I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, before section 3, but in Part I, to insert the following new section:
"3. (1) The provisions of Part III of this Act shall not come into force until the Minister shall make an order in that behalf.
(2) The Minister shall not make an order under subsection (1) of this section at a date earlier than a date on which he has made regulations providing for the means testing of persons eligible to receive benefits under Part III of this Act.
(3) The Minister may by regulation provide for means testing of persons to determine their eligibility to receive benefits under Part III of this Act and such regulations may include provisions relating to the level of income and ownership of property and other means of such persons.".
In moving this amendment, I wish to take the opportunity to set out clearly my party's attitude to the proposed extension of PRSI to the self-employed and to farmers. First, this is not in any proper sense of the word an insurance scheme. There is a very loose link between contributions and entitlements. Benefits are automatic and not means tested and I will return to this point. In addition it is not insurance because the scheme is not properly costed on an actuarial basis. The interim report was rushed out by the National Pensions Board at the request of the Minister. We are totally dissatisfied that sufficient consideration was given to the long-term cost of the scheme. To pretend that the scheme has been scientifically and actuarially costed is a farce. Clearly, the Government have decided to fund this proposal on a pass-as-you-go basis. Even a casual awareness of the interim report from the National Pensions Board would show their preference was for an investment of the income under the scheme in the early years, when it is in surplus, to offset the cost in later years, when it will be in deficit. The Government have scandalously disregarded this recommendation.
Our central objection to the scheme arises from the fact that it will end up costing the very taxpayer the Minister pretends the scheme in some sense is designed to protect. For too long this country has indulged in putting forward half-baked, ill-thought out schemes, which appear attractive in the short term but prove disastrous from the cost point of view in the long term. This is just such a scheme and that is why we objected on Second Stage to this measure. It is quite clear that the Government are still intent on railroading this costly measure through this House. That is why we are seeking an amendment to alleviate some of the costly implications of the scheme.
The case in regard to the amendment is simple and straightforward. The present system of assistance for the self-employed is means tested, consequently, the Department of Social Welfare's figures reveal that 28 per cent of those who qualify for assistance receive less than the maximum rate of benefit of pension. This is so because the current rules have deemed the payment of full pension unnecessary in these cases. What will the Minister's proposal now mean? The answer is that everybody will qualify for the full rate of contributory pension, irrespective of means. In addition to the 28 per cent who do not qualify for the maximum rate of non-contributory pension, some applicants are refused totally any pension on the grounds that their means exceed the limits set and they are deemed to be too well off to qualify. I think that point is very important.
I think it would be worthwhile looking at the question of those who are eligible for the non-contributory pension and those who are not, those who should be eligible and those who will be eligible now. We know also that many do not apply for the non-contributory pension until after their 66th year because they chose to remain active in the labour force. All of these people, irrespective of their means and irrespective of whether they wish to apply for a pension under the current rules would automatically qualify for a full contributory pension under the Government's proposals now before the House. I must also point out there are about 200,000 people in private sector pension schemes who are already adequately provided for, and many of whom never claim or would wish to claim State pensions. These include the wealthiest self-employed people in the land.
In terms of basic social justice, is it not a farce to spread welfare benefits with the latitude of a badly focused blunderbuss, when there are so many people living in genuine poverty and dire need and who should have the first and greatest call on the State's limited resources?
Therefore the Progressive Democrats have moved an amendment to introduce a form of means testing so that everyone who is self-employed and about to be pulled into the scheme, whether they wish it or not, will not automatically qualify for a State handout. For that reason I am moving this amendment.