asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of farmers of over £10 land valuation in County Mayo who will not benefit from social welfare increases in 1977; and the number of farmers of over £20 land valuation in County Mayo who have been notified by his Department that they no longer qualify for social welfare payments.

It is presumed that the Deputy's question relates to the payment of unemployment assistance to smallholders.

Approximately 960 smallholders registered at local offices of my Department in County Mayo will not benefit from the increased rates of unemployment assistance which will become payable from the beginning of next month as their valuations fall between £10 and £20. Some 140 smallholders in County Mayo with land valuations over £20 have been notified that they will no longer be entitled to unemployment assistance on the notional basis of assessment from 30th March, 1977. Smallholders in this latter group may, however, qualify for unemployment assistance on the basis of a factual assessment of their means under the general provisions of the unemployment assistance scheme.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an indication of the criteria to be used in deciding whether people with a land valuation of more than £20 are eligible for unemployment assistance in view of the fact that the notional system is now being abolished?

As has always been the case, there are farmers who have opted for a factual assessment instead of a notional assessment. The same criteria will apply as heretofore in respect of those people, namely, a normal factual assessment of means.

Are we to take it that recipients of social welfare who have a valuation of from £10 to £20 under the notional system will not get any increase as from 1st April? Is it correct that they will be the only recipients of social welfare who will not get any increase? If that is the case, does it not show an anti-farmer bias? If these people are entitled to social welfare they should also be entitled to any increase.

As the Deputy is aware, there has been a great need and demand for a proper rationalisation of assistance given to small farmers. The way it has been done is to have regard to the incomes of the farmers who may be affected. Deputies opposite may be aware that in 1971 an order was made by a former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Brennan, which excluded a very large number of farmers irrespective of income——

It was only single farmers.

It was irrespective of income.

I am not asking a question about who is or is not entitled to social welfare. I am referring to an increase being given to all social welfare recipients on 1st April except the farmers. Is that not a fact?

No, it is not.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me what other social welfare recipients are not going to receive the increase?

Any person in any grade of assistance as distinct from benefit who does not meet the statutory requirements will not get the increase. Only people who meet the statutory requirements will get it, whether they are farmers, industrial workers or anyone else.

I am referring to people who meet the statutory requirements and who are in receipt of social welfare. I cannot understand how the Parliamentary Secretary can say that one category of recipients will be entitled to the increase while another category, even though they are entitled to social welfare, will not get the increase.

The Deputy is making a statement.

As I replied in answer to a previous question, they are not necessarily excluded because they have the option of going for a factual assessment.

I am not referring to people who have a valuation of more than £20. I am referring to people with a valuation of between £10 and £20 who are within the Act. They will not get any increase.

The point is they are not getting the increase on a notional basis. As has always been the case, if a farmer opts for a factual assessment he is entitled to do so. If any of the people in the category mentioned by the Deputy wish to opt for a factual assessment and if they qualify, naturally they will get the increase.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that those farmers who have opted for a means test are having their assistance reduced? This is happening throughout the country.

The way the Deputy phrased the question would tend to distort the situation, not intentionally, but it could happen. If a farmer wishes to go for a factual assessment as opposed to a notional assessment, he is assessed factually. He may qualify for a full pension or he may qualify for a reduced pension but on the same basis as any other recipient of social assistance. There is no distinction whatsoever. The farmers to whom the Deputy refers in his supplementary question may find that if they go for a factual assessment the benefit will be reduced and that it is beneficial for them to go for a notional assessment, but they have the option.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the purpose of changing from the factual assessment, in the first instance, to an assessment based on valuation was to create a situation whereby unemployment assistance would not act as a disincentive to small farmers producing on their holdings and improving their income? Was that not the basis of the change to the valuation assessment?

We have dwelt a long time on this question.

I could not give any reason for the way the scheme was originally introduced.

Question No. 6.

My question has not been answered.

6.