This section provides for a reduction from £230 to £215——
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill".
If the Minister continues to filibuster like this——
——in the annual rate of voluntary contributions payable by a voluntary contributor who was previously a self-employed contributor. There are at present 285 voluntary contributors who were formerly self-employed contributors. Voluntary contributions paid by former self-employed contributors provide cover for old age contributory pension and widow's and widower's contributory pension. This section implements the improvements introduced for other categories of people within the PRSI system, this one for the extension of improvements to voluntary contributors, of whom there are not many in the system — something of the order of 285 who were formerly self-employed contributors. Nonetheless it is another example of my care and concern as Leader of the Democratic Left party for this category of people, no group is too small to warrant consideration. As a party we are equally concerned about the interests of employers and employees, self-employed fishermen, small farmers and so on. Therefore, I am happy to effect such improvements.
Section 11 (1) reads:
Section 23 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution in subsection (1) of "£215" for "£230" (inserted by section 9 of the Act of 1995).
If that is the sum of the contribution of this left wing Minister for Social Welfare to the Bill I am surprised he wants to take credit for it because it represents a marginal improvement only. Can the Minister inform us of the number of voluntary contributors?
The figure on file in relation to former self-employed people is 285. However, a small number — no more than 50 or 60 — were formerly Class A contributors who subsequently transferred to modified rates or became self-employed and maintained their voluntary contributions. I will obtain the precise figure for the Deputy.
I have been a voluntary, former Class A contributor, over many decades. On becoming a Member I had the option of foregoing all my previous contributions or continuing my voluntary contributions. The advice I received from the Department at the time was that it would be in my interest to continue voluntary contributions which I have done ever since.
I should say that the figure I gave the Deputy was wrong — the 1994 statistical information on social welfare services show that overall there are 490 voluntary contributors and, if one deducts 285, there are approximately 205 within the other categories I mentioned.
Thank you. I am delighted to hear that in addition to having a politician's pension, the Minister will also have a pension from the State fund. He is very well secured; in fact he is doubly pensioned.
That is why the social insurance fund is so important.
I wish the Minister would realise the importance of so many other workers being in a similar position with two pensions, an occupational pension and a pension from——
Why does the Deputy assume I do not have that concern?
As the Minister will benefit from pensions including the old age pension and, presumably, the retirement pension, I am surprised he is not more to the fore in ensuring those people get a reasonable increase in line with the growth in the economy. The Minister has the politician's pension as well as the State pension, which is very convenient.
Will the Deputy not have any pension?
It was very astute of the Minister to continue that. I asked the Minister to tell me the total number of voluntary contributors.
The figure is 490.
I am asking for the overall number of voluntary contributors.
I understood the figure I gave the Deputy of 490 was the overall figure, 285 of whom were formerly self-employed.
A substantial number of people who were formerly bricklayers, plasterers, etc. could find themselves in a position where they do not have any contributions and it is important for the Minister to make available to them the advice given to him in relation to his personal circumstances so that they can continue their contributions and get a pension on retirement. Many of those people became self-employed by virtue of changes in the building industry with regard to sub-contracting. Will the Minister examine the issue of retrospective payment in relation to voluntary contributors. My understanding is that the Department took a strict view of the retrospective period. Will the Minister outline the practice in that regard since he has had some experience of it?
Spending many years in politics tends to remove one from reality and perhaps Deputy Woods is not aware of the changes that have taken place in the delivery of the service by the Department of Social Welfare in recent years, during some of which the Deputy was the Minister responsible. It is wrong of Deputy Woods to give the impression that in some way officials of the Department of Social Welfare would give certain information to a person — in this case someone employed by the State at the behest of the people — without giving the same information to those who needed it. To give such an impression would have an adverse effect on staff morale in the Department of Social Welfare who deal with the public on a daily basis. In recent years the Department of Social Welfare has become extremely consumer friendly and it is far more open in regard to the delivery of information than has ever been the case in the past. It is remiss of Deputy Woods, who should know better having been involved with the Department for many years, to allow such an impression go out from this House. It is wrong of him to talk continuously about someone who chooses to contribute to the fund — and in this regard we are unclear about Fianna Fáil's view of the fund — which exists for the benefit of all, regardless of the "dirty dozen" and the attempts to remove people from it. Fianna Fáil should clarify its position in relation to the social insurance fund and whether people should continue to contribute to it. Is it Fianna Fáil's policy to discourage people from contributing to the fund?
I would like to know if there is an information leaflet or guidelines available on the payment of voluntary contributions. If so, such information should be made more widely available because many categories of people wish to continue making voluntary contributions but they either do not know about the fund or the information is not generally available. If this information is available, I would like to know the criteria involved.
The discussion we have had indicates that I was right in insisting on dealing with this matter section by section rather than passing over it because some important and useful information has come out of the discussion as well as highlighting the availability of this voluntary contribution provision. The details in relation to qualifying are in the Guide to Social Welfare Services. A separate leaflet on the issue is also available in all social welfare information offices, through the National Social Services Boards and citizen information centres. It is also available through the information centres provided by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, employment centres, etc. I will bear in mind the point made by Deputy Woods in relation to making available further information. I would say, however, that it is not as important now as it might have been before compulsory contributions by the self-employed were introduced. If a brick-layer who was formerly on full PRSI becomes a contract worker, he is then self-employed and is obliged to pay the self-employed contribution.
On the question of my benefiting from a social insurance pension, I deliberately made this information available to the House because it is important to highlight the fact that as many people as possible should back-up their social welfare pensions with an occupational pension. The politicians pension, which Deputy Woods will receive as well as myself, is paid for by me and Deputy Woods and is, in effect, an occupational pension. Both pensions will be liable to tax so no one need worry that either myself or Deputy Woods will live the life of Reilly on a social welfare and an occupational pension, I do not know whether Deputy Woods will have a social welfare pension or whether he was ever a contributor to the social insurance fund.
I was and I will not are the two simple answers.
In relation to retrospection, the conditions that apply to becoming a voluntary contributor are that one must have worked and paid PRSI for at least 156 weeks and must apply within 12 months after the end of the tax year during which the person last paid PRSI or had a PRSI credit.
The discussion on this very small section, which Deputy Woods seemed tempted to dismiss as unimportant, demonstrates that it is wise to examine closely all the sections we are discussing today.
I wish to make clear to Deputy Lynch before we leave this section that the Fianna Fáil Government and the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government supported the social insurance fund and the workers' benefits from that fund and ensured it would remain solvent and strong. That was the point I was making earlier. I agree we began the reductions but we must ensure at the end of the day that the benefits are there for the employees and the self-employed.
When I left the Department of Social Welfare the fund had for the first time gone into surplus and was in a very strong position. That was by design on my part to ensure there would be benefits for workers and that the Minister for Social Welfare would be in a strong position when discussing the budget at the Cabinet table in pressing for appropriate benefits for the beneficiaries of the fund. The fund is now in a minus £82 million position which is tolerable but one must be careful that the deficit does not increase. The more it increases the weaker is the hand of the Minister for Social Welfare at budget time.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1.15 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
On a point of information, has a closing time been fixed for this evening?
Is it the intention to conclude the debate on the Bill today?
The order states that the debate may resume on Tuesday if it is not brought to a conclusion today. As we pointed out to the Minister, the reason we moved along through some of the sections was to make progress. I think Deputy Walsh is asking at what time is it planned to adjourn this evening.
We will continue up to 5.30 p.m.
That is acceptable.