Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)

It has been known to happen.

As with all such Bills, there are good parts to this Social Welfare and Pensions Bill. I certainly welcome it. It is consistent with the thriving economy we had. It is reasonable to believe that if we live in an economy such as that to which we were used up until now, it is only right and proper that we redistribute that wealth. Unfortunately, it is not getting back all the time to the people to whom we would like.

In the few minutes at my disposal I want to speak about pensions and the anomalies that must be rectified by the Pensions Board, which is taking representations from various groups around the country. Now is the time to put right some of the problems which will arise in any social welfare code and which affect important minorities who have been left out of the loop altogether. There are approximately five or six categories and I will run through them quickly. A number of my colleagues on both sides of the House raised the structure for dealing with the self-employed introduced in 1988 by the then Minister, Deputy Michael Woods, which was as good a scheme as ever introduced. However, there had to be starting and cut-off points. As a result, when a number of people reached the age of 66, they did not have enough stamps and did not get a contributory pension.

I have spoken many times about the thousands of women who worked when they were young, then stayed home to rear their families and only went back to work in the past ten years when we had a good economy and who, consequently, have a bad contribution record. I suggest to the Pensions Board and the Government that we should put some mechanism in place whereby the years they did not work are removed from the equation and their contributions are then divided by the number of years they did work, which would give them a higher yearly average. Such a system would not involve significant extra costs.

The third group, a small one, comprises widows whose husbands worked in the Office of Public Works. By some strange anomaly, in the 1960s and 1970s there was confusion over a pension scheme. Now a group of widows is denied a pension they should have. I intend to document this issue and send the documentation on the matter to the Pensions Board.

One other group to which I wish to refer is a group involving members of the Garda Síochána, who, for whatever reason, were either dismissed or retired prior to October 1976. I understand some 82 people were concerned at the last count. No provision was made for the preservation of superannuation benefits in the case of members who resigned or were dismissed prior to October 1976, except in certain circumstances where they subsequently took up another appointment in the public service. This is a matter that needs to be considered.

Given what happened in this House some months ago with regard to retrospection of payment of pension, when a change was made for one of our colleagues in the House, we should consider the significant number of people who did not, for genuine reasons, apply in time for their pension and were penalised. That is unfortunate and unfair.

The stipulation that carers may only be employed for up to 15 hours a week in order to qualify for carer's allowance is unfair on the farming community in situations where a son looks after his parents at home. While he might not even have 15 hours work to do on the farm, he is considered to be full-time farming. This is an anomaly that should be looked at. There is not 15 hours continuous sustainable work to be done on these small farms. The issue is a matter of presence and availability to carry out the role of carer. If such farmers are not able to look after their parents, it will cost hundreds and thousands for someone else to do it.

See this speech in context