Áine Collins (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I wish to discuss with the Minister for Social Protection the possibility of addressing issues in the budget that discriminate against persons. One issue that affects women in particular - even though it is not against them, that is just the way it happens - concerns those who take career breaks to look after and care for their children. When they return to work some years later, they find there is an issue regarding the PRSI contributions they have paid. This is because of the way in which the contributory pension works at present, which is that it goes from the day on which one started work and is averaged out over the number of years one has worked right up to the point at which one retires. If one takes 20 years out during the intervening period when no contribution is paid, it means one's contributory pension is affected, whereas if one only started work at 50 or 55 and worked for ten years, one would get one's full contributory pension without having worked for 30 or 40 years.

This has really affected women, especially from a historical point of view because back in the 1970s, women were forced to give up work in the public service when they got married. At that stage, women once married had to resign from their positions. As the ban ended in 1973, women in this position were able once again to make up contributions to the Social Insurance Fund, which would eventually award them a contributory pension. In such a scenario, these women were able to make up for lost contributions when they retired. However, new regulations were introduced in 2012 by the Department of Social Protection. This new system aligned pension contributions with the average number of weeks worked. This charge affected up to 50,000 people at the time, mostly women. In certain cases, this means that women who spent a substantial part of their lives working and paying contributions would have been better off had they not worked at all and simply claimed the non-contributory pension. This contradicts two basic principles to which the Government has committed, namely, removing obstacles that might prevent women returning to work and, second, the commitment not to do anything that would reduce basic social welfare payments.

This also raises another question which is dealt with under the scope section of the Department of Social Protection. The employment status group was set up under the programme for prosperity and fairness. This group was set up due to growing concern that an increasing number of individuals were categorised as self-employed when the indicators were that employee status would have been more appropriate. While this area is very complex, certain outcomes have rightly and justifiable been arrived at where a partner, usually a women, who worked all his or her life on the family farm or in a family business without a separate income has been deemed eligible to share in his or her partner's PRSI contributions, therefore allowing him or her to qualify for a full contributory pension. In this case, one must apply to the scope section and a substantial payment of up to €10,000 or €15,000 often is required, which also is a concern for people. This is because in most cases, income was assessed on the husband's income, whereas PRSI contributions are assessed individually. Therefore, if one does not have the contributions, one is not entitled to one's contributory pension. It is then difficult to understand why women or partners who stays at home to care for children, an act which allows their spouses to continue working, should not also benefit from a share of their partners' PRSI contributions during this period of their lives. This can also apply to men, as the world changes and increasing numbers of men remain at home. Were a system like this in place, the averaging system introduced in 2012 would not discriminate against women who broke their employment record merely to facilitate the family and society as a whole. If such a system cannot not be universally introduced at present, the least the Minister and the Government could do is to revert to the older system where people in this position were allowed to make up for lost contributions when they retire.

This is a major issue as far as women are concerned. It is now adversely affecting older women who were banned from working because they decided to get married and a marriage ban was in place if one worked in the public service. It also affects mainly lower-paid women who now are retiring and who had worked on and off in the private sector over the years. I hope the Minister will give due consideration to this complex issue in the context of upcoming budget.

See this speech in context