asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will amend the social welfare code in the area of entitlement to old age contributory pensions in view of the anomalous way in which it operates in certain cases; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

4.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he is aware that the criteria used for deciding eligibility for contributory old age pensions, namely the average contribution record from the date of entry into insurable employment until the date of retirement, favours people who entered into insurable employment late in life compared with others who were in insurable employment for a long period but did not maintain their contributions when their means exceeded a certain figure; and whether he will consider having a simple absolute number of contributions as the criterion for eligibility.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together. The existing contribution conditions for receipt of contributory old age pension provide for (1) entry into insurance before a certain age, (2) a minimum of 156 weeks covered by paid contributions and (3) a specified yearly average number of weeks of contributions over the period from entry into insurance to pension age.

These conditions were devised to ensure that the scheme is confined to those who have been genuinely insured persons in the period to pension age. The scheme was never intended to cater for persons who at one time or another were insured for a short period or had a minimal insurance record. To do otherwise would affect the financial viability of the scheme and would have serious repercussions by way of additional costs.

The average test can be satisfied by a minimum of 20 contributions paid or credited over the test period. Any worker who was in insurable employment for a long period should, therefore, normally satisfy this particular condition. Any worker with more than three years insurable employment who for any reason ceased insurable employment always had the option of becoming a voluntary contributor paying contributions which would preserve pension rights.

I will be examining this matter in greater detail in the context of the National Pension Plan which is at present being drawn up and I will be paying particular attention to the conditions for receipt of pension to ensure that there is equity for all in the plan.

Can the Minister tell us if the Department of Social Welfare notify everybody who is eligible to become a voluntary contributor?

Not everybody is notified in a formal way. The information is generally available. People come in and out of insurability and it might be some time afterwards that the Department would become aware of their income change. I would urge any person entitled to voluntary contribution to have so availed themselves.

Deputy R. Bruton has the question down.

I would like to put two questions to the Minister. The first is: is he aware that the contributory old age pension was brought in in 1961 only so that referral back to a pre-1961 date in order to decide eligibility is not only anomalous but unfair because people who were contributing before that would not have been making contributions towards the scheme? Secondly, would the Minister not consider that a person who entered insurable employment back in 1950s, who was below the income which forced him to make contributions but later moved out of that, is discriminated against under this scheme?

A question now, Deputy.

The question is: would the Minister not accept that an absolute criterion of a number of contributions would be much fairer than an average contribution record since, for people who might have fallen on hard times during their contribution period, the averaging period might have been extended even though they were not contributing in every year?

If one were to give a contributory pension to everybody with a minimum number of contributions paid, irrespective of the time in which they were accumulated, there would be very considerable cost implications. Therefore, the precondition has been laid down that the average test condition from the point of entry into insurance until pension age is taken as the criterion.

Only after 1953, though, is it not?

That is true. But if one were to take a situation in which people could come in and out of insurance, not be insured for extended periods but accumulate contributions over a period of a working life, the cost implications would be very considerable.

Will the Minister consider allowing the pre-1953 contributions to be taken in respect of a pensioner who does not satisfy the full requirement of contributions for entitlement?

That is the sensible thing to do.

The second thing is: if somebody has been in insured employment, leaves it and subsequently comes back into insured employment, will the Minister allow that person to make a lump sum purchase of contributions in order to be fully eligible for benefits subsequently?

I regret that the answer at this stage must be "no" because it is a contributory scheme, self-financing, a "pay as you go" scheme. If one were to give credits for periods of employment prior to 1953, when there was no such scheme in existence and no such contributions were being made, then the scheme would simply collapse.

Will the Minister answer the second part of my supplementary question in regard to a lump sum payment in lieu of contributions?

Again, it would destroy the fundamental principle we have been endeavouring to develop, namely, that a person should pay on a weekly basis over the period of his lifetime, Unfortunately, many people discover in their early sixties that their prospect of getting the full pension has been destroyed. There is no way that one can finance an insurability scheme on the basis of periodic lump sum contributions. They have to be paid on a weekly basis, on a yearly basis, and then paid out to all intents and purposes on an actuarial basis.

The Minister has said that he would like the payment on a weekly basis. Would he ensure that his Department would notify people who are entitled to make voluntary contributions that they can do so in order to become voluntary contributors?

I am not entirely satisfied at the extent of information people are entitled to, or that the extent of that information is always readily available. On the other hand, we do have employers, we do have workers, we do have trade unions and a whole range of social services. One would imagine that there is hardly a worker in this country who would not by now be fully aware of all his social insurance entitlements. There is a wide battery of people, including 220 Members of the Oireachtas and 220 secretaries, to advise approximately only 900,000 people of their entitlement, but I accept that there should be more information available.

Is the Minister aware that there are many cases of hardship?

I did not get a reply to my first supplementary on the 1961 point but, as a final supplementary, I should like to ask the Minister to refer this to his new Social Welfare Commission as a matter of urgent importance because I can see a clear, anomaly between someone who commenced compulsory contribution after 1974——

That is not a question, Deputy. You will have to get into the habit of asking questions.

Would the Minister refer it to the Social Welfare Commission he is proposing to set up?

Yes. I might particularly refer to the fact that when the limit was abolished in 1974 many who had earlier been insured but who had gaps in their insurance record found that for the period from their first entry into insurance over the average test period they did not satisfy the regular contribution condition. I think that particular anomaly could be referred to the commission and I will do so.

5.