penalised when it comes to approving grants. Our guests, on reflection, can always make a further submission to the committee. Should we just say X amount of money, and I am not going to put a figure on it, should be exempt from the assessment for these grants? As I have said, the highest taxpayer in the country does not pay more than 50%. I believe in step changes. Some farming organisation previously put forward that, as a first step in the process, 50% of the residual income would be disregarded. What is our guests' view on that?

Many of our guests mentioned spouse's income. The problem with spouse's income is that it is not just a concern for farm assist. It is jobseeker's allowance, disability allowance and so on. Spouse's income concerns a lot of schemes so if we changed one then we would have to change them all. At the moment €20 a day is disregarded for three days of the week, rather than five days, and after that the income is assessed at 60%. That is a step in the right direction but this goes wider across all the schemes that take account of a spouse's income. One could argue in favour of individualisation but that is a big jump and a debate we will to have to have in the longer term. In the short term, the way to get there is to start disregarding more and more of the spouse's income. Let us say we bring in next year a disregard of €100 per week, with 50%.

Some of our guests have mentioned depreciation. I am always shocked at wear and tear. If a farmer has a little commercially registered van, a tractor or machinery or builds a shed or whatever, for most of them the disregard rate is 15% for the first six years and 10% in the last year. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander between the tax and social welfare system. I would be interested in hearing the views of our guests on that situation because it has a huge effect and kills any incentive.

Several of our guests raised the issue of PRSI. Basically what actually happened was farmers paid PRSI but they were on farm assist. In other words, their income was over the PRSI threshold, they paid the PRSI and then found that they did not get any contribution record because they were not allowed to pay PRSI, and they did not get their money back either. With the current regime, if a farmer goes over €5,000 of an income, then it is mandatory to pay PRSI. The problem is that if a farmer earns between zero and €5,000 no credit is given but a credit is given if one is in receipt of jobseeker's allowance. Those in receipt of farm assist, for any year in the past, should be given credits. I also believe that farmers who earn under €5,000 should get credits now, as if they were in receipt of jobseeker's allowance. The Department of Social Protection officials will always say that farm assist is only a form of jobseeker's allowance so I believe we should deal with that. It would at least assist us. In other words, if a farmer had ten years of work done in paid employment, any time they were on farm assist they would get a credit.

Again, I would be interested in hearing the views of our guests on the issue of capital.

I keep coming across farmers in bad houses, particularly single people living alone. They are living in very poor houses but have been saving assiduously because they think they will have to pay for a nursing home. They will be able to do so because they have the money saved, but if they had not saved it, they would not have to pay it to the nursing home. I do not know if any of our witnesses have ever met people like that, who have a lot of money saved. It is very interesting how that is means-assessed under the farm assist scheme. The first €20,000 is disregarded. The next €20,000 is counted as €30 per week, so farmers are not too bad up to €40,000 in that the Department only takes €30 per week off them, even though that is a lot of money. I often ask the Department to show me the bank that pays €30 per week on a deposit of €40,000. After that, however, they really hit the wall. Effectively, there is a rate of €4 per €1,000 which, when translated into percentages, is 20%. Our guests can do the sums fairly fast. On a sum of €100,000, if six multiplied by four is 24, that is €240, plus €30, which is €270 per week. That is the income imputed by the Department from €100,000 in the bank. Some of our guests must have come across this. Either that or my farmers are very different. They do not look any better off than theirs; they look a lot worse off.

Another problem we keep coming up against involves couples. Let us say a couple settles down and builds a house on the family land, adjacent to the parents' house. When the parents die, they leave the old house, that might not be in great condition, to their son or daughter. If the family member is on the farm assist scheme, the Department of Social Protection comes after him or her. It assesses the house on its capital value. We should be encouraging people to do up these houses and rent them out. I accept that the rental income should be assessable but we need to look at the capital value being assessable.

On the rural social scheme, RSS, there was some reference to 75% and 80%. The original arrangement for the RSS was that once a person qualified for farm assist, even if only for €1 under that scheme, he or she was eligible for the RSS. What changed was that if a person had €100 of assessed farm assist income, applied for the RSS and had a dependent adult or child, the Department then took the €100 back and only gave the person the top-up as an extra payment against the farm assist. In the early years, there was no justification for staying on farm assist, in most cases, because if people had a farm income, they got to keep it for their effort and in return they gave 19.5 hours to the community for the most top-class services I have ever seen. If the RSS were taken away, a lot of the community spaces, sports facilities, halls and all of the rest of the places that are well maintained by farmers, who are a really highly skilled and motivated workforce, would be a lot worse for wear.

I am interested in hearing our guests' views on my response to their submissions. Can we reach common ground here, today or in the future?

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Deputy Ó Cuív. Does Ms Doyle want to respond to the Deputy's points?

Ms Alice Doyle:

Certainly, but I am going to hand over to Mr. Buckley first who will deal with two issues he wants to address.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is perfect. The floor is yours, Mr. Buckley.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

I completely agree with the Deputy. What strikes me is that we have a taxation system that has a method of assessment with which people are very familiar. It does not make sense to me that we have such a different and complicated assessment method on the other side. What the Deputy has said in terms of negative taxation is a very fair and principled approach to take.

