Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will begin with pensions and then move on to some wider issues. While benchmarking and indexation of the State pension would be welcome, the concern relates to who will get the full pension. Changes were made to the State pension system in 2012. As of a couple of years ago, two thirds of those receiving the full contributory pension were men, with women making up only one third of the total. Women are far more likely to be on a lower tier of payment, that is, a reduced-rate or partial pension. If the benchmarking and indexation around what is essential to live on ends up setting the rate of the full State pension, everybody who is on a reduced rate will be below that level and on a lower payment.

From a gender equality perspective, I am concerned that some of the other policies the Government is pursuing may push more women below that level. The changes made in 2012 in terms of the contributory requirement saw a net loss for more women than men in weekly and monthly pension payments. Will the witnesses clarify that? It changed the tiers and levels for the reduced rate, which meant a number of women dropped a level or two within that reduced rate. While the State pension was not cut as part of austerity measures, the payment for those on the reduced rate was, in effect, cut. I am raising this in the context of being very concerned by the narrative and proposals we are seeing. We had the move from a ten-year to a 20-year requirement for the pension. It was anticipated that we might see a move to a 30-year contributory requirement. The talk we are hearing now is of seeing that go further.

The normal working life is referenced in one of the Government's responses to the Commission on Pensions as potentially being something like 40 years. In that context, it would seem we are going to see a huge drop-off. One question concerns the full State pension versus the reduced rate pension, and maybe the Department has the up-to-date figures on how many women versus men are on the reduced rate or has a gender analysis of how that might happen for a 30-year change and a 40-year change.

The reason I am interested in the 40-year and 30-year piece is that there was mention of the recognition of care credits going up to 20 years, but there are a couple of points in that regard. One is that it used to be that ten years was enough for a pension and it was then 20 years, and when it went up from 20 years, the goalposts went out to 30 years on the new scheme that was brought in. We are recognising ten extra years of care credits but the goalposts people have to reach to get a full pension move further away. Again, it would seem that in the total contributory approach, it will be moving further away to 30 years or 40 years. Indeed, the fact that, as I understand it, there is a cap of only 20 years of credits in respect of care means that in terms of the contributory pension, if people have just cared and if they do not have ten years of employment, they will be on a reduced rate, and if it moved to a 40-year threshold and they only had care credits, they would be on a half pension.

I say that in a context that relates to the other issue. The witnesses will be aware that the citizens’ assembly looked for a universal pension and it has also looked for individualisation in regard to pensions. This is because, of course, for women predominantly, although not solely, who have been the carers in a household, they will not necessarily qualify for the non-contributory pension if their partner fails the means test. Therefore, in terms of having an individual independent source of income in later years, it is not guaranteed in that context.

The witnesses might comment on the individualisation issue, which is important in terms of finances, and also around the issue of the gender proofing of these potential impacts at 30 and 40 years. Given there was a direct negative impact on women in the 2012 changes, what measures have been taken to ensure a full analysis of the potential impacts of a 30-year or 40-year change? I know other members have an interest in the other area, which is the gender proofing of the automatic enrolment pension, and we might get a chance to come back to that. I might look at those pension questions before I bring in any other social welfare payments.