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

I move:

That Dáil Éireann

notes that:

- older men and women make a remarkable contribution to Irish society and that this should be recognised with sufficient increases to both the contributory and non-contributory State pensions;

- changes made to the State pension before 1994 and in 2012 have had a very negative impact on women’s ability to access adequate pensions;

- new bands introduced in 2012 have resulted in at least 35,000 women receiving lower pensions;

- those women who left paid employment to mind their children prior to 1994 are also at a considerable disadvantage; and

- the Minister for Finance described the situation as ‘bonkers and unbelievable’;

acknowledges:

- that too many workers are not in a pension scheme, that pension reform is taking far too long to be introduced and that this needs to change in 2018;

- the €5 increase to the State pension announced in Budget 2017 and Budget 2018;

- that thousands of women are at a financial disadvantage because of indiscriminate changes to pension entitlement calculation;

- that there are 20 methods by which someone can qualify for a contributory pension depending on a person’s PRSI record;

- that lack of computerised records for periods prior to 1984 causes major difficulties for the applicant and makes the calculation of entitlements even more difficult, if not impossible; and

- that reversal of the 2012 changes to the State pension would cost €60 million; and

calls for:

- these pension anomalies to be corrected;

- the current eligibility criteria for pension entitlement to be examined;

- the band changes from 2012 to be reversed;

- an urgent incremental pathway to address and correct all of the pension anomalies through the Social Insurance Fund;

- the implementation of pension reform measures;

- equality of treatment between men and women in relation to pension contributions; and

- legislation to make it illegal for contracts to stipulate that retirement at 65 is compulsory, in recognition that people are living longer and should be given the option of continuing to work.

This motion is designed to deal with blatantly unfair and overt discrimination against a clearly identifiable and emotionally vulnerable section in our country. I refer to pensioners, many of whom struggle to survive from week to week and a great many of whom, wholly or mainly, depend on their pensions to survive. What we are proposing could be described as a stop-gap measure; I accept that it is certainly not a panacea. The old system prior to 2012 also gave rise to anomalies and injustices. Everybody agrees, however, that the situation was massively exacerbated by the changes made in 2012. Anybody who was a Member of this House before 2012 will remember that we used to get the odd complaint about the averaging system because averaging systems give rise to incidents of inherent unfairness. Complaints have multiplied since 2012, however.

We, in Fianna Fáil, doggedly opposed these changes in debate after debate in this House, in Question Time after Question Time and in committee meeting after committee meeting. They were stoutly defended by the previous Government, mainly by the then Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, who introduced them in 2012. On the 14 October of this year, however, Deputy Burton told the Irish Independent that she regrets bringing in those changes and now repudiates them. In the article, incidentally, she describes the changes as a "cut", although I notice that when they were introduced in 2012 there was no mention of such a cut. They were supposed, rather, to bring equity to the system. I will let people make up their minds about that.

The Minister for Finance was recently questioned in a radio interview by a lady who was left worse off as a result of having reached the age of 66 after 1 September 2012. The Minister was asked about the averaging system and how it worked in practice. This particular lady happened to have been out of the workplace for several years because of the marriage bar. The Minister's response was that the system was both bonkers and unbelievable. We have been led to believe that he was referring to the marriage bar, but I do not believe that to be the case because he then went on to say that it was wrong then and it is wrong now. He cannot have been talking about the marriage bar, which ended in 1973, so he must obviously be talking about the system. The Taoiseach when he was Minister for Social Protection also conceded that the present system is anomalous and gives rise to injustice in individual cases. There are other words we could use beside "bonkers" and "unbelievable". We could use the words "cruel", "callous", "unconscionable" and possibly "unconstitutional" because Article 40 of the Constitution provides that all citizens should be treated equally before the law, and not just those born before 1 September 1946.