I will ask our deputy president to deal with the question of the income disregard on all schemes. There is certainly an argument to be made there with regard to the conditionality of any scheme. On the capital allowances front it is 15% over six years, with 10% available in year seven. It is six years at 15% and one year at 10% but there are accelerated capital allowances in some schemes now. For slurry storage, for example, it is 50% over two years. That was available in the past too, under the old farm investment scheme. That scheme also had accelerated capital allowances, so the principle exists in terms of accelerated allowances.

I previously worked in banking and would have come across hardship cases. One might hear of a farmer who owned 100 acres and had a balance sheet of €1.5 million but no cash, as in no income. The asset assessment for farming in particular, is problematic because farmers are often asset rich but cash poor. Furthermore, some farmers on designated land have had their balance sheets decimated because of designation, but that is another issue which others might want to discuss in their contributions. The asset test is-----

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who asset tests?

Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

When the Department is doing the means test, it values the land-----

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is never done on the farm though. That is purely related to other properties but it does not relate to the farm. If a person is farming a farm, the Department does not asset test it.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

Yes, but in terms of the savings side of it, that is included. People could have significant savings which are viewed as an asset and they are penalised because of it. I will hand over to my colleagues.

Ms Alice Doyle:

Ms McGlynn will deal with the issue of allowances for a spouse.

Ms Claire McGlynn:

I want to comment on the spousal income issue. It would be more than important to increase their per-week income and then assess the rest at 50%. On the matter of the increase for a qualified adult on a farm assist claim, a spouse can only earn up to €310 per week, which is quite low in the context of the minimum wage, for example. It equates to just slightly more than 20 hours of work per week at minimum wage rates. It is crucial that spousal income limits are improved and the income disregards are increased.

Ms Alice Doyle:

There is one other issue I would like to address. All farmers are now involved in cross-compliance. There is cross-compliance for every scheme in which they are involved. They have to spend money, in most cases, to qualify for those schemes. Money must be spent before they ever get anything back, which puts them in a negative position for a long period. I totally agree with a lot of what Deputy Ó Cuív said. He seems to have a great understanding of the farm assist scheme and I would very much support a lot of what he is saying. Certainly bringing it back to a situation of being able to write off 50% is very important, as is aligning the disregards with Revenue. We have a sample assessment on our website that farmers can do to check if they are eligible to avail of farm assist. When they start the process, they get totally confused because, under Revenue's rules, they can disregard X but, under farm assist, they cannot disregard X but can disregard Y. The complexity puts them off. Farmers are already totally overburdened with bureaucracy and regulation and that puts them off totally. As the Deputy said, they end up deciding it is not worth their while applying because they will have to put in so much time relative to what they will get out of it. Simplicity is the big word here.

Mr. Paul Smith:

On the question of the exemption or disregard, it would be easier if it were set at figure X. It would be up to the committee to decide what that figure should be but we would obviously be calling for it to be as high as possible. In the context of new schemes coming online, if the disregard is fixed at a figure of X, that should apply to all schemes. That would take care of the simplicity issue. All four organisations here are arguing that it should be easy to apply and that things should be streamlined between Revenue and the Department of Social Protection so that there not different rules in different areas. That should not happen.

It should be simple, straightforward and easy to apply for. That is our message. It is what we hear from our members.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

I thank the Chair for letting me back in. I am in agreement with much of what Deputy Ó Cuív said. Many of the facts are straightforward and basic. We may need to look at the 50% and the spouse's income up to a certain level. In general, the reason both parties are working in any house is to keep up the level of income to pay for the house, farm or different things. We cannot think and hope that people will survive just because of being €1,000 over the threshold. It has to be realistic in today's market. Perhaps if they get up to €50,000 or 50% of it because €20,000 is not relevant in today's world. It is not even the minimum wage.

Furthermore, as was said, the land should not be classed as assessable. None of the assets we have are for sale. They are all a part of our machinery for work. Even under the valuation at 15%, price and product all have to be replaced through time so they have to have a valuation to keep the thing going. We would like to see it go back to where the means test is done in such a way as to include the spouse. We have difficulty in some cases where there are issues in homes, due to financial problems or marriage and different things. There has to be simple way around that too. It often hinders it. There has to be some way to end the relationship in those cases.

Mr. Vincent Roddy:

Some good points were made. The first was about the exemption. Deputy Ó Cuív said €5,000, but then he said "a figure". We would like to see that as high as possible.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What would Mr. Roddy consider? We are where we are.

Mr. Vincent Roddy:

At the moment it is €3,500 is it not?

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is €5,000. It went up from €2,500 to €5,000.

Mr. Vincent Roddy:

We said €5,000 at the start, but we also talked about disregards. We said it about all the eco-schemes. If we are talking about an average of €6,000 on agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, we would be looking at €6,000 there and an average of €2,000 on the complementary redistributive income support for sustainability, CRISS, scheme so we would be looking at €8,000. However, if it makes it simple, we would be open to it because it simplifies it. I like where the Deputy is going with the figure he mentioned and a 50% disregard on the rest. The Department always likes simplicity, as does everyone.

The capital credits of €20,000 has been frozen since 2012 and the Celtic Tiger era. We have recommended it be increased to €50,000. That would be a good first step.

The point the Deputy made about rental income on houses is interesting. It is definitely stopping some farmers from doing up a house, if they get a house. He is correct that it should be exempt because we already have exemptions around renting. In the middle of a housing crisis we need to get housing stock into the market and there are already tax exemptions so I do not see why there would be a problem with that.

