Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The arrangement when Topical Issues were introduced was that Ministers were to come to the House. The Minister for Social Protection is obviously around the House today because she has a Bill in the House. However, as a rural Deputy, I am sure the Minister present will understand my concern in regard to the issue I raise.

The rural social scheme was introduced in 2004. The idea was that, rather than paying farm assist to farmers, we would give an opportunity to farmers to supplement their farming income by working on a scheme. To be eligible for the rural social scheme, one had to be qualified by being in receipt of a means tested qualifying payment, in most cases the farm assist payment. This was a mechanism by which we could bring the income of low income farmers up to an adequate level so they would be able to sustain a reasonable livelihood.

The idea of the scheme was to be flexible and to operate around the requirements of a farmer to farm while, on the other hand, using the talents of farmers, which are many, to make a contribution to community services. There was, therefore, a huge double win in the scheme, namely, the win for the farm family in terms of income and also in terms of income certainty in that they got a fixed amount of income which was €20 more than the basic farm assist rate and was the exact same as that paid under the community employment schemes.

Farmers who went on the scheme have time and again told me there are two major benefits for them. The first was the obvious one in regard to income and the second was in regard to social contact. One of the big changes in farming is that the meitheal has gone - the idea of people gathering to save the hay or doing all the jobs that would have been done 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago by a group of people but which are now often done by one person working on their own. Therefore, many farmers said to me that the socialisation of working was of equal importance to the income gained.

I know from evidence produced to me when I was in the Department of Social Protection that the negative effects of under-employment on people's health are clearly measurable. From the community's point of view, farmers were not unemployed. We were not talking about unemployed people but under-employed people who, because of mechanisation, did not need to put 40 hours a week into their farms. These people brought a huge wealth of can-do and experience to the job. Any community that had a rural social scheme in operation will testify to the huge amount of work that has been done.

We set up the scheme to function in a streamlined and cost efficient way. It is administered by the Leader partnership companies which come within the Minister's remit. Unlike the community employment scheme, therefore, the number of companies operating under the rural social scheme corresponds exactly with the number of Leader partnership companies which I understand is fewer than 40. This ensured the administration was slim-line, as was the insurance.

The benefits of the scheme are clear, but I am concerned by persistent reports in various newspapers that the Department of Social Protection, instead of expanding the scheme to cover every farmer in receipt of a farm assist payment, is instead considering its cessation. It makes no sense that the Department would choose, rather than paying people to make a contribution to the community by providing enhanced services, to pay them for doing nothing. Will the Minister give a clear statement that there is no such intention within the Department, that the scheme will remain as a fundamental part of the infrastructure provided and, furthermore, that it will be expanded to include every person in receipt of a farm assist payment.

See this speech in context