Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I may be off the mark with regard to this query, but this is the only section that seems remotely related to it, as the section mentions reckonable income for social insurance contributions. I refer to something I raised on Second Stage. The Minister intended to work on the area of retrospective collection of social insurance contributions from the spouses of self-employed persons. I am speaking particularly of the spouses of farmers who pay PRSI and qualify for a full contributory pension when they reach the age of 65. We had better use politically correct language, although what we are basically talking about is farmers' wives — we will have to strike off the record the mention of wives. The relevant provision was introduced in 1988, but some farmers' spouses did not pay PRSI — although they were contributing fully to the running of the farm, and in many cases either fully owned or part-owned the farm — because the tax and social welfare returns were done in the other person's name. Queries on this issue have gone on for ten years, and now the Department has reached some degree of compromise with the IFA and other interest groups. Leaflets have issued to say that people can seek to have their records considered retrospectively and can make retrospective PRSI contributions to the Department so that they will qualify for pensions in their own right. We are talking about a small number of people, perhaps a few thousand.

I wonder how the Department's proposal is progressing. A leaflet was certainly produced, because I received it from a number of people who were very happy to see it, but in the few cases I have been pursuing, progress seems to be slow, although they have not been rejected. I appeal to the Minister to try to resolve the issue. I am not sure whether I am on the right section, or whether there is any relevant section, but the words "reckonable income" gave me a little manoeuvrability. The Leas-Chathaoirleach would be aware of many of these cases. Accountants thought they were doing people a favour by suggesting that all the accounts be in one person's name, but spouses have lost out.