Vol. 458 No. 2
17 Mr. Kirk asked the Minister for Social Welfare the representations, if any, he has received from the Self-Employed Pensions Association; the proposals, if any, he has to meet them to discuss their grievances; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14942/95]
I have received a number of representations from the Self-Employed Pensions Association regarding pension entitlements to which I have replied. As far as I am aware, to date I have not received a request for a meeting from this organisation.
I am sure the Minister is aware of the difficulty facing rural dwellers and farmers in particular who were brought into the PRSI system on a compulsory basis in 1985. Many of these people will reach pension age before the full amount of stamps are paid. There is a request before the Minister to allow people pay the full amount which would make them eligible for contributory pensions. Will the Minister examine this request sympathetically?
There are many issues involved in pensions. My colleague, Minister of State, Deputy Durkan, has a keen interest in this area and is keeping a sharp eye on developments in the Department in relation to the report from the National Pensions Board. The board made a wide range of recommendations to the Department and these are currently being assessed. I am not in a position to indicate what might be done about any element until the review is complete.
I am sure the Deputy appreciates that no matter what is done in that area, it will have a knock-on effect and create demands and anomalies in other parts of the system. If any changes are made, they must be progressive and not create anomalies or injustices for other people in the system. In particular, we must avoid a situation where people who, for whatever reason — perhaps they were not permitted to or did not think it worthwhile — may have avoided paying social insurance contributions for most of their lives could buy into the system at a very low cost but have the same rights as someone who paid contributions throughout their working life.
I am impressed by the amount of assessments being carried out in the Department of Social Welfare.
I am glad we are impressing the Deputy in some way.
I will be given a task force any minute now. However, this matter is quite straightforward and does not require further assessment. If a person did not have a choice and had to compulsorily enter insurable employment and if, at the very least, they have half the number of years required, perhaps five years out of ten, they should be eligible for a pro rata pension, for example, 50 per cent.
We are going beyond the bounds of the question.
This matter arises specifically from the question. It is extremely unfair if a person who paid seven years of a total of ten years is told they will be refunded their contributions. It is inequitable and I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter.
I am not aware of any insurance company which would give a person a 50 per cent pension on the basis of contributions made over five years. It would be extraordinarily generous. It would also be unfair to the millions of people who made contributions from their weekly wages all their working lives to guarantee a contributory pension when they retired. The Deputy is demanding that a half pension should be given to somebody who has only paid contributions for five years.
I am quite willing to consider the matter and I indicated that my Department is examining the recommendations of the National Pensions Board in relation to pro rata pensions, mixed contributions and a range of other areas. However, I am not prepared to give the commitments of the nature demanded by the Deputy.
I am a little taken aback by the Minister's attitude to this matter. In fairness to the people involved, the Minister must accept that the scheme came into operation in the mid-1980s and they did not have the opportunity to contribute up to that point. We are talking about a small——
Sorry, Deputy, we cannot continue to expand the question.
In terms of the reply the Minister has given, his attitude to the people who did not have an opportunity of contributing is unfair. They deserve to be given greater consideration. We are talking about a small group of people — anybody else involved has gone beyond the ten year period.
Is the Minister taking Question No. 17 in isolation or is it being taken with Question No. 32?
On its own.
In regard to Question No. 17, will the Minister agree to meet these people as they have important points to make? They are unfortunate in that they were asked to contribute to the Minister's Department for seven, eight and nine years and were then told their money would be refunded and they were not entitled to——
The Deputy should address the point as to whether the Minister will meet the group.
Will the Minister indicate whether he is willing to meet these people and give them the opportunity of making their points?
As I indicated in my original reply, I have not received a request for a meeting from this group.
I know it is anxious to have one.
If it writes to the Department we will try to find a suitable date for it to meet either me, the Minister of State or a senior official in the Department. We have met other groups concerned about this area also. It is an issue which the Department is actively considering and on which it will, in the course of time, produce proposals. The legislation about which the Deputy is complaining was introduced by her party.
I wondered when the Minister would get around to that, but he is 12 months in the job now.
I recognise that in the course of time even the best legislation needs to be reviewed and revised and that is what my Department is currently doing.
If a self-employed farmer had contributions prior to working full time on the farm, could he link those contributions with the earlier ones even though he may not have been paying PRSI in respect of work on the land for ten years?
That is somewhat outside the bounds of the question before us.
It is in connection with self-employment.
It is relevant.
It depends on the number of contributions. If a person was in paid employment, for instance, in the earlier part of his working life but then became self-employed and began contributing to this new scheme for self-employed people, the earlier contributions would be counted, but it depends on the number of contributions he made and whether they were pre-1953 or post 1953.
Can I take it they could be linked?
The manner in which they might be linked would depend on whether they are pre-1953 or post 1953. One of the anomalies that emerged in this area concerns a person who came into the scheme when it was introduced and who now finds he does not have the ten years contributions. Such people are entitled to a refund of what they paid in but if it is found they had an earlier record of contributions, as the legislation is currently interpreted, no refund is provided. That is one of the anomalies we are currently examining and hope to resolve.
I am glad the Minister pointed out that anomaly because it is the answer to Deputy Clohessy's question. Unfortunately, those people who had earlier contributions are in a worse situation in that they do not get the refund or any type of benefit——
Except, of course, that the earlier contributions may be sufficient to enable them qualify for a pension.
In some cases.
It is important, therefore, that they are linked. I would not say they should not be linked.
I would not break the link but I know of an unfortunate man who did not qualify for anything, not even a refund. On a point of information, I am aware that the members of the self-employed pensions associations are anxious to meet the Minister and I would be grateful if he would indicate he is willing to meet them because they are a group of people with a particular problem. They do not want the refund and they were not in a position to make further contributions. I would like the message to go out from here today that the Minister is willing to meet them so that they can make their points.
Is the Minister saying that if a person has three years contributions during the period concerned those contributions could be included in the new ten year plan?
Yes.
Will the Minister clarify that point?
I will clarify that point because I do not want to mislead the House on this matter. For example, if a person was in the scheme for seven years, three years of earlier contributions could not be used to top up that seven years to make ten years. It can be used, however, in the averaging in terms of the amount of pension. If he has ten years contributions, earlier contributions can be used to enhance the pension but not to make up the ten years.
