Dáil debates

Wednesday, 18 October 2017

Correcting Pension Inequities: Motion [Private Members]

 

5:55 pm

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to allocate the last five minutes of my time to Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

6:05 pm

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is saying nothing about the wine he might drink.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government has indicated to us that it will not vote against the motion if its amendment is defeated. Obviously, it does not want to vote against the motion because to do so would be to vote to perpetuate the current system. However, it strikes me as odd that the Government is prepared to vote for its own amendment which would continue for an indefinite period the amount of time taken up by examining, analysing and reporting, etc. The former Tánaiste, Deputy Joan Burton, who introduced this approach has repudiated it. The Taoiseach has accepted that it is unfair and anomalous. The Minister for Finance has described it as "bonkers and unbelievable". He says it was wrong then and that it is wrong now.

I want to make it clear to the Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty, that we are not insisting on the Government conjuring up hundreds of millions of euro to go right back to 2012. The question of compensation can be dealt with on a phased basis. We are asking the Minister to begin immediately the process of removing the discriminatory provision that affects people who were born after 1 September 1946. We want a start to be made. The Government's amendment refers to an "analysis" and a "report" and states the Government will "examine means of addressing this anomaly", but it does not set out a timescale for all of this. Within what timescale is the Minister talking about all of these wonderful things happening? I presume they will happen with the assistance of Age Action Ireland's report. When will measures start to be put in place to rectify the situation for the people whose cause we are pleading? Justice delayed is justice denied. How long are people expected to continue to endure this injustice? It has been ongoing for week after week, month after month and perhaps year after year. The time for prevarication has passed and the time for action is now. We expect action now. I am asking the Minister to set out a definitive timescale within which she will start the process of this reform.

Photo of Fiona O'LoughlinFiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When I was elected to this House 20 months ago, this was one of the first issues to come across the desk in my office in Newbridge, County Kildare. I was shocked and appalled to learn that women of pensionable age could be treated like this. To be perfectly honest, I did not believe it at first. Having been able to raise it in this House on a number of occasions since, I have been further appalled to learn that the Government is doing absolutely nothing to try to provide for redress for the women on whom this has had such an adverse impact.

I was delighted when my colleague, Deputy Willie O'Dea, signalled to our parliamentary party, following much discussion among members, that this was something we wanted to bring forward and saw as a priority. I commend the work he has done on the issue.

The changes which have happened in recent years, in particular since 2012, have aggravated an already serious inequality between the retirement incomes of women and men. Financial hardship in retirement has become a real problem for women because of the way the current system is structured. It is deeply unfair to penalise women who took time out of the workplace to care for their children or aged relatives. The current system has to be reviewed.

We have a problem with gender pension issues in general. The gender provision gap in pensions in Ireland is unacceptably high, at 37%. The Central Statistics Office, CSO, indicates that women are 80% more likely to be impoverished at the age of 65 years than men. Women aged 75 to 79 years are three times more likely to be impoverished. These are sobering statistics which we have to take into account when debating this issue.

The motion specifically addresses the inequity which has been created by the current averaging system which disadvantaged women, in particular. Some may think a reduction of €30 a week is not that much, but for many, the gap can be €50 or €60. For a pensioner, €120 a month is a very significant amount of money. It equates to 31 bales of briquettes, 120 l of milk or 96 loaves of bread. I am sure it would pay for car tax and insurance and go some small way towards putting petrol in a car. It is a considerable amount of money to shortchange women on a monthly basis.

Some 23,000 female workers are being paid lower rates because they left their jobs before 1994 to care for their children. The date of their departure means that they are missing out on at least €1,500 a year. They are also being denied the increase of €5 announced last Tuesday. Having spoken to many women in that situation, I know that they feel insulted that when there is an increase in pension payments, they do not receive the full amount. It is something the Government has to take on board.

As a result of the changes made, the number of paid contributions needed to qualify for a State pension increased from 260 to 520. That makes it much more difficult for those without a full-time long-term working history to qualify for the maximum weekly payment. It penalises women who took career breaks to have children and care for elderly relatives.

According to figures from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, approximately 40,000 new applicants since 2012 have received smaller pensions than they would have if they had retired before 2012. This has had a significant impact, not just on them but also their families.

