John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)

My first point concerns the method by which the non-contributory pension is calculated and how the means test to assess that pension is operated. An example concerns a pensioner whose assets amounted to approximately €70,000. In calculating this person's disposable income of €6,240 from the savings amount, the Department equated this to an annual rate of return of 8.825%. However, the top deposit rate available in this country currently is between 4.5% and 5%, and this would involve both a time commitment and minimum amount.

I have checked the websites of various financial institutions and lenders and the best rates I have seen are between 4.5% and 5%, a long way off 8.8%. How is the calculation made? In contrasting the disposable income percentage from the Department and the market reality of deposit amount percentages, the two are miles apart. There must be a reason for this. Will the Minister of State explain how often these means test formulae are reviewed and updated, as any means test should surely relate to the market reality?

There is a policy in the Department of a six-month maximum backdating period for pensions, unless there is proof of extremely exceptional circumstances. For example, an individual applied for a non-contributory pension not knowing he was actually entitled to a contributory pension. He was over the income limit for the non-contributory old-age pension but no official advised him to apply for the contributory old-age pension.

After this man died his wife realised she was entitled to a widow's contributory pension and this was applied for when the exceptional circumstances involving her husband's case were outlined. The person in question was only given a payment of six months backdating, as is general policy within the Department.

It is time to review this policy and consider backdating everyday State pensions beyond the current limit of six months. If serious consideration is being given to a mandatory pension regime, we can in the interim consider extending the backdating of payments for pensions that people have earned a right to.

There is a lack of information on pensions and entitlements. I distributed a booklet to every house in the city and county of Waterford last year and after doing so it quickly became readily apparent that people, particularly those over 50, did not have basic information on pensions and entitlements. For example, people around the age of 55 did not know one has to make contributions, in particular if the person is self-employed, before the age of 55 with regard to a contributory pension. They were simply oblivious to that fact. Approximately three years ago the Department issued a booklet to every house in the country. The Government should start doing that on a yearly basis because people are not informed, particularly those in that age bracket, as to their entitlements.

My next point relates to pensions of the self-employed. Self-employed people were first invited to make social insurance contributions in 1988. In 1999, the Department introduced a half-rate pension for those people who had contributed for between five and ten years. However, this was not done on a pro rata basis so that someone with nine years' contributions was paid the same as someone with five years' contributions. The Government needs to deal with the issue on a pro rata basis so that a person with, for example, nine years' contributions would get the proportional benefit of that and not a pension that only reflects five of those nine years.

My final point is a local issue, but it has some national significance. I refer to the closure of the community welfare office in Dungarvan on the grounds of health and safety. It is ironic that an office run by the HSE would be closed down on the grounds of health and safety, but that is what happened. The conditions in the office have been described as Dickensian for many years by myself and others. I have numerous parliamentary questions and letters on the matter dating back to 2001, when my father was a Deputy. For example, I have a letter from 2002 from the regional manager of the South Eastern Health Board — a man who is still in charge of the area. His letter states: "Proposals to upgrade the facilities in Dungarvan are at an advanced stage." I even met this individual last year and tried to facilitate him with office space in the town. The issue goes on and on. I even raised the matter in the Committee of Public Accounts a few years ago and was given similar empty assurances.

The straw that broke the camel's back was the plaster falling on people's heads in the office. The office was literally allowed to fall apart by the HSE. The Minister of State might ask why I am bringing it up in this debate. One of the last responses I got from this individual in the HSE, a gentleman called Dermot Halpin, stated: "The provision of community welfare services is, as you are aware, to transfer to the Department of Social and Family Affairs and consequently the HSE is mindful of the need not to commit to long term arrangements that may not fit into that Department's future service proposals." In other words he was suggesting he had done nothing about it for the past six years and was passing it on to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It is a hospital pass from the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, and this gentleman to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Cullen.

The point I would make to the Minister, Deputy Cullen, who is not here, is that Dungarvan is a good-sized town that needs an adequately located and equipped office. The hinterland is very big. I ask that the Minister investigate the matter. Somebody might ask why this is an issue of national significance. I would make the point that this is a very good example of how bad senior management in the HSE can be.

See this speech in context