Mr. Fitzgerald or Mr. Devaney might want to come in on one or two other points.

We agree that PRSI should align with jobseeker's allowance at a minimum. Those credits should definitely be given.

Mr. John Joe Fitzgerald:

Looking at the farm assist scheme and everything, there is no incentive. People are stuck in poverty and there is no way to get out of it. If the €20,000 threshold was increased to €50,000, it would give people the opportunity to build a bit of money and to hold onto it going into their old age. On what the Deputy said earlier about old people living in houses, I saw someone near my place who was farming and working in a hospital all her life and she was always saving for the nursing home. At the end she had €200,000 or €300,000 in the bank and when she went into the nursing home, she only lived for about two months and she was starving all along. She would not buy herself a pair of shoes or anything else with it.

On the farm assist, if someone has five children and it is coming up to Christmas, especially nowadays, the Christmas bill is almost €1,000 per child with the gadgets they have nowadays. It is very hard to keep the children happy if people are living on the farm assist scheme, unless they have some savings or something. While we talk about the farmer, we need to talk about the farm family. What affects the farmer, affects the whole family.

Mr. Padraig Devaney:

I recall when the rural social scheme the Deputy mentioned came in, it was a great scheme. As Ms McGlynn said earlier, there is a stigma about farmer's dole but it is a great scheme when people get it. It has done a lot in my part of the country. Farmers would almost starve themselves to feed the animals and so forth. This is like a back-up. As Mr. McNamara said earlier, incomes are vulnerable and the scheme is a great back-up so that people know they will have a few pounds at the end of the week. With the payments now being once a year, years ago a payment would be made in July or early April. They are not made now. Farmers could be waiting the whole year. Sometimes payments are delayed. Farmers will invest it back in the community whenever they get it.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is one issue that keeps hitting me. Perhaps because of my age, people my age come to me. the issue is the means test for the State pension. The biggest group of people who are on non-contributory pensions are those who have small farms, and small fishermen or inshore fishermen. The amazing thing at the moment is that the total income of small fishermen and small farmers is assessed and then €30 is disregarded. However, people who earn €200 per week in a PAYE job can put it in their bank and there is no means test on it. For non-contributory pensioners, self-employed income from farming, fishing or good luck to carpenters as well, should be treated in exactly the same way as employed income and the first €200 should be disregarded, end of story. It would save a lot of money for the Department, because it would not have to means-test all these pensioners over little bits of money. I would be interested in the views of the witnesses. Would any of them be opposed to such a change? I will put it that way to save them the bother of giving me a long answer. Do they think self-employed income should always be treated in the same way as employed income in means tests?

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is anyone opposed to it? I do not think so.

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is very interesting to listen to all the witnesses individually. I welcome their input.

I live on a farm and all my neighbours are farmers. I am deeply concerned about farming in Ireland, especially for small farmers. My neighbours are worried about it. It is not as though it was going great guns anyway and now we have the whole mess-up with climate change and the ridiculously unpredictable nature of farming now. We used to have patterns and now they are gone. Farming was based on having patterns that were fairly reliable. My neighbour came to get fodder from us recently because he did not have enough. One of my biggest concerns as a politician and someone who lives in rural Ireland is what the hell we will do about farming.

On our family farm, my sister diversified and she has goats. Now she has ten full-time jobs on a 60 acre farm. She makes goat's cheese. I have another neighbour who has 50 cows. He has three machines and we all go to buy the milk directly off bottles.

He is doing well. Nobody is making loads of money, but they are all surviving. They are not thriving, necessarily, but they are feeling good about themselves because they are using land in a way that is providing for their families. That is something that is really important for farmers. Every farmer would love not to need any payments and to be completely self-sufficient, as would any small business owner. Small business owners want to be able to stand on their own two feet.

It is important that Irish people value the quality of milk and meat we get and understand how lucky we are when we buy Irish milk and meat. We need to appreciate more that quality compared with anywhere else in the world before we reach for Brazilian beef or English milk. We need to do work on getting Irish people to realise the importance of supporting buying Irish milk and meat. There is a PR piece missing there because origin green is kind of vague. The customer has so much power to support our small farmers and dairy industry.

I completely agree on the PRSI credit issue, and not just for farmers. I am my party's spokesperson for enterprise, trade and employment and also rural development. I am meeting the Minister, Deputy Burke, about small businesses needing more supports. We do not have a nuanced discussion when it comes to farming. I see a huge difference between 1,000 head of cattle in a shed all year round making a load of money for a farmer and all my neighbours who have between 30 and 50 cattle. If we do not start differentiating farming supports, we will not serve our smaller farmers properly. That is why I am a bit wary of the means test. We need some means testing. We cannot have a position where large farmers on huge profits are not means tested and get loads of grants they do not need when small farmers need more of that money. There has to be a nuanced discussion around farming in Ireland. It is being dealt with too generically.

People say it is all farmers this and all farmers that. They say that all farmers are polluting our waters, they are all really poor or really rich or they all care about nature. We need to differentiate because there are no big farmers where I come from. We do not have the big sheds that farmers have in County Meath where they are making money hand over fist.

