Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Everyone on all sides of the House is familiar with the unfairnesses in the social welfare system, particularly regarding contributory pensions, brought about as a result of the changes in the rules on averaging. Any system whereby if one pays 520 full contributions, one may qualify for a full old age pension, but if one pays three times that - 1,560 contributions - one qualifies for something less than a full old age pension, is patently and obviously unfair. We have sought to change this. For example, I have published a Bill on the matter that I cannot move because it would place a charge of the Exchequer. However, our efforts will continue.

Numerous times, I have asked the Minister for Social Protection whether it is possible for the Department to find some way to deal with the situation of a person who chiefly starts working later in life being exempted from this averaging if he or she has paid very few stamps in previous years, for example, a student who worked during the summer holidays or someone who only worked for a small number of weeks. Even before we change the system, surely it is possible to have such people averaged from the date on which they actually started full-time work.

The motion refers to the increase in the contributions required from 260 to 520. This change was introduced side-by-side with the averaging and compounds the unfairness. First, people must get over the high fence in the shape of averaging.

Second, one has to get over Becher's Brook immediately one has surmounted that fence. The change from 260 to 520 contributions has practical consequences. I will give an example of real people, two women, in my constituency. Invariably, those affected are women - in 95% of cases. Both are from Limerick and one is a farmer's daughter while the other is a shop owner's daughter. They both worked in their respective family businesses when they left school and no contributions were paid, luckily for one of them. They got married shortly thereafter and entered the workforce later in life. One of them worked for 12 years. She had 522 contributions and 66 credits. One can amalgamate them for the purpose of calculating the rate of pension. That was an average of 49 contributions per annum over 12 years. The result is that she is entitled to a full pension of €238 per week from 7 March. The other woman worked for ten years and seven months. She paid 517 contributions and 28 credits. Therefore, on the second criterion she would have qualified. She had an average of 52 contributions per annum. Although she only paid five contributions fewer than someone who is getting the full pension she is not getting any pension whatsoever. That is unfair.

There is a difficulty with the retirement pension for people who have reached the age of 65 who have been in gainful employment all of their lives. I cast no aspersions nor do I look askance at people who draw social welfare. However, in many cases 65 year olds who have worked for 40 years or more find it mortifying to have to go into the social welfare office and sign on for jobseeker’s allowance. There is another implication as well. If the retirement pension had stayed in place a single pensioner would be €45 per week better off than someone on jobseeker's allowance so he or she is losing out. The sum of €45 per week is considerable for a pensioner. A married person claiming for a dependant incurs a loss of €70 per week, which is a very substantial loss.

I was told by the previous Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, that an interdepartmental committee was being set up to deal with the situation. I asked the Taoiseach on several occasions about the committee's deliberations but he kept fobbing me off. That is not an exaggeration. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion now that the interdepartmental committee was a scam because when we raised the matter in the social welfare committee last week the Minister for Social Protection told us, more or less, if I heard him correctly, that the interdepartmental committee was a waste of time. It simply analysed the problem and did not proffer any solution, but he hopes to devise a solution in the social welfare Bill which he will introduce in the first quarter of next year. I sincerely hope he will because the problem is not going away.

Two main sections of society are affected. The first is women. Let us face it, under successive Governments women in this country have been discriminated against quite a lot. We should not allow the discrimination to be perpetuated by leaving these unfair provisions on the Statute Book. The other group that is affected is the elderly. Old age is something to be enjoyed not endured. The elderly are not demographic time bombs or bed blockers, they are the people who built this country and they are entitled to live out their later years in some degree of peace, security and happiness and they should not be forced to go up to the labour exchange and sign on and show they are capable of work. The social welfare officer usually says that he or she will say nothing about that anyway. It is a case of a nod and a wink. The person is getting €45 less per week anyway so why bother.

The Government’s counter-motion does not address the core issues. We know the money has been provided for 2017 and any changes introduced would have to be addressed in the budget for 2018 unless we can get money out of the sky but we want the matter dealt with in 2017. Reading through the counter-motion I detect a lack of urgency in the Government's position on the matter. We will not support the Government’s counter-motion. In fact, we will oppose it.

See this speech in context