The averaging-out method has caused serious inequalities. It has punished pensioners financially. The band changes need to be removed and the changes backdated. My party is very happy to accept this on an incremental basis. We understand and appreciate that changes cannot be introduced overnight, but we need a roadmap whereby these inequities can be dealt with in a serious way. The 40,000 affected need to be dealt with in an appropriate way and the inequities addressed.

Lack of access to pensions is a critical issue for women. Again, it affects their families, children and siblings. Rather than address these inequalities, the Government has allowed them to deepen. Since 2012, the figures have increased ninefold.

I commend the National Women's Council of Ireland, Age Action which was mentioned by Deputy Willie O'Dea, and the ICA, all of which have done much for a very long time to highlight the inequities. Their campaign is ongoing. I accept that it is a complex issue, but there is a clear solution. The message we all heard last Tuesday was that in budget 2018 money was being put back in people's pockets. Again, I emphasise that the increase of €5 per week in the old age pension will be less for the 40,000 people affected. It is imperative that the Government introduce a fair and equitable pensions system to ensure women and men can have a decent standard of living in their older years. That is what the motion is about. In supporting my colleague, Deputy Willie O'Dea, and my parliamentary party members, this is one of the best motions we have brought before the House. We do not want to defend one of the worst inequities in the system.

6:15 pm

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We move to the Sinn Féin slot of 15 minutes. Deputy John Brady is sharing time.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In December 2016 Sinn Féin brought forward a pension equality and fairness motion calling on the Government to restore the pension bands and rates to their pre-September 2012 position. It was the very first motion I brought forward as a new Deputy in the House.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My apologies. I should have called the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, first

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps you thought ours was the Government party. We will be.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a subjective opinion.

Photo of Regina DohertyRegina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

To delete all the words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:notes that:

- our pensioners are the backbone of our society. They are the people who built this country in the years before the economic expansion we have enjoyed in recent years. They endured the hardships of a stagnant economy in the 1960s through to the 1980s, yet they reared the current crop of workers - a society of people who are among the most productive in the world and among the best educated in the world;

- our pension system is under duress and that is why the Government intends to implement the most comprehensive reform of pensions informed by the actuarial review of the Social Insurance Fund conducted for the Government by KPMG published today;

- the two most significant measures in the plan will be a roadmap to reform the State pension through the introduction of the total contributions approach, TCA, for pensioners and the development of a new auto enrolment supplementary retirement savings system for employees;

- this plan will also include measures to support fuller working lives to allow people to work beyond pension age where that is their choice;

- options for the TCA for the State pension will be specifically designed to acknowledge and allow for time spent caring, whether for our children or elderly loved ones. These options will then be subjected to a period of consultation with relevant stakeholders, providing them with information and requesting that they outline what they consider should be the priorities in this reform. After this, the Government will agree the new approach and prepare the necessary legislation for consideration by the Oireachtas;

- the Government would welcome the support of the members of the House in this public consultation which will contribute to allaying the anomalies in our pension system;

- these are complex reforms which will require significant political, legal, technical and administrative challenges to be addressed;

- with pensions, any time the rules are changed there is also a need to understand the impact of those changes on other participants and on the funding requirements for the Social Insurance Fund. The changes introduced in 2012 to bands, rates and minimum contributions were designed to more closely align pension benefits to pension contributions and to ensure that the Social Insurance Fund went back into surplus from deficit, and remain so;

- there were some people that were particularly disadvantaged as a result of these changes in 2012. The Government is acutely aware of the anomaly created by averaging, in particular, as it affects women whose pension entitlement is adversely affected by a short period of employment early in their working lives followed by a significant break in employment to perform caring duties;

- accordingly the Government intends to examine means of addressing this anomaly without necessarily reversing the changes to the averaging approach introduced in 2012; and

- the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection will conduct an analysis of the participants most adversely affected by the rate changes in 2012 and will report back to the Government with options on how to address these challenges.

The amendment I have proposed outlines the challenges faced in formulating pensions policy and indicates the general approach the Government will take into the future in order to introduce grater equity into the system. Pensions, as we know, are diverse and complex and that is reflected in the motion. It covers a very wide range of pensions issues, including, for example, gender equality, retirement age and pension eligibility rules.