I find it difficult to explain to people that the Irish contribution pensions system provides for two rates of pension for two individuals who have paid the exact same number of contributions over the exact same period. Given that the system is supposed to be loosely based on the number of contributions - the theory is that the more one puts in, the more one gets out - I find it impossible to explain that someone with 520 contributions can qualify for a full pension, while someone with three times as many contributions might qualify for a lesser amount. I find it even more difficult to explain that someone who has worked for the past ten, 15 or 20 years and should be entitled to a full pension might be prevented from receiving a full pension if he or she worked for a single week in the dim and distant past, perhaps when he or she was in college. It is difficult to explain or understand the concept of less for more, but that is what the system provides for.

When the Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, was asked during the radio programme I mentioned to explain what he intended to do about this issue, he said he could not do anything because it would cost €70 million in 2018. Despite the views of the Taoiseach and the Minister and even though these changes have been repudiated by their creator, the Government is essentially stating that next year it will unjustly and unfairly withhold €70 million from pensioners who have qualified for a pension since 1 September 2012 and that it cannot do anything about it because it would cost €70 million. It is exactly analogous to me telling somebody who has seen €10,000 of his or her money wrongfully lodged in my bank account that I cannot do anything about it because it would cost me €10,000. We fought this case doggedly during the lifetime of the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government, but we were up against it because the Minister and the Government were not for turning. When a new Minister for Social Protection - the Taoiseach - was appointed last year, he told us he understood the problem and intended to do something about it. We have given him ample time to do something about it, but there is absolutely no evidence that anything is being done about it, or that he ever actually intended to do anything about it.

We are talking about women and men in this context. Two thirds of those affected are women. The reason for this is the particular lifestyle many women have had, but the system does not recognise this. Women had childminding duties in this country because it did not have and still does not have an affordable and comprehensive child care system. I know many women who stayed at home to rear children, even though they could ill afford to do so. In some cases, the State forced women not to work after they got married. It is now telling them that their pensions must be reduced because they stopped working when it told them to do so.

The amendment to be proposed by the Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty, refers to the "total contributions approach". The question of whether this scheme will be fairer than the existing one is an open one. It will depend on its exact shape and form which we have not yet seen. The fact is that the new approach will apply only to those who qualify for a pension after the total contributions scheme becomes the law of the country. Even if it were to be made retrospective, it would not do anything for the group we are discussing. The advancement of a total contributions scheme at some undetermined time in the future as a solution to the problem is, frankly, risible.

The amendment goes a little further than what we have heard up to now, at least on paper, by putting a particular emphasis on women who worked for a short period of time before spending many years out of the workforce on childminding and caring duties. I know men who worked for a short period of time before spending many years out of the workforce on childminding and caring duties. This proposal would deal with a particular section of the problem. I do not know what the percentage would be. The lifestyles of many women and men have caused them to spend time inside and outside the workforce. At least we can discuss that issue. It is open for discussion.

I am disturbed that the Minister's amendment proposes "to examine means of addressing this anomaly". It seems that the Department will conduct an analysis of those worst affected before compiling a report for submission to the Government which will presumably then have to consider it and have it debated, etc. What is the reason for this prevarication? Is the Minister not aware that Age Action Ireland has already done all of this work? That should be good news for the Department. Age Action Ireland's analysis of the issue has shown, right down to the last penny, how it affects those affected by it. The work has been done. We want the Government to get on with implementing the reform. There has been too much examination and analysis. The Government has had years to examine and analyse this issue and report on it. As the work has been done, the Government should get on with implementing the reform.

We cannot expect people who have been financially discriminated against to wait another five years, or however long it takes, for a further round of examination, analysis, reporting and legislation to finish. I will not repeat the stark figures which have been set out well in Age Action Ireland's document, a copy of which I can send to the Minister, if she wishes. One aspect of Age Action Ireland's work is very interesting. It has calculated, based on the average lifespan of a person, how much people in the various bands are likely to lose between now and when they die. I notice that in one particular band people will lose up to €25,000. That might not be much to Ministers and Deputies, with their high salaries and Rolls Royce pensions, but it is a hell of lot to pensioners. According to my calculations, one could buy 830 bottles of the very expensive wine Deputy Gerry Adams seems to favour for this amount.

See this speech in context