Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates. It is interesting to see that similar themes have been emerging from witnesses over a number of hearings. A fundamental matter about which the Women's Council spoke is the question of the anomaly and legacy issue that exists and the fact that it is known. Mr. Berney from ICTU spoke about the 2012 changes coming in without analysis or consultation. One would think that if we were applying the gender analysis to which the Government is now committed to those changes there is no way that they would have passed muster in terms of a basic gender equality perspective. However, they were brought in in full knowledge of the fact that we had a system that was inequitable and not functioning and a system that the Department itself had acknowledged needed to be changed and moved to a total contribution approach.

In a way, the 2012 changes were almost an injury added to an insult. We had a system that systematically discriminated against those who had taken any period of time to deliver care. It meant that those who made the same amount of contributions over a lifetime as others were getting a lesser pension simply because they had contributed to society in another way. That inequity was well known, well documented and well signalled and we had been told that it could not be addressed at this time but that they were working towards it, yet in full knowledge of that we saw the 2012 changes which penalised those who were already being discriminated against. It is good that we name it, in the first place, as discrimination and that we name it as unacceptable. It is interesting that a majority of groups which have come into us have identified that the 2012 changes were a below the radar hit at people who it was felt perhaps would not push back. However, people are pushing back. That is what those of us on the committee are hearing and I hope we will be reflecting it.

In terms of the issue of care on a wider level, I would be interested in the thoughts of members or of the delegates in respect of the care credit, that is, the question of moving from simply a disregard in terms of care to actively recognising care as a contribution within our contributory system. I know that we will not focus in great depth on it now but I hope that we will get to speak to the delegates again on the new supplementary scheme that is being talked about. However, if they feel that care is to be recognised in any such scheme, if it is brought in, and we have a large amount of money being directed towards a new third tier scheme, how can or should it recognise care?

I am interested in the argument made by ICTU in terms of the suspension of the age changes. The pensionable age is another example of a very blunt tool. We have seen in France and elsewhere that people recognise there are certain kinds of work in which a retirement age and a pension age may need to be earlier. Similarly, in the work that we have heard from Active Retirement Ireland and others, there may be others that wish to work for longer. It is a double piece around allowing those who wish to work for longer to work for longer and recognising that there are forms of work, for example, intensive physical work, where someone who has worked until the age of 60 is not necessarily going to be able to find other work from the age of 60 to 68 and that they should not be devalued.

The framing was so positive and constructive in terms of the opportunity that Ireland has to plan to get this right and to learn from countries where the best plans are in place. We must also consider the democratic dividend and recognise that there are other ways for those who may be pensionable and retire at 60, 65 or 66 to contribute. There is a huge social dividend. Many people are aware of the social and voluntary fabric in Ireland. For example, older and retired persons have made a huge contribution in the citizens information services and other such spaces. In terms of the universal pension, it is interesting to hear of two groups. I would be interested in ICTU's thoughts on it. Is that something we can work towards? I would imagine that ICTU would be looking towards having a universal pension and an additional supplementary pension as an option. What are the delegates thoughts on the universal pension? Would they see the triple lock as applying to that universal pension and then to the supplementary pension.