Given that the motion arose out of an issue raised during post-budget discussions relating to State pensions, I will focus my contribution on State pension issues. Spending on State pensions has increased rapidly in recent decades. In 1997 spending on pensions was €1.7 billion. By 2007 this had increased to €4 billion and in the following decade to this year the cost had increased to €7.3 billion. Adjusted for inflation over the last decade, this amounts to an increase in real terms of 76% over ten of the most difficult economic years in the history of the State. This increase has occurred notwithstanding the 2012 reforms and the increase in the State pension age in 2014. Without these changes, the rise in costs would have been even more dramatic. As it stands, spending is estimated to increase by approximately €1 billion every five years. This expenditure increase is due in no small part to the very big increase in pensioner numbers. There are about 680,000 persons over the age of 66 years expected to benefit from State pension payments this year.

The latest actuarial review of the Social Insurance Fund, published and laid before the House today, confirms that this number will increase consistently in the coming years. This, of course, gives rise to a major challenge to the future sustainability and affordability of the social insurance system which affects every single person in the country. The Social Insurance Fund operates on a pay-as-you-go basis, with today’s workers contributing towards the benefits of today’s recipients. Therefore, it is worth remembering that the increasing cost of pensions is not funded by past contributions by people now retired but can only be funded by increases in contributions or taxes on current and future workers. As important as it to try to ensure equity in the treatment of today’s pensioners, it is just as important that we strive to protect the long-term sustainability of the system in order that today’s workers will be able to avail of an adequate pension when it is their turn to retire. Successive Governments have, therefore, sought to combine increases in the rate of the pension with reforms to make the system more sustainable into the longer term. The focus in the years of recession was on protecting and maintaining core rates and in so doing to make some changes which were consistent with the long-term pension strategy set out in the national pensions framework published in 2010. They include the changes made in 2012.

In the past three years the Government has increased core pension rates.

This benefits all pensioners, especially the most vulnerable. The Government has also supported or implemented new funding and new measures for older people in schemes such as the fuel allowance scheme, the free travel scheme and the new telephone support allowance scheme which was only announced last week. The Fianna Fáil proposals to reverse the rate band changes made in 2012 would cost almost €73 million extra in 2018 alone. This would increase to almost €85 million extra in 2019 and continue to increase every year after that. The 2012 rate band changes resulted in a system that more closely aligned a person's pension benefit with the social insurance contribution history. In addition, the revised system continues to provide very generous pensions compared with the norm in other countries. For example, a person with only 20 years contributions over nearly 50 years will still attract 85% of a full pension, which is substantially higher than could be expected in any other European Union country, including those with very generous homemaking provisions.

Had the Government of the day, instead of making these changes, taken an across-the-board approach to cutting pensions, regardless of means and contribution records, the hardest hit would have been pensioners with no additional incomes and widows and widowers living alone on only one pension payment. A very significantly higher proportion of such pensioners are women and this approach would have resulted in more women over 65 years experiencing consistent poverty relative to men of the same age. The 2012 changes, therefore, balanced the objectives of reducing cost, while minimising the impact of cost reductions on the most vulnerable and moving the State closer to the pension system envisaged in the national pensions framework from 2010, whereby the value of a person's pension is closely related to the contribution history. Backdating the homemaker scheme to include periods taken out of paid employment before 1994, as has been suggested by some, was considered to be exceptionally expensive at the time of its introduction in 1994 and it continues to be so today. The cost of backdating the homemaker scheme now to include periods prior to 1994 is estimated to be in the region of €290 million extra if introduced from the start of this year and again this figure would rise each subsequent year at a faster rate than the increase in pension costs generally. Given these figures, it is obvious that taking measures such as reversing the rate band change or backdating the homemaker scheme would, even on a phased basis, significantly impact on the affordability and sustainability of pensions paid from the social insurance fund in the medium term. It would also jeopardise our ability to provide for further increases in payment rates in forthcoming budgets and considerably restrict the fiscal space necessary to bring forward the broader reforms that are badly needed.

There has been much criticism of the yearly averaging approach to pension calculation. When the contributory pension was introduced in 1961, a yearly average approach was selected as the basis for calculating entitlements because reckonable social insurance had been introduced just eight years earlier and, therefore, nobody would have had the 30 to 40 years of contributions necessary to be paid under a total contribution approach. By contrast, the yearly average approach allowed many people to qualify for a full pension relatively quickly. The disadvantage of this approach is, of course, that people with a relatively short contribution history can qualify for a full pension; that is at the heart of the issue raised in recent weeks. A person with a partial contribution history accumulated over a long period does not receive the same pension as a person with the same number of contributions accrued over a shorter unbroken period. The real anomaly is not that the pension paid to the person with the partial history is too low but rather that the person with a short contribution history does much better than is really justified.

