asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will grant a contributory old age pension to a person (details supplied) in County Dublin; and why no such pension has been granted and paid to the applicant.

The person concerned attained age 66 years on 26 March 1982 and claimed old age contributory pension from my Department. One of the conditions for the receipt of old age contributory pension requires a person to have a yearly average of not less than 20 contributions in order to qualify. The yearly average is calculated over the period from 5 January 1953 or year of entry into insurance, if later, to the end of the contribution year immediately preceding the one in which he attains pension age.

My Department's records show that the person concerned had contributions paid in respect of his employment in 1953 and, therefore, his yearly average must be calculated from 5 January 1953 to 5 April 1981. In that period he had a total of 375 contributions which is equal to a yearly average of 13 contributions. Accordingly, he is not qualified for an old age contributory pension.

Could the Minister confirm there were only 13 payments made between the period 1 January 1953 and April 1953?

Between that and 1974?

Yes.

I do not know if I have the exact number but that is the nature of the problem. The small number paid over that period while he was out of insurance cover is the cause of the difficulty and this is the position as the law stands at present.

Arising out of the Minister's reply, could I draw his attention to the fact that the sole reason this applicant was regarded as in insurable employment in 1953 was because he obtained a retrospective award of wages and that the Department regarded that award as applying purely to the period from March 1953. Could the Minister confirm that, if no insurance contributions had been made by this applicant in 1953, he would qualify for a contributory pension on the basis of all the contributions made since 1974?

I would have to get the exact number of contributions in that period, but from what the Deputy says that seems to be correct. In March 1953 his salary was increased to £638 with effect from 1 September 1952. At about that time a test case regarding retrospective awards of salaries to non-manual workers was decided by the chief appeals officer. After consultation it was decided that these cases were included as income and, consequently, it was included at that time. In effect, there were only ten in the period from 1953 until he re-entered in 1974.

Will the Minister not agree that it is totally unjust that because ten contributions were paid in 1953 this man has been deprived of old age contributory pension, when if no contributions had been paid in 1953 he would be entitled to a non-contributory pension? Would the Minister confirm that the ruling he referred to by a deciding officer away back in 1953 in fact has no legal standing under the Social Welfare Acts, that it was purely an administrative decision? Would the Minister indicate the legal position under the old Act of 1952 or under the Consolidation Act? I want clarification. I am not trying to be antagonistic or unhelpful but a gross injustice has been done to this man not because of the Minister but because of an administrative problem. The point I am making is that in 1953 when neither the Minister nor I was in the House — we were not very long in the world — a ministerial decision was made which resulted in this man having to make ten social welfare contributions. It was an administrative matter uncontested by him. Until 1974 he was not regarded as being in insurable employment. From 1974 when the legislation was changed, he was in insurable employment and he paid contributions. If it had not been for the ten contributions which the Department made him liable for in 1953 he would now automatically qualify for pension. In the light of legislation, I contend he should not have been required to make ten contributions in 1953. Because of that, would the Minister review the position and in the light of the justice of the case take the necessary steps to provide this man with a pension?

The appeals officer at that time was the chief appeals officer, who was a barrister-at-law, as a matter of interest. I accept what the Deputy has said, that if it had not been for the contributions in that period the man would be qualified now. I will have the matter reviewed. I cannot give any further undertaking at the moment.

I want to ask the Minister ——

I have sat patiently here during many Question Times and I wonder would you, Sir, refer to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges the goings on here at Question Time. Certain Members are dominating Question Time to the total exclusion of all other Members. I wish to protest at the number of supplementaries certain Deputies have been allowed to ask. There are 555 questions on the Order Paper.

It is my intention to bring it before the Committee on Procedures and Privileges. However, certain questions demand further supplementaries to clarify the position. In this instance I felt further supplementaries were necessary.

May I ask one brier supplementary——

I have been very lenient because I appreciated the concern you have. I listened very attentively to what you said but I cannot allow any more. We must proceed. The Minister has given you an assurance that he will review the matter.

I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that a number of other pension applicants are in a similar position. It is a matter that would cost the State very little. I am asking the Minister if having reviewed the matter, he discovers it is not possible to change the position under existing law, he will introduce amending legislation.

Many people are affected by similar provisions and the problem is whether this case can be so exceptional as to be isolated from the others. It would be very expensive overall. I have told the Deputy I will review this case.

8.