Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for her response to the demanding and challenging situation we have faced over the last couple of years. Many issues were in need of attention and they received it. This was because the Minister clearly understood the issues being faced and was determined to respond to them in good time. We therefore owe her congratulations for this and we wish her well in future.

We have limited time and I wish to touch on a couple of things. I like the Opposition. I enjoy the Opposition. John B. Keane once said to another Member of this House on television that "I enjoy you as a politician". In any event, the Opposition is a necessity and we need to hear from them as well. This does not, however, mean that Government backbenchers have no hearts or compassion or have hearts of stone. We meet our constituents on a fairly regular basis, perhaps more regularly than many people would give us credit for. We hear their stories first-hand. This is, of course, the best way to do it. By meeting people first-hand, we get a better understanding of what is in their minds and concerning them the most. I have noticed over the years that when people are in a potentially challenging situation, their innermost concerns and worries affect them greatly. They reach out at that stage for some help and some sign or some way through the haze. This is a natural thing. Ordinarily, and during the recession it was not always possible to do this, it is greatly important that we reach out to those people at that stage to stabilise them. It is also important from our point of view when we meet our constituents in clinics to reassure them that whatever the situation is, it can be resolved, we can tackle it and deal with it and there is a way around it. This is reassurance and it is hugely helpful to these people in the context of providing for their families and themselves.

Two other things came to my mind, which are not necessarily the responsibility of the Minister. The body charged with the responsibility to make determinations on higher education grants often has the attitude of offering half of the grant rate. Half of a grant, though, deprives a child of the opportunity of going to third level education. People might as well not get it at all. The obvious thing to do is to award the full grant and if investigations may not prove fruitful afterwards, it could be withdrawn.

I also wish to mention those people, self-employed or otherwise, who have insufficient contributions to qualify for a pension. When I was in the Minister's Department, which is a long time ago now, I did some work in this area. Unfortunately, some of it had to be reversed afterwards. My belief is that people who have made contributions during their years of employment, whatever that employment may have been, whether self-employment or otherwise, and made those contributions in good faith, have a constitutional entitlement to some pension arising from it, albeit a limited one. In other words, if people may have made only 50% of the required contributions, then they should get that 50% pension. They can then get the rest by way of a means-tested pension if they are in that category. The important thing, though, is to enable people in this situation to qualify for the pension they would be entitled to based on their contributions. If such a pension is not sufficiently big, then there is also the means-tested system.

All of us here would like much more time to discuss this issue because it affects the social fabric of our society. This is important from all our perspectives, whether we are in the Opposition or the Government, and whether we are backbenchers, Ministers or whatever. I thank the Minister for being here, for listening and for being of a mind to do what was necessary when it had to be done, because we had nothing else.

See this speech in context