Having said that, I agree that the position of people - we all recognise that it is mainly women who are affected - who left work to take up caring responsibilities is a special case. We need to be careful that the solution used to address this special case does not exacerbate the underlying inequity and impose unnecessary and unjustifiable costs on future workers. The extension of pay-related social insurance, PRSI, over the years means that we can move to a more equitable total contributions approach from around 2020, as workers will have had a full 30-year window to accumulate the necessary contributions to sustain a full, or close to full, pension. The combination of a total contributions approach and a homemaker credit or disregard will ensure the pensions system is more equitable, while providing recognition for time spent in the home.

It must also be noted that where someone does not qualify for a full-rate contributory pension because of a break in the contribution record, he or she may still qualify for an alternative payment. If his or her spouse has a contributory pension, he or she person may qualify for an increase for a qualified adult, amounting up to 90% of a full-rate pension. Alternatively, he or she may qualify for a means-tested State pension in his or her own right, amounting to up to 95% of the maximum contributory pension rate. Whereas the non-contributory pension is means-tested, there are very significant capital and income disregards available. This means that the very large majority of payments are made at the maximum rate. This, in turn, means that anyone on a reduced rate of contributory pension because of a broken contribution record who does not qualify for a means-tested payment must have significant other means such as another private pension or a second property, in addition to his or her home. He or she is generally better off than many other pensioners.

Not only would reversing the 2012 changes cost a huge amount of money and run counter to the policy of on what we all apparently agree - moving to a total contributions approach - it would, being a broad brush measure, also tend to unnecessarily benefit people who have access to other resources. Accordingly, pending the introduction of the total contributions approach in 2020, my preference is to take a more targeted approach to addressing the issue of people with a short work record, particularly early in their working lives. As indicated in the amendment, I have asked my officials to carefully examine approaches that may help to address the issue raised with the averaging approach, as it affects people with a short work period early in the career followed by a long break for whatever reason. All our records from before 1984 are paper-based, which is the only reason for the delay. In advance of the analysis, it is impossible to make specific proposals that might work, as we must see what might provide the best advantage for the most people, while ensuring we do not inadvertently cause further anomalies or disadvantages to arise. We should not be here this time next year talking about some other unintended consequence of a change we want to make. We also need to determine, as best we can, how much any such approach might cost and how that cost can be dealt with in the budgetary maths. This is the most balanced and reasonable approach to take to addressing the issue of concern and I ask Members to consider the amendment before voting for the motion.

6:25 pm

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In December 2016 Sinn Féin brought forward a pension equality and fairness motion, calling on the Government to restore the pension bands and rates to their pre-September 2012 position. It was the very first motion I brought forward and, as it was such a serious matter, I felt the need to do it. Our friends in Fianna Fáil refused to support the motion and we can see their crocodile tears this evening.

Photo of Eugene MurphyEugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We amended it.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ten months later we have a motion from the same Fianna Fáil Party calling for the same treatment that they refused to support in a motion tabled last year.

The Minister has stated that in every complex system there are winners and losers and that in this system there is an anomaly that disadvantages a very small number of people relative to the large number of pensioners we have. This is about fairness and equality for older people. It is not good enough to say there are winners and losers and that only a small number of people are affected. We are talking about in excess of 35,000 pensioners. These are people who went out to work and paid their contributions; why should they be blatantly discriminated against?

It is unfortunate that Fianna Fáil did not see it fit to support our motion on this matter last December, but Sinn Féin welcomes the motion, despite it being late in the day. This matter could have been dealt with ten months ago and it is very unfortunate that did not happen. We are seeking to amend the motion to include another cohort of people who have also been unfairly treated by the Government. In 2014 Fine Gael and the Labour Party abolished the State transition pension, leaving those who are forced to retire at 65 years by contract on a jobseeker's payment. We know that there are more 65-year-olds in receipt of jobseeker's payments than any other age category in the entire State. The people in question worked and paid into their pension scheme and now cannot access it. That is totally unfair and the matter needs to be addressed.