We also have a huge issue with butchering and offal management. We have not mentioned the complete monopoly in that area, which is affecting every farmer, small and big. The means test is important and it is good the witnesses are her to talk about it. However, putting in money or looking at money-only solutions to farming will not solve the problems in farming. Farming is under serious threat and it has to change. There is no choice in the matter. This was foreseen by me 20 or 30 years ago when I had Professor John Sweeney down to talk to a big crowd of farmers in Ennis. He told them then exactly what is happening now. The climate issue has led us to this point. That is why we have to be careful about being submissive about the eco-payments. In some ways, we have to get Europe to give us more money for those measures. The more money we can get for those, the more that farmers can do what they want to do, namely, be custodians of the land and be financially viable.

The current model, which is all about outputs, inputs and production, as the witnesses said, has left family farms struggling. That is why they are here talking about means tests. The current model has not suited the small family farm. I remember ICI protestsback in the 1980s.Farmers were told to get a fertiliser with a 10-10-20 mix, spread as much as they could and spend all their money on nitrates. Last year, at the ploughing championships, farmers told me they could not afford any nitrates but they managed their slurry better, reduced their costs and got the same yield. We need a bigger debate than just throwing more money at farming and getting means tests and PRSI. We all need to get together to look at solutions and I have seen many good solutions. The Korean method is an amazing method which is low-cost and effective. Great farmers in County Kerry are looking at microbes to increase the topsoil because if the topsoil is improved, fewer nitrates are needed and water quality improves. The use of mixed swards instead of just growing clover means we can hold on to soil because now, with the change in rainfall, we are losing soil, which is causing the level of the rivers to rise.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have given Senator Garvey scope here-----

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry; I have questions.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but this is on means testing.

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, it is.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not dealing with agriculture. As we said it at the start of the meeting-----

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Means testing is very important.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----agriculture is a matter for the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The Senator might focus on that.

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Farmers are losing land to flooding because of soil deposition in rivers as well. This is all linked in. Means testing is very important.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is nothing to do with means testing.

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach for bringing me back because I am very passionate about this subject.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can all see that.

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. We have got to get this right to keep rural Ireland alive. There will be nobody left in my community if the farmers and their wives, husbands and children leave.

On the means tests, we have capped direct payments, agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, payments, areas of natural constraints payments of €250 million this year alone. We have the National Parks and Wildlife Service farm plan schemes, organics, life projects, wild Atlantic nature and corncrake live projects. Farmers are getting paid to protect habitats. We have €30 million coming for breeding waders. Lots more money is coming. We need to get all our MEPs not just getting agreements but fighting for more of these payments and fighting against Mercosur. That is when means tests get taken into account. We cannot ignore all these eco-payments and say the means test has to happen. They are the only way forward in some ways. Diversification is the only way forward. We cannot pretend everything can continue as usual and we can have beef and dairy production only, except with more money. We need to look at that. What solutions are the witnesses proposing? We can help with financial support for mixed sward or to buy machinery that digs slurry deeper into the ground. Farmers cannot afford all of that big machinery on their own. The means test is a big part of it but I do not know if we can ignore all means testing because we have to differentiate between the size of farms and the payments people are getting. There are so many more payments that are now available.

I talk to my neighbours all the time. Many of them like ACRES and are happy with the organics scheme. We have quadrupled organic numbers in County Clare alone. We need to bring more to the table than just means testing. I do support the proposal on PRSI. Means testing is really unfair when it comes to gross income where people lose three quarters of their income in costs on the farm. I would love to know whether there are other sectors that have ignored gross income and payments and gone with the message all the groups before us are suggesting.

I better stop talking now or our guests will kill me.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I thank Senator Garvey. I gave the Senator an awful lot of scope. I will not be giving the witnesses that scope. I want them to stick to the topic on the agenda. Senator Garvey asked questions on income disregards and whether there is another model. She touched on the issue of depreciation in capital allowances in terms of on-farm investment. Which of the witnesses wants to respond on the issues on the committee's agenda today?

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

I thank Senator Garvey for her questions and interest and for being here with us today. She covered a lot of stuff there. I welcome her passion. That is what we want to hear. However, we are limited in what we can discuss today. The biggest stumbling block is the use of gross income. We need to get that removed and replaced with net income, which is what is in the farmer's pocket. That is all that matters at the end of the day. We have farmers who cannot buy fodder at the minute. They are stuck for money and they have no source of getting it because-----

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That it is being done in other sectors as well.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Allow Mr. Farrell to continue without interruption, Senator Garvey.

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a precedent?

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

Farmers need assistance now. There are other supports available through other schemes but we need farmers to have assistance now, so they can live and have something in their pockets. We have ended up with a lot of welfare issues because of the year that is in it. This has left people drained because they spent excessive and have no money left. We have issues with farmers trying to get accounts done. We are losing two and three months. I think the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has something to link in on this. It can identify this on farms from maybe last October, not today. These things should be issued. I will leave it at that. Mr. McNamara may wish to add something.

Mr. Sean McNamara:

Last winter left farmers in dire straits. They have no income. As Mr. Farrell said, everyone spent everything they had on fodder and looking after their stock and they have no income for themselves. They are putting their stock before themselves. This has left farmers in a very bad mental state of fear. In fairness, many farmers do not know how to look for farm assist. They do not have the mental well-being to go and look for it. This is a big problem at the moment. With no viable income in farming at the moment and with the way things are going, I can see us losing a generation of farmers.

