Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Feb 1998

Vol. 486 No. 4

Priority Questions. - Social Welfare Benefits.

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

23 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the number of self-employed applicants for contributory old age pension who have been refused on the basis that they were already aged 56 when they were compelled to start paying PRSI for the first time on 6 April 1988; his views on whether there is a deep sense of injustice felt by those who have made contributions since the scheme was introduced in 1988 and are now denied pensions; and the steps, if any, he will take to deal with this injustice. [2881/98]

The issue raised by the Deputy refers to the position of self-employed people who were over age 56 on the extension of social insurance to the self-employed in April 1988. The figures the Deputy seeks are not readily available but it is estimated there could have been up to 20,000 self-employed people over age 56 when PRSI was extended in 1988.

To qualify for the old age contributory pension a person must, inter alia, have entered insurance at least ten years before pension age. This condition has been a feature of the scheme since its introduction in 1961. The purpose of the condition is to link entitlement to a pension with a reasonable level of contributions to the social insurance fund during the course of a person's career. This condition applies to all insured people.

Accordingly, self-employed people who became insured for the first time when social insurance was extended to the self-employed in 1988 and who were then aged 56 or over would not qualify for the old age contributory pension. They may be covered for widow's, widower's and orphan's pensions subject, of course, to satisfying the normal qualifying criteria. However, self-employed people in that age group, who had been insured as employed contributors for any period prior to age 56, could qualify for the old age contributory pension as such insurance can be combined with insurance as a self-employed contributor for old age pension purposes.

Refunds of the old age contributory pension element of the contribution may be made to those who entered insurance for the first time less than ten years before pension age and who fail to qualify for either an old age contributory or non-contributory pension. In the Social Welfare Act, 1997, provision was made for self-employed contributors, who entered insurance in 1988 but were already over the age of 56 at that time and who had previously paid social insurance contributions as employees, to receive a refund of the pensions element of their self-employed social insurance provided they do not qualify for an old age contributory or non-contributory pension. Heretofore, their earlier contributions precluded them from receiving such a refund.

From 21 November last new pro rata pensions were introduced so that people who pay social insurance for a reasonable period will qualify for an old age contributory pension. A yearly average of between 15 and 19 contributions gives a pension of 75 per cent of the maximum rate, while an average of between ten and 14 gives a pension of 50 per cent of the maximum rate. To qualify a person also needs to have a minimum of 260 paid contributions. This measure will be of benefit to many self-employed contributors.

I will continue to ensure the broadest possible contributory pension cover to as many categories as possible. I have asked my Department to examine the general issue relating to the self-employed group aged over 56 in April 1988. As any proposals would have a major cost implication they would fall to be considered in a budgetary context.

Any person resident in the State can qualify for an old age non-contributory pension which is payable subject to a means test.

Does the Minister accept there is a great injustice to a limited number of people who were forced to make payments and are now denied contributory pension? Will he give an indication of the number of people involved? I suggest the figure of 20,000 is not the true figure. We are talking about those who do not qualify for a pension, those who applied for non-contributory pension and were refused. Has there been a proper assessment of the cost of granting pension to those people?

The figure of 20,000 is an estimate. Some people believe that is a conservative figure, that there might be many more people in this position. If the scheme was extended it might open the floodgates. The figures quoted are astronomical and I have queried them. The overall additional cost could range from £370 million for those aged between 56 and 60 years and up to £756 million for those aged 56 to 66 years. The rate of increase in contribution that would be required to finance that proposal could range from 1 per cent to 2.4 per cent over a 50-year period. The most recent revised figures are estimated at £500 million based on 20,000 people claiming. In the context of the recent actuarial review, I have asked that the figures be updated and I hope to have them in the near future.

I am not blaming the Minister unduly — those figures were mentioned last October when I first raised this issue. The figure varies from £750 million to £350 million. That is not proper accounting. Will the Minister accept there is a serious anomaly here and will he quantify the cost of remedying it? I am aware of a case where a person is 18 days short of the required contributions to qualify for contributory pension and in other cases people are short of the required contributions by only weeks or months.

Perhaps a pro rata pension, particularly for those who are close to the limit, or the acceptance of further contributions would solve the problem? Will the Minister accept we are talking not about an ongoing problem but about a group of people who were over age 56 in April 1988? That limited number of people were forced by new legislation to make contributions and are now denied contributory pension. That problem will not arise again because everybody is now in the system.

I accept it will not arise again. It is difficult to give an exact figure, and that is one of the major difficulties in estimating the overall cost. Everyone will accept there is an anomaly here, and we are considering ways in which it can be corrected. It will not be easy. It will be extremely costly and it will have ramifications. Fixing an anomaly at one stage, just moves the problem further down the line. I want to look at all the proposals and in the light of budgetary constraints, see if anything can be done. Proposals which will have knock on effects elsewhere will be difficult to justify. If implemented they will create additional anomalies which may be worse than the one to which the Deputy referred. That would put pressure on me or on subsequent Ministers to change it again. At the end of the day, there must be adherence to some level of contribution. Various groups who have looked at this set ten year's contributions as the benchmark, and that is reasonable. However, I accept there are difficulties, particularly following its introduction for the self-employed in 1988.

Where there is an injustice we must find a solution.

As we are now out of Priority Time, Question No. 24 will be taken in ordinary Question Time.

Top
Share