Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)

I am delighted to be given the opportunity to comment on the Bill. Many people seem to forget elements when speaking about social welfare and naturally enough, if I was on the Government side I would probably do what Government Deputies normally do, praise the Minister and speak of the good deeds done. There have been some good deeds and as I have been in this House a while, I fully appreciate that some matters are better than they used to be.

I wish to pose two or three questions before we run away with ourselves. We have fancy new names for welfare payments, such as the jobseeker's allowance, but we will stick to the old terms for a moment. Most disability payments, give or take a few euro, are €185 a week, which a person gets if he or she is unable to work or runs out of work and is unable to find a job. That amount would not bring a person too far in this day and age. Michéal Ó Muircheartaigh would talk about a game of two halves but we have a nation of two halves in many ways. I know people who would have no trouble spending €185 in one evening and would not find it unusual. It might be spent on a meal for two or three people. That would only be for one evening in the week but there are seven long days in the week for people on disability benefit.

There was a fair bit of hype around the country after the last budget. The approximate €200 for old-age pensioners is certainly better than €180, but to take it in the context of modern-day costs, I doubt old-age pensioners on the non-contributory pension, for example, are that much better off than they were four or five years ago, relatively speaking. The electorate knows this. When most people sat back and did the sums on their expenses, it was not as big an issue as it was many years ago. Whatever way the Government conducts its internal polls, there was probably no great bounce despite the talk of bringing the old-age pension to €200. There was a good reason for this. As every day goes by, with inflation at almost 5%, the cost of foodstuffs is rising dramatically. These are products people have to buy, such as the basic wheat products like bread or cereal products like corn flakes. This does not take into account the ESB and gas costs. These are daily items which elderly people must buy along with everybody else. An elderly person must feed him or herself and keep warm.

If we expect, as the years go by, that the majority of the elderly are likely to accept that level of pension after putting in sterling service to the State, I can assure the Government of what will happen and what I see happening around the country. I take my cap off to active retirement groups and similar bodies, which are better organised than ever. They are making a significant argument that there must be a comprehensive review of these issues. Many old-age pensioners believed what they heard on budget day but even at this stage, a couple of months later, they think they were short-changed and will so find it difficult to live. People tell me this. I would like to go into many aspects of the matter if the time was available but I assume time will beat me.

Every stratum in society has problems. We all know the real difficulties associated with the cost of child care and in buying a new home. The elderly are in no position to put up a fight where it counts, however. I am glad to see age action organisations forming part of the social pillar and I hope their say at that level of consultation with Government will increase as years go by.

A hermit might live on €50 or €100 per week and people who were in the work force in jobs that were not very well-paid might receive a contributory pension. If such people do not have a private pension they could be in serious trouble. They might have to run a car, naturally, and they may need a small holiday somewhere. It is against such a background we must judge the €200 or €209 per week, and one can immediately see a significant problem. We must figure out what level of pension a person can reasonably live on in comfort.

For many years we were not in a position to do much about pensions because the resources were not available, no matter which party was in Government. We are currently in a good position as the economy is going extremely well. More and more people are employed and we can only hope the trend will continue for many years to come. Leading from this a tranche of people are emerging as "the retired". These are not the people with a "yuppie" lifestyle of three continental holidays and two cars parked outside the door, and I am not into that at all. People at that stage of life, around age 66, also have another great anxiety. If they are unlucky enough to become ill and must go to a nursing home, €200 per week will be of little use.

Only in a thriving economy can one do certain things. As Deputy Kelleher said rightly, a nation's moral fibre is judged on how it looks after its sick and elderly. Irrespective of who is in Government, people will expect more than we have been able to give them in recent years. We have reached a stage where that is their right because the level of pensions paid here compared to the levels in many EU countries is low. There are several ways in which to measure the levels, such as wages and GDP, but we are down the ladder. Many people say it was a great day when we were able to give our old age pensioners €200, but this is the reason for the lack of jubilation for this measure around the country. Any Government would have seen it as a milestone, but there are many problems. Due to the significant increase in costs of living, we must watch this issue during the coming years.