Younger people coming along will not take up fartming.

The younger people coming along will not take up farming. They will walk away from it. They will see us older lads farming and getting no viable living from it. We have to seriously look into farm assist for farmers and bring in a system that is practical and easy to fill in the forms to get the farm assist because an awful lot of men are in dire straits out there at the moment. The issue of mental well-being is serious. People do not know which way to face or who to turn to and that is the big problem. We need to get that out there once and for all, and right away. That is all I can say.

Mr. Vincent Roddy:

I thank Senator Garvey. The idea has been mentioned a few times already that we need to have income assessed on the basis of net income rather than gross income. When we look at depreciation we need to align it with tax because most farmers will understand it. We definitely need to do that.

A general comment around farm assist is that it is there to support farming and that is what it is about. We also need to ensure it does not become a poverty trap and that is always a concern.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to interrupt, but can Mr. Roddy elaborate on what he means by "a poverty trap"?

Mr. Vincent Roddy:

It is always a concern that it would just become a poverty trap. That needs to be a major part of the discussion. If farmers are afraid to expand because they will lose on the other side, where is the incentive? That is where the resource scheme would come in. We need to look at that. One thing we outlined in our proposal was the idea of a universal basic income and we should look at that for farmers. We proposed an opt-in for 500 farmers for three years. It would get around that and let us see where it can go. It is already on the Statute Book for artists, so that is something. I ask all committee members to seriously consider that. It would be an opt-in for farmers and could help to avoid that potential poverty trap and we could see where we are after three years.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Doyle wants to come in.

Ms Alice Doyle:

I agree with the Senator on a number of issues. For example, we keep farmers on the farm by using farm assist. Farmers are needed in the countryside and farm assist might be part of the way to keep them there. Farmers are needed on the farm to work and cannot move away to look for jobs elsewhere because part of the work they have to do is based where they live. As the supports have been withdrawn from farmers, we need more social welfare assistance through farm assist. For example, CAP has been reduced, particularly in the east coast where it has been reduced dramatically as a support for farmers. Therefore, there is a gap that may have to be filled through social welfare and farm assist is an example of that. We talk about all of the money coming through. The Senator listed all of the schemes. In theory, that money is coming in but it comes at the wrong time of the year, it is not paid in time, or the bureaucracy around it is so high that farmers find it very difficult to apply for. I know Mr. Buckley wants to comment on that also.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

I want to put another perspective on statements around payments. It is not that we are looking for more money. In the 1990s, 52% of the European budget was allocated to CAP, but that figure is less than 30% today. In the 2000-06 programme for Government - 20 years ago - some €1.9 billion was set aside for the rural environment protection scheme, REPS. Some €15 billion was set aside for ACRES by this Government. It was lauded and the Government told us it was the largest ever. It was not. Twenty years ago the average payment on REPS was €6,350. Today, 20 years later, the equivalent figure for ACRES is €6,000. We are not looking for more money for farmers. We are looking to try to make sure the support for farmers is maintained. That is a key difference. The issue here is that the amount of money going towards farming has reduced massively in real terms. We are speaking about farm assist and I can guarantee that every one of my colleagues agrees that it would be great if we did not have to talk about farm assist. Professor Thia Hennessy of UCC did a study in 2013 and found that for every €1 that was put into beef farming, there was an economic output of €4.28. It is important to have that context as well. It is not that we are looking for more money; we are only trying to make sure farmers are supported. I would not be dismissive at all of environmental payments; I would be the opposite. Regarding the disregard from environmental payments, it is to encourage farmers to stay in them and to participate in them. I wanted to clarify that.

Mr. Paul Smyth:

I think that if we did a proper assessment on this, we would be frightened to learn who, on a net basis, could be eligible for farm assist. The fact that the number of farmers is decreasing shows that farm assist is not working. It is not that farmers are getting out of the business or farms are getting larger; it is that farmers cannot stay in business. If farm assist was working, we would see a stabilisation in farm numbers.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did Senator Garvey have a brief supplementary question?

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a precedent for means testing on net income in other sectors in Ireland? I asked that in my original speech. Do witnesses need help to promote farm assist? Do they need help with the bureaucracy of it? What are the witnesses' asks? Should we ask for more Teagasc staff to help people? I know bureaucracy is ruining everything in every sector. I know that farmers traditionally did not have to deal with much paperwork and now they are forced to do loads. It is so stressful. I have helped people to fill out forms.

Let us have clear asks so that the committee can drive them on for the witnesses as opposed to just saying that these are the issues. We need to look at solutions. What are the witnesses asking for and what is the committee asking for? Do we need more staff in Teagasc? Do we need to do some PR so that people realise that every sector takes money from the Government? Everybody gets children's allowance. It is not a hand-out; it is a hand-up. It is just a payment. This is the way the country is run now. There is a PR piece there too because we do not want people to feel they are begging. As the witnesses said, there is a stigma around it.

I meet Macra na Feirme a lot. It has different asks in some ways. It is looking for more around technology supports and farming diversification. If any sector should get the universal basic income, the farming sector should, 100%. I will be killed by the artists for saying this. I find there is a lot of Dublin-centric thinking in a lot of what is happening. I do not think people are taking the threat to our land, our farms and our communities seriously enough.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. Mr. Fitzgerald will be first and then Mr. Farrell.

