asked the Minister for Social Welfare (i) how many contributions a voluntary contributor non-manual worker with income in excess of £1,600 per annum needs in any one year under (a) Health Act, 1971, and (b) Widows' and Orphans' Pensions scheme; and (ii) under what Act or Ministerial Order was this number fixed.

(i) The minimum number of contributions which must be paid by a voluntary contributor in a year to maintain (a) his position as a person of limited eligibility for services under the Health Acts and (b) title to widows' pension under the Social Welfare Acts, is 24 and 39 respectively.

(ii) The number of contributions required is fixed in the case of (a) by the Health Services Regulations, 1971 (S.I. No. 105 of 1971) and in the case of (b) by the Fourth Schedule to the Social Welfare Act, 1952, as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1966.

Is the Minister aware that people who are not in the Government service but who wish to be voluntary contributors are prohibited from confining their voluntary contributions to widows' and orphans' benefit and that this is a great hardship and discriminatory against people who are not in the Public Service?

I am aware that that has been always the case.

Would the Minister alleviate this hardship?

These people are usually covered otherwise for retirement pensions. They are usually working in the Public Service.

That is precisely the point I am making. They do not want to cover for pension. They only want to cover for widows' and orphans' benefit.

Does the Minister consider that that is a realistic figure at the moment?

Question No. 19.

19.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that the difference in assessing the means of a person applying for a non-contributory widow's pension and a non-contributory old age pension results in a widow on reaching the age of 70 having her income reduced; and if he will take steps to rectify the position.

The Deputy is presumably referring to the different methods of calculating the yearly value of capital which have operated since 1963 in the assessment of means in these two types of pensions. Previously the same method was used for both pensions but provision for the more liberal assessment of means derived from capital in the case of widows was made in that year. The reason for the change lay broadly in the fact that a high proportion of widows are left with young families and have to face not only a major economic adjustment on the death of the husband but also problems of rearing and educating their children which do not arise in the case of old age pension claimants.

A reduction in pension rate because of the different methods of assessing capital for old age pension purposes occurs in a few instances only and I am satisfied that no hardship is caused in such cases.

Did I hear the Minister say that just because it occurs in a few cases, this does not matter?

That is the gist of it.

That is the usual reply.

No serious hardship occurs.

Is it right that because there are only a few cases nothing should be done about them? Does the Minister agree that there are widows who lose benefit on reaching the age of 70 when they are compelled to change over to old age pensions?

The Deputy did not listen to the reply.

Indeed, I did listen to the reply. The Minister said there were very few cases of this nature but that they do lose benefit when they reach the age of 70 and have to switch from widows' and orphans' benefit to old age pension. Is that correct?

That is correct.

The Minister has not answered the last part of my question which was "and will he take steps to rectify the position?".

Do they have compulsorily to switch over?

They do, yes.

Let the Minister answer that question.

I have not this under consideration at the moment but, as Deputies know, every year all these matters are considered.

And nothing is done about them year after year after year.

You could not say that. Every single year a number of amendments are made to the social welfare code, and you know it, and I am getting sick listening to you.

Does the Minister even know how long this has gone on?

Has the Minister seen the "7 Days" programme on the iniquitous system of means testing with regard to these people, non-contributory recipients of pensions, and is he satisfied that the system is operating satisfactorily?

I am not satisfied that any part of the social welfare code is good enough.

Did the Minister see the programme?

My programme and the Government programme is to improve it each year. I am not concerned with what the television says.

I am calling Question No. 20.

If there are only a few people involved in this, why does the Minister not take immediate steps to rectify the position and allow these people to get the same benefit when they are 69, just before they come to 70 and after they are 70?

I have been answering this question in the House for a long time, as was my predecessor.

And you have done nothing about it.

Up to 1963 widows were assessed on the same basis as those applying for old age pension and, in the interest of improving the situation for widows, we stepped up the amount of capital a widow could have without assessment. For the benefit of widows alone, we improved the situation in 1963, to come into force on 1st November. That was an improvement made deliberately by us at that time. Now you are asking that we should continue it on after the age of old age pension. If we do, every old age pensioner is in the same position at 70 as the widow is. In other words, what the Deputy is asking is that we should discriminate against widows.

(Cavan): Would the Minister not agree that it is socially undesirable to reduce the pension of an elderly person when that elderly person's means have not increased?

They do not eat as much when they are 70, he says.

(Cavan): Is that not what is, in effect, happening here? Would the Minister further agree that it is unfair to take from an elderly person something she has been enjoying for some time? In the case of widows, could the matter not be rectified by allowing them to continue in receipt of widows' pensions instead of switching them over to old age pensions?

The answer I gave to that before is that if, at any time, this privilege, which was given to widows——

Privilege?

——privilege given to widows——

A fine choice of words!

——in 1963 is to be continued beyond the age of 70, it must be given to all old age pensioners.

Why not?

That is the context in which I would do it. If I put this into the next Budget the Deputies opposite will all be disappointed.

Surprised.

We will welcome it.

Has the Minister for Finance undertaken to do this in the next Budget?