I wish to refer to a number of issues. The question of where to put community welfare officers arose ten or 15 years ago. I spoke on this matter in the House a long time ago when an effort was made to shunt the officers back into the Department of Social Welfare and Family Affairs. They are heading for that Department again, but I do not know why. One could argue that what the officers do is closely related to what the HSE should be doing or, alternatively, what the Department of Social and Family Affairs should be doing. Those of us at the coalface know what the officers do. Wherever they end up, it is important that they be allowed the flexibility that is unique to them.

I understand the officers do not like the change, but I get my views from the people they serve, not them. Many people tell me that the officers, above all others in the community, have an absolute grasp of the family situations with which they are presented, which is important. It is like the local garda on the beat. Some official must know almost everyone with whom he or she deals. One could argue that if the officers were located in the Department of Social and Family Affairs, they would still know the people in question, but this would only be the case were their job specifications to remain unchanged. The evidence indicates that those specifications will be changed and the officers will not have their current degree of flexibility.

We must accept that in any situation involving social welfare, it is important for people paid by the State to be in a position to wear two hats simultaneously. We must ensure we pay the benefits to those entitled to them only, which is a normal concept. We hope no one will draw benefits to which they are not entitled. However, we must have a "fire brigade" system, as is usually the case, of community welfare officers with the flexibility, authority and wherewithal to help people in utter distress. If something happens at 4.50 p.m. on a Friday evening, such as ordinary social welfare payments not turning up, and one rings a Department of Social and Family Affairs office expecting its staff to do something to help during the next 48 hours, one might as well ring St. Peter in heaven. The situation is different with community welfare officers, who are in situ, available and contactable. We should never do away with people on the ground with the authority and knowledge to implement the rules. Until someone convinces me that the Department of Social and Family Affairs will be better in this regard than the HSE, the system should remain as it is.

A number of considerable anomalies have often been mentioned on the floor of the House. With all of the changes made to the various social welfare codes, it is strange that we have been able to achieve real progress. I will put on the record of the House a number of cases replicated across the country and that I hear of in every county I visit and at my clinics. Take the case of a person who was employed for three weeks in 1964 and had his or her contributions paid and recorded, but was then self-employed until 1989. Upon applying for his or her contributory old age pension, the method of calculation, which has been around for time immemorial, involves taking the date from which he or she first worked until the date he or she last worked. The number of contributions credited is divided by the number of years. In this case, there were only eight contributions per year. If someone was able to pull a leaf for the three stamps with which he or she was first credited in the 1960s, he or she would be in receipt of a full old age contributory pensions.

We must maintain the integrity of the contribution, as it would be unfair to those who make contributions throughout their lives if someone got a full pension on fewer contributions. I am arguing for a case to be made to disregard some of the years during which no stamps were given. If it was simple, it would have been done many years ago, but it is time to bite the bullet. People are being overpenalised. I do not have time to go into the ins and outs.

A cohort of people in rural Ireland, mostly farmers, were over 56 years of age on the day in 1988 that the Minister's colleague, Deputy Woods, introduced the self-employed pension. It was not their fault they were born outside that date. It meant they could not have the requisite ten years fully paid up by the time they reached 66 in order to be entitled to the full, or any, pension. A number of small changes were made, but we are at the point where there is a tranche of people who are not entitled to anything.

Worst of all is the situation where a self-employed person gets the old age contributory pension, but his wife is not entitled to anything because they own property. In other words they have means and that does not allow the adult dependant's allowance to be paid. Imagine the slur and the insult that represents to a woman after working all her life. She is entitled to no pension in her own right. It is not right, nor can it be, and I hope when the Green Paper on pensions is published this will be addressed because it is highly unfair.

See this speech in context