Mr. John Joe Fitzgerald:

I agree with what the Senator said. We need to have more staff on the ground. We need to get Teagasc and everybody else involved. We need to make them sell farm assist to the farmers. As well as that, we need to make the inspectors farmer-friendly. I am just making that point. Farm assist is there to help to sustain the farmer. It is not as though we are looking for extra money to be taken from payments or anything like that. The money is there, but we must give the farmer the opportunity to hold on to some of that money. It would make things a lot better. If we lose the farmers, especially the small farmers on the west coast of Ireland or any rural part of Ireland, that will have a knock-on effect on tourism and everything else. I come from a Gaeltacht area. There is a lot of emigration out of the area at the moment with lads and girls leaving. They look at their parents at home who are struggling. They are on farm assist. One would not blame them for emigrating. If we can make it that what farmers have, they can hold onto and can improve themselves and make themselves more sustainable going forward, we might keep the farmers in rural Ireland and we might keep our heritage and culture there as well. If we lose these farmers because they are constantly in poverty, we will lose everything else with it.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

It is a simple thing the Senator referenced - simplicity. There are 20 pages in the application form. A very basic thing is that we are fed up with going to planners and different people. No matter what we hand out today, we are handing out money to get paper filled in. That day has to stop. We have to be able to do our own work. I do not think we are so badly educated that we should not be able to do it. A message we need to get out loud and clear is the need for something very simple and basic. I do not understand why everything has to be in a confused form. There are accountants who do up farmers' incomes on a regular basis and on an annual basis.

They can easily see this issue in front of them, that is, the returns people on a farm have. They can identify them, and maybe forward information or advise them to look for it. We also have Citizens Information. Maybe we need rural clinics. We need it to promote this. We never see any advertising as far as farm assist is concerned. We have bodies there, but farmers are a sector that is not looked after. Every other area is, but we are not. We need to get more information on it out there in the media, give it better publicity, show the need for it and not be ashamed to look for it because we are entitled to it.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring in Senator Wall in a second but to answer Senator Garvey in terms of gross versus net and if the Revenue Commissioners model was used, Revenue looks at net income rather than gross income.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests today. It has been an important discussion on farm assist and RSS. I will start off with what the Cathaoirleach last mentioned. He will be aware that, over recent weeks, I have brought this up with the Department and various contributors about the net versus gross assessment. Ms Doyle stated in her introduction that we would all love to be able to spend what is gross but in reality, it is net and that causes a problem. Maybe, as the witnesses answer the questions, we can get some examples of how this is affecting farming families and farmers throughout the country. Over recent weeks, I have given examples to the Department, and through this committee, of how in my daily clinics the gross versus net argument is affecting people and disallowing them from very necessary things that they should be entitled to over periods of time. I am interested to hear how it is affecting our farming community. As has been said, farm assist is needed now more than ever with the weather conditions and what farmer families are going through at the moment.

Mr. Fitzgerald, and everyone, has spoken about the whole capital test, that is, the €20,000 versus €50,000. Obviously, there are social welfare payments like carers' allowances and disability allowance that are at €50,000 at the moment and I believe it should be at €50,000. The last day I mentioned, as the Chair and Deputy Ó Cuív have done, the number of people I deal with who are saving for a rainy day, which is costing them when it comes to social welfare because they are saving such money. The capital test should go to €50,000.

I am interested in what Mr. McNamara's said around a yearly review on farm assist. Maybe we could tease that out a bit more. He will be familiar that, as with other social welfare payments, a percentage of those are reviewed on an ongoing basis, but not on a yearly basis. I wish to tease that out. He has already mentioned the effect that is having on farming families and farmers in general.

Paperwork has been mentioned again and again. The farmers who I deal with are coming to my office for help with the amount of paperwork they have and they question whether it is worth their while filling out these 18 or 20 pages on the farm assist form. The amount of paperwork they are having to fill out at the moment is a huge issue. We have spoken at this committee about the centralisation and standardisation of forms. As someone just said, the whole social welfare system, or social protection system, has your details already on the system. Why do we have to continuously fill out forms? It is not just for farm assist; I deal with members of the farming community on other such forms they must fill out for other payments.

I wish to mention the RSS and the importance of it to rural communities. In the rural community I live in, the RSS is there and it is doing the job day in, day out. It should continue and it should be changed and fit for purpose. I welcome this discussion and assure farmers that we, on this committee, are listening to them in regard to the means test. We have had an important discussion and I wish to get some answers to the questions I have raised.

Mr. Paul Smyth:

In relation to the assessment and net versus gross income, the housing income support is based on net means as well. I wish to put that out there.

On the questions from Senator Wall, there is quite a lot of agreement with what is being said from this side. It is a matter of us coming together on this and powering through this and getting something together for the review. We are hopeful that will come about from this.

Mr. Pat O'Brien:

On Senator's Garvey’s recommendation that Teagasc help with filling forms, that is a non-runner because it is already overburdened filling forms. It is also overcharging for that. Someone who is in need of farm assist will not be able pay Teagasc to fill out forms.

