Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentation and for the work they have been doing in this area. I welcome the research that has been done to draw out some of the issues around the gender pension gap in its many forms. Women seem to be disadvantaged in the current system in two ways. The second layer almost adds insult to injury. It seems that opposing logic is being used to justify each of the two forms of disadvantage. I would like to hear the thoughts of the witnesses on this matter. The changes that were made in 2012 were justified on the basis that there needed to be a greater match-up between people's contributions and the payments they get. They were also acknowledged as a cost-saving measure. Older female pensioners were almost seen as invisible in the system because so many of them were on reduced-rate pensions. I ask the witnesses to clarify how all of this breaks down in terms of gender. Who is getting a full pension and who is getting a reduced pension?

The argument that was made in this regard was that there needed to be a link with contributions. However, the same rationale did not apply in the case of the backdating of the home maker's disregard. If I am correct, someone who has contributed the required number of contributions for a full pension over a period of work with a gap in it - he or she might have made as many pension contributions as someone who worked 20 years in a row - will not get the value for his or her contributions because of the averaging rule. It seems that two contradictory forms of logic are being employed. We have been told we cannot afford to fix it. I ask the witnesses to comment on the incompatible forms of logic used in these two cases. As I see it, both of them are adding two layers of disadvantage to women in the pensions system.

I was interested to hear about the proposal to reverse the change that was made in 2012. I would like to know whether the witnesses believe it is satisfactory that we should wait until 2020 before we bring in averaging. Do they agree that backdating needs to be done on an earlier basis in order to address this direct form of disadvantage?

I would like to move away from issues that are currently affecting people of pension age. How do the witnesses believe care should be recognised within the pension system, focusing primarily on the first system? How should care and the contribution of care be recognised in any new supplementary system that is introduced? Other members of the committee have mentioned the question of a second-tier system. Do the witnesses believe the first tier of the current system - the contributory and non-contributory pensions system - needs to be addressed first as a priority? Perhaps it should be done in this way as a means of building trust in the public mind before we introduce automatic enrolment.

The averaging of tax relief was one of the few points in our memorandum of understanding with the troika not to be implemented. The troika sought a move from marginal-rate tax relief to an average-rate tax relief. There is a gender aspect here as well. We are giving the top 20% well over €1.5 billion in tax relief - that is an approximate figure based on my calculation of 75% of €2.39 billion - and we know the people in that category are largely male. It seems that there are three or four different ways in which women are currently systematically disadvantaged within the pensions system. I agree with the witnesses that the rerouting of these moneys should be considered as we seek to address the gap that exists.

The witnesses made an interesting point about the pension target of 35% of average income. Is that the best model of linking from their perspective? How important is the target for ensuring predictability for older people as they plan for the years ahead?