Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

The debate on the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill is always interesting, with each speaker bringing their own perspective to the policy making forum that is the Seanad. The Minister has on occasion taken on board some of the suggestions made in these debates. All of the contributions to today's debate were interesting. Social welfare is an area of public policy with which any public representative worth their salt is well attuned. Almost daily we hear from constituents about the various anomalies and blockages in the schemes which must be resolved. For that reason, it is important that the Minister listens and responds to Members in so far as he can.

Senator Ryan concluded his contribution with a reference to the social insurance fund and the recent commitment of one of the Government parties to reduce the amount of money paid into it. That broader debate should probably be held on another day but the subject is at the core of this debate. Without a sufficient insurance fund, we cannot respond to the needs of recipients of these schemes. I hope that the weekend's announcement, if it is more than simply a political ploy to win votes, has been thoroughly considered. Our constituents almost always refer to tax rates and will argue that taxation in general should be reduced, but people accept the fact that a sufficient social insurance fund is necessary to fund the various contributory schemes in place. I hope the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues will reflect again on this issue.

During these debates we tend to cover the broad spectrum of social welfare but on this occasion I wish to refer to a couple of the issues dealt with in the Bill. The increase in contributory pensions, which is welcome, gives rise to a number of issues concerning pension calculations which the Minister should address. The first relates to the contributory pension scheme for the self employed. Since 1988 self employed persons have been deemed eligible to pay social insurance. There is a ten year rule, whereby they qualify for a full contributory pension if ten years of contributions have been recorded. A partial pension, with a five year rule, was introduced for people who had paid contributions for eight or nine years but who did not qualify for a pension.

Many of my constituents who have paid social insurance for five to nine years make the argument, which is worthy of reflection, that a person who has paid six years social insurance should get a 60% pension, a seven year payment should result in a 70% pro rata pension and so forth. Perhaps the Minister would consider this issue. It is almost 20 years since the 1988 deadline and the vast majority of self employed people will get the full pension on retirement. The number of people in receipt of the 50% pension is reducing significantly, but they still are still there. I hope we can do something for the people who have paid six, seven or eight years' contributions but are at present receiving half the pension. They could, with a little good will, receive a higher rate.

There are also people who only paid social insurance for two or three years before they reached pension age. There will always be people who fall out of the net where rules and regulations are concerned but in this case there are hundreds rather than thousands of applicants involved. I hope we can do something for them.

My colleague, Senator Cummins, asked me to raise the pre-1953 contributions. There is a reduced rate of pension for pre-1953 contributors and Senator Cummins requested, on behalf of a number of constituents, that pre-1953 contributions should be taken into full account in the calculation of pension entitlements. That would require a change in legislation but, again, it involves only a small number of people. Perhaps the Minister will consider this suggestion.

Progress has been made with carer's allowance and carer's benefit, which is welcome. I particularly welcome the fact that, in a few months, the carer's allowance scheme will be extended to include carers who are also in receipt of a social welfare payment. Such carers will be allowed to receive half the carer's allowance as well. That is progress. Each year, however, I and many of my colleagues raise the means test calculation for the allowance. Serious consideration should be given to abolishing the means test for the carer's allowance. We should put a premium on care of the elderly.

There have been many debates about the standard of nursing homes, subvention rates, enhanced subvention and so forth. We must do the maximum amount, in both policy and financial terms, to allow people to remain in their own homes and communities. The carer's allowance has a key role in this regard. In a country and economy that is awash with money, the means test for carer's allowance should be abolished. Every person who is providing full-time care for a family member, neighbour or any other eligible person should be given the full carer's allowance.

I welcome the progress on separate payment of adult dependant payments. My colleague, Senator Terry, has spoken many times on this issue and I welcome the Government's decision. However, another issue related to means testing deserves attention. The income disregard for a social welfare applicant, where their spouse is in receipt of a reasonable wage, means that the social welfare applicant is unlikely to receive any means tested social welfare due to his or her spouse's income. The Minister, Deputy Brennan, gave a commitment to consider the issue of income disregard for the spouse of a social welfare claimant. I would hope we would see some progress. If progress has been made already, I have not fully understood it. I would welcome it if any improvement in income disregard has been made.

Overall this is another step in the right direction. I was going to say another step forward, but that phrase——