Ms Alice Doyle:

We are agree with a lot of what the Senator said. He asked for an example as to why it is so difficult for farmers to apply for farm assist. I will give an example. When an inspector comes out to talk to the farmer, the inspector looks for a lot of information that a person does not have to provide if he or she goes into the social welfare office looking for an unemployment benefit or a jobseekers' benefit. An example is proof of tenure, that is, proof that you own the farm. Not every farmer is able to pull that out of the box or out of the drawer immediately. A farmer is asked to give his last year of accounts and must go back into the accounts. Not every farmer goes to an accountant to do his or her accounts. Some do them themselves and they are allowed to do so. However, if a farmer does go to an accountant to get his or her accounts drawn up, they need them in a hurry. Farmers are asked to provide receipts for everything they have there and then and sometimes those receipts are sitting in the accountants office. Sometimes they have to go and get them because they are not available. The length of time that it takes to get all this information together can lead to a long period of time before the inspector can come back and decide if the farmer is eligible or not. Sometimes, the crisis may be almost over by the time the inspector can get back to the farmer with that or before the farmer can provide the necessary information.

If I look for jobseekers' allowance in the morning, I do not have to prove I own a house or any of those kind of things. That makes it a lot easier. I only have to prove that I do not have any money or an income, whereas the farmer is asked to provide a lot of material that is not readily available and takes a long period of time to get and therefore, the crisis is often averted by the time that happens.

Mr. Buckley wishes to come in on one other issue.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

In terms of recommendations, if you look at it from a revenue perspective, there is an income averaging principle there for farmers in terms of revenue and you can opt in to it. The reason it is there is because of the cyclical nature of farming income. Given the cyclical nature, that principle needs to be looked at when we are looking at farm assist or a form of that.

I will give another example. Take the ACRES payment. Most farmers are going to receive a double ACRES payment this year. If an accountant was doing their accounts, they could put that in 2023 as money that they are owed as a debtor, that is, money they could book in 2023 knowing that it came in 2024 because it was supposed to be paid in 2023. They could adjust the income in the accounts correctly for a double payment. There will be an issue this year where there will be farmers that are going to get two ACRES payments and therefore their gross income this year is going to have the two payments in it. Some of it will be disregarded but I am not certain if the system is designed to account for that. If it is not, then it is something that certainly needs to be looked at.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In my experience-----

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In fairness, I will bring in Deputy Ó Cuív, but Senator Wall has been here from the start of the meeting and I wish to give him his chance.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

I thank Senator Wall for his time and for his questions. As mentioned by the Cathaoirleach and as was brought up with the previous speaker about dockets and all this stuff, Revenue accepts a statement or return of accounts from any accountant. They should be accepted by everyone else. This thing of miles and trimmings is totally uncalled for and unnecessary. Maybe we need to look at that all being removed. I am not going to hog the time because I know there is a lot before the committee.

Mr. Vincent Roddy:

Some of it has been covered, so we will not track over that, especially the points about the net versus gross. On the increase from €20,000 to €50,000, I was unaware that was already there for carers. If it is, there is a precedent set, so I do not see why we cannot get that there. That would definitely help. I ask Mr. Fitzgerald to say a few words.

Mr. John Joe Fitzgerald:

In the yearly review, it should be as simple as a tick-the-box exercise instead of having a farmer in the first or second year trying to gather all of his receipts and spend probably two days inside at the kitchen table trying to get his receipts together and trying to make everything add up. It puts mental pressure on farmers. As well as that, there is an in-person review every three years anyway. Therefore, the tick-the-box exercise for a yearly review would work better. Mr. Buckley mentioned we have double payments coming in this year for ACRES. There will be farmers now worried about how they will spend that ACRES payment in such a way that they will be allowed to keep their farm assist next year. It is all adding up together and it is adding stress. That is my comment.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before bringing in Senator Wall, on that double ACRES payment, the committee will write directly to the Minister, making her aware of this payment and that there would be consideration given to that. On foot of this meeting, we will write about that.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An important point that needs to be made is that what is acceptable to Revenue is not acceptable to social protection. I have come across this problem in the past couple of weeks with a farming family and with another family. The committee might look at it because it is a very important point. I take the point of the gathering up of the information and I have come across that on a fairly regular basis as well. I thank our guests. It is something the committee will come back to under the Cathaoirleach’s chairmanship.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

Something just crossed my mind when we were talking. We have a role model in agriculture. We apply for every scheme on trust. We fill in the forms, they are gone and we are accepted for payment, whether we get paid or perhaps we have to pay it back later. I do not see any reason that system could not be used - have a set date for payment and you roll on. Give them a time plan and follow up on the farm assist. If something is wrong with the eligibility, it can be drawn back or stopped, but at least get the ball rolling and get things working. That is a simple way of doing it.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ó Cuív wishes to comment on Mr. Buckley's evidence.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I do not mean to interrupt but my experience is that it happens quite frequently that payments are paid in different years. They normally would take that into account. That is my experience. Perhaps we have practical welfare inspectors in the west but that is my experience.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

The only thing I would say is that this will be a widespread one this year.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

Because of the fact the ACRES was delayed, there is a huge amount this year. It will probably be much larger this year than it would be in a normal year.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the problem arises because-----

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The ACRES payment was late and-----

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Farm assist was an income-averaging scheme where they looked at one's previous year's income and then projected forward on a typical year. The difficulty is now because it is reviewed on an annual basis, it has become an annual scheme rather than an averaging scheme. I think this may be where the problem arises with it.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In my experience, what we do in that situation is highlight the fact that the payment is paid in the wrong year.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Mr. Hugh Farrell:

I think the Chair summed it up very well and identified it. The big issue here is, the farmers are placing their full trust in a third party, which the Chair identified a minute ago. That could be to get their reports or different figures and showing what returns and costs they have. That third party is only getting them so much information because it is under pressure to try to do it in time. It is not being done right. This is where we need to change all of this, simplify it and go back to the net and the overall costs. If they base it on the net, they will see what their farmers are turning in a year. This will cover that because it is built into it in most cases, so that is what we need to go back to. We have to remove all this and, to be honest, we need to look at the pilot scheme for basic universal income and bring that on board. We welcome those thoughts.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now hear from Ms Doyle.

