We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Dáil
‹ Questions on Promised Legislation

Farm assist changes

Summary

Deputy McConalogue asked how restored farm assist disregards will be applied and whether recipients will have to wait for review. The Minister said the Bill will set out the details and that the previous cuts will be fully reversed, with normal procedures to continue.

In the context of the long-overdue and welcome changes to the farm assist scheme in the budget, the disregard of 70% in respect of income and the child disregard are being restored. Will the Minister indicate how this will be done? Will a desktop exercise be conducted in respect of all existing farm assist recipients to ensure that they can benefit from those disregards immediately or will they be forced to wait until their next review before they can do so? As the Minister will be aware, the relevant cuts caused much hardship to many farmers and farm families across the country. There are almost 10,000 individuals involved. It is crucial that this be applied to them and that they are not forced to wait.

Comment on this

The social welfare Bill will be published either on Friday of next week or the week after that and all the relevant details will be contained therein. We will totally reverse the cuts made to farm assist by the previous Government - of which I was a member - for the obvious reason that farm incomes are down. We want to be able to support farm families who are on the margins and also give other farmers the reassurance that should they fall on hard times, there is a stronger safety net to pick them up.

It is intended that the normal procedures will remain in place and that somebody's circumstances will be reviewed as part of his or her annual review. However, we will allow farmers to request an early annual review should they have a particular change in circumstances. That option will be available.

Comment on this