Jim O'Keeffe
Question:9 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social Welfare the requirements for the payment of small farmer's assistance; whether applicants are still required to sign on; and, if so, the reason for this.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Assistance Eligibility.
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:39 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will set out his approach to the self-employed who have insufficient means and who apply for unemployment assistance.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 39 together. Smallholders and other self-employed people can be entitled to unemployment assistance provided they satisfy a means test. The legislation provides for the assessment of cash income and for assessing capital. The usual procedure is to take details of the previous year's income and expenses as a reference or starting point. The estimated net income is updated in the light of prevailing conditions and the expected position over the year ahead. Where, for example, opportunities for self-employment are likely to be less than heretofore an adjustment is made to reflect this. Any smallholder or self-employed person can apply for a review of the means assessment if at any point their circumstances change significantly. If dissatisfied with an assessment it is open to them to appeal to the independent social welfare appeals office.
The methods of assessment are kept under review by my Department. The procedure in smallholder and self-employed cases is working satisfactorily in that it has the flexibility to respond to variations in their circumstances.
All such people are required to sign on. However, arrangements are being made in conjunction with the introduction of a range of payment methods to reduce the required frequency of signing. This has already commenced for some smallholders who are now required to sign only once every six months. It is intended to reduce the frequency of signing on for most others in the future.
Question No. 9 deals with the payment of small farmers assistance and Question No. 39 deals with the self-employed. Can the Minister confirm that signing on requires the farmer to be available for and actively seeking work? Is that what signing on means?
It is recognised that the smallholder is working a holding and therefore is given special treatment which does not apply to other people generally. During the past few years I increased the rate in line with urban rates. It is a good scheme and works well. They have to comply with the system generally but they are given special treatment.
Can the Minister answer the question? I asked the Minister specifically whether they are supposed to be available for and seeking work?
If they were treated the same as other self-employed people they would have to give up their special position. They have been given a special position by virtue of their position on the land. Consequently they have to sign the same as others, but the signing arrangements are being relaxed very considerably. Basically, the scheme under which they are paid is one which requires them to be available for work and seeking work and not ill. Those are the three basic requirements of the scheme. In their particular case they have always been given an exceptional position and that still pertains today.
May I bring in Deputy John Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny).
I have now got from the Minister the answer I sought in my original question which is that farmers are actually required to sign on. Arising from that I want to make a point to the Minister.
Very good, Deputy, go ahead.
Does the Minister not accept it is utterly ridiculous that farmers have to sign on that they are available for work, that they are seeking work and that they are not ill in a situation where the money they get by way of income supplement takes into account the income obtained from the farm? How can they earn an income on the farm if they are supposed to be actively seeking work?
Traditionally they have been allowed to continue entitlement to assistance. If one applied the strict legal entitlement regulations to unemployment payments they would not be entitled to assistance. They have been given a special scheme which covers them for payments. Does the Deputy wish to take away that special treatment?
No.
This matter could be approached in other ways, but that is another day's discussion and would have budgetary implications.
Would the Minister not answer——
I called Deputy John Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) earlier and I was frustrated in my endeavour. I will not have it again.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): We discussed the matter of the self-employed previously. Has the Minister changed any of the regulations since we discussed this matter previously? This week I hope to have a reply to the questions I raised concerning the self-employed, who are expected to live on mythical earnings and who cannot get work. Has the Minister any plans to change that awful system?
As the Deputy may be aware, we have made some special arrangements in the partnership areas for people taking up self-employment. The different facets of assessment are explained in the reply. There is a simplified system by reference to traditional earnings. However, if a self-employed person has particular difficulties there are means of addressing them. I know Deputy Browne would like to see more flexibility in approaching problems and we will certainly look at that in the context of facilitating people at work. We have done a good deal in the 12 areas mentioned in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress but that has not yet been extended throughout the country.
The Minister said that farmers have a special position and that special arrangements apply. Are those special arrangements covered by any regulations or is this simply the exercise of discretion on the part of the Department?
There is a smallholders' scheme. If the Deputy tables a question I will find out the exact legal provision. This scheme comes under general unemployment assistance. It has operated for many years and been modified somewhat to make it more flexible. The concept of a national valuation was discontinued and benefits are now based on a factual assessment.
Would the Minister accept that the scheme needs to be changed? Farmers are being put in a "catch 22" situation. They must sign on on the basis that they are available for work, yet they must earn an income from their farms by the sweat of their brows. This is unfair to farmers. Will the Minister change the scheme and pay the farmers what they are entitled to by way of income supplement? The Minister should forget this fiction that they are available for work. He is making dishonest people of them by making them sign on on the basis that they are available for work.
I thought the Deputy might be leading up to that. This issue is much more complicated than that and would involve budgetary resources.
Why?
We could not do that for farmers without doing something similar for other self-employed people. It would, perhaps, meet many of Deputy Browne's points. This is an area that needs examination.
It needs more than examination.
It needs money.
Smallholders are reviewed by the social welfare officer only in the context of their means. It is, therefore, rather farcical that they should have to sign on. It must be feasible to issue them with a book and have their payments regularised. Are social welfare officers aware of the guidelines on acceptable income and expenditure under this scheme? Will the Minister also agree that it is the computation of the value of livestock in family units that causes much hardship when estimating the income of such farmers? Would the Minister agree that it is necessary to clarify this?
I accept that it can be difficult to estimate income. It is difficult for the inspector who is operating on behalf of the taxpayer as well as for the farmers. I will ensure that not only the Deputy's question and my reply, but the answers to the supplementary questions, are circulated.