The longer these issues are allowed to continue, the more expensive it will become to rectify them because more people will see an impact.

It is not impossible to address these issues if the Government had the will to do so. Sinn Féin was able to do it in its alternative budget. Our measures were fully costed by the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. It would cost €84 million to restore the State transition pension and €70 million to restore the pension bands and rates to their 2012 position.

The motion is little more than a PR stunt by Fianna Fáil - nothing more, nothing less. It has had ample opportunities to address these anomalies and time and again has chosen not to do so. The reversal of the 2012 changes is nowhere to be found in its so-called budget proposals either this year or last year.

6:35 pm

Photo of Anne RabbitteAnne Rabbitte (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is included in our manifesto.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reversal of the 2012 changes is nowhere to be found in Fianna Fáil’s confidence and supply agreement with Fine Gael. The cost of the reversal of the 2012 changes is nowhere to be found in its general election manifesto either.

Photo of Anne RabbitteAnne Rabbitte (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are no costings whatsoever. It appears in a small byline without costings. Fianna Fáil did not even see fit to raise the reversal of the 2012 changes with the Taoiseach or the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, during the deliberations on budget 2018, despite its protests to the contrary. Mentioning the issue somewhere along the line, which is what appears to have happened from the conversation with the Taoiseach, clearly shows what Fianna Fáil thinks of it in terms of its priorities. This is little more than a political stunt by it as it only chose to highlight the issue after it was brought to media attention last week.

The Government amendment refers to a total contributions approach. This will have no impact whatsoever on existing State pension recipients. I read with interest an article in The Irish Timestoday which claims that the change would only apply to new entrants to the workforce from 2020. The Minister needs to explain that. If it is the case that it will only apply to new entrants into the workforce from 2020, it will have serious implications.

The Government's amendment will do nothing for the 35,000 older people on reduced pensions because of the changes implemented by Fine Gael and the Labour Party in government in 2012 which were rammed through the Dáil without debate. Any debate on the matter was guillotined in this Chamber on both Second Stage and Report Stage. There was an absolute knowledge of the implications, particularly for females in the State hitting retirement age.

The motion is not only opportunistic on the part of Fianna Fáil but it also shows a real contempt for older people who are being punished disgracefully. We brought forward a motion last year and Fianna Fáil refused to support it. However, we have tabled an amendment to the motion and hope it will be passed. We will do anything and everything we can to end the discrimination, even if it means supporting Fianna Fáil's motion. If the motion is passed, what exactly will Fianna Fáil do? Will it sit on its hands again and do nothing, as it has done so many times, or will it seek to have it enacted and hold the Government to account to ensure the changes will be brought forward straightaway to end the discrimination against older citizens with immediate effect.

(Interruptions).

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin to speak, without interruption.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is mór an trua é, ach níl mórán ama agam. Beidh Sinn Féin ag tabhairt ár dtacaíocht don rún seo. Sinn Féin will be supporting the motion. More than 36,000 older people are in receipt of a lower pension payment that they would have received had they retired before 2012. Of this figure, 62% are women. They are being punished for taking time out of the workforce to care for family members or loved ones. They now have to survive on a smaller pension, widening an already serious gender pension gap. The State pension is the single most important income support for older people and will be into the future. We need to ensure fairness and equality are at the heart of the pension system.

I am not going to go over all of the points made by my colleague, Deputy John Brady, concerning Fianna Fáil's record on this issue, but it is important to point out that it has had ample opportunities, not only with Sinn Féin's motion last December but also with the confidence and supply agreement on the formation of the Government and its own budgetary intervention for budget 2018, to intervene. Sinn Féin included it, not only in bringing forward the motion last December but also in its alternative budget for 2018. It is fair to say this is purely theatrics on the part of Fianna Fáil. While I do not very often agree with the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, although there are some issues on which we most certainly agree, as has been the case during the years, I nevertheless have to say I concur with her in remarks on "Morning Ireland" today when she said Fianna Fáil clearly was not to be trusted and so say all of us.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Armagh sniper.

(Interruptions).

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I listened to the Deputy all day on Friday and Saturday. As always, he can dish it out, but he damn well cannot take it.

(Interruptions).

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Brendan Griffin should settle down.

Photo of Martin KennyMartin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The