Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Oct 1991

Vol. 411 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Pension Contribution Requirement.

Michael Bell

Question:

6 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has any plans to give credit to workers who reach retirement age 65 and from whom social welfare contributions were not deducted from 1962 to 1974 because their earnings exceeded the limit for liability for social insurance in 1962 as in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Louth; his views on whether it is unfair that a person who worked for 47 years is only now granted a reduced pension; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Entitlement to a retirement pension at age 65 is conditional on having 156 paid contributions, having entered insurance before age 55 years and having a minimum yearly average of contributions paid or credited from date of entry to age 65. The minimum yearly average required is 24.

The person concerned had an average of 35 contributions since entering insurance and accordingly was awarded a slightly reduced married rate retirement pension of £97.20 in March of this year which was increased to £101.10 in July. The current maximum rate for a married couple is £104.80.

Entitlement to retirement and old age contributory pension is based on an average number of contributions over a person's insured lifetime. This principle is generally considered a reasonable one. I have made special arrangements for certain people with gaps in their insurance records due to the operation of the remuneration limit for social insurance whose averages as a result were below the minimum of 29. Subject to this, however, the average condition has been a feature of the schemes since the outset.

The whole area of conditions for entitlement to pensions is among the issues being examined at present by the National Pensions Board. I expect to receive the board's final report shortly. Any changes in the contribution conditions for pensions will be considered in the light of the board's recommendations in this area.

I thank the Minister for the detailed reply. Basically, I was using those particular circumstances as an example but there are many others. I would ask the Minister to note that in certain circumstances people who have not contributed to the system would qualify for non-contributory benefits and can receive a higher level of payment than those who are short a number of stamps, through no fault of their own but due to the decision taken between 1962 and 1974. Can the Minister bring that matter to the attention of his committee who are examining the matter?

Normally, if a person's average number of contributions falls below the minimum they will switch to non-contributory and benefit from it but if they have a second income they will not benefit. I will certainly bring that matter to the attention of the board.

Can the Minister indicate the number of people who are affected by his unfair anomaly and say what would be the cost of correcting and removing that anomaly?

That is a separate question.

I would not have that information; many people would be affected by lower rates over the years.

Top
Share