Ms Alice Doyle:

The most telling statement the Chair made was towards the end when he said the person going to assess the farmer does not have any understanding of farming. If I go looking for a jobseeker's allowance, I do not have to prove anything. All I have to do is show is a piece of paper which says I am unemployed whereas in a farmer's situation, it is totally unique, and the farmer himself does not know what he is allowed. In many cases, the inspector does not know either.

I have spoken to a number of inspectors about this and it varies from inspector to inspector as to how much they know. Somebody who is at it for years goes out and knows exactly what he is looking for but he also assesses the situation when he walks into the farm. He looks at the farm and he says the farmer here is of an age, for whom, as the Chair said, adult literacy could be an issue. As somebody mentioned earlier, a farmer could be almost living in squalor yet has a few bob somewhere but does not want to tell you about it. The inspector knows the situation, he is able to read it. Then somebody else goes out and they look at the situation and they take it according to the paper they have in front of them. They tick the box - you do have this, you do not have that and you do have the other. That is it.

Deputy Ó Cuív said inspectors in his area are very used to doing this, they are well able to go out and make assessments based on years of experience. On the east coast, we do not have that and coming from the south east and from Wexford, I spoke to one of the scheme supervisors. She asked me why, in the name of God, farmers in Wexford will not apply for farm assist. She is sure they are out there, she comes from the west of Ireland herself, and she said they were beating her door down to get it.

Part of that goes back to what Senator Garvey spoke about, which is the whole area of informing people they are entitled to this. We see advertisements for different welfare schemes available to the public on the television and radio all the time. If there is an increase, it is out there. It is never said or rarely, if ever, said there is a farm assist out there for farmers and that they can go and get it. Going back to the original point on the inspector being well informed as to what they are looking for and understanding farming as a unique way of life, it is terribly important and I would like to acknowledge that.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Doyle. Now we will hear from Mr. Roddy.

Mr. Vincent Roddy:

I will make a couple of brief points. I am delighted the committee is going to look at the universal basic income because we need to ensure we do not end up with some farmers in that poverty trap when that can be of benefit as an opt-in, which I emphasise. On the non-contributory pension, that should align with what is there for the PRSI payment. We need to go there. I do not know if Mr. Fitzgerald has anything to add.

Mr. John Joe Fitzgerald:

As Ms Doyle said about the inspectors, we should make them farm friendly. We should make sure they know a bit about farming before they go out, because I have seen and heard farmers telling me they had inspectors who came to them who did not have a clue about farming. They were always dealing with other situations but not with farming and I do not understand it. They need training as well and they need to be upskilled with people skills.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now hear from Mr. Smyth.

Mr. Paul Smyth:

From our perspective there are three simple things: simplification, equalisation and dynamic.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Ó Cuív have any final comments?

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, we should never forget, farm assist was actually meant to be a family income supplement for self-employed farmers. It was not meant to be the equivalent to the dole, but it is a jobseeker's allowance scheme and that is a challenge. I never look at schemes out of a historic prism, I look at their effect at the moment. How are they working? How do you change the rules?

We are doing this exercise right across means-testing and all the different schemes. There are two ways of approaching it. We know if we had a clean sheet we would not have the systems we have now. It would be very different. We are, as they say, where we are. What we have to do is look at the long term but say how we, in integral steps, get to that long term. In other words, we must change year in year out to get to universal basic income or whatever. I do not ever believe we are going to get there in one big bang. There are too many imponderables about that.

We can point to the idea of everybody having a basic income and then paying a tax on everything they earn above that. Now how do we get there? One of the basic ways is to actually deal with means testing in the present because the basic income never suggests 50% or 60% tax, it always suggests 30% tax so we have to go somewhere between where we would like to be and where we can get to in the short term. The discussion has been very useful, we have all learned a lot here.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do our members or witnesses have any final comments? This committee would welcome any further written evidence from our witnesses or any feedback they get from their members. This is not the end of this process, it is very much the start. If there are other thoughts, suggestions or proposals, either from the organisations or their members over the next couple of weeks, we would be quite willing to receive those in written format and they would form part of our overall report. What we want to do is make a real impact in terms of families so, on foot of today's engagement, I know our witnesses will have meetings with their own organisations. If there are suggestions, thoughts or ideas, please do submit them to us. I thank the witnesses for their time this morning and for the thought and consideration that has been put into these submissions. These were very powerful submissions and they will be extremely useful to us in producing our report so I want to thank each of the witnesses very sincerely for that.

That concludes the business in public session today. I now propose the committee goes into private session to consider other business. Is that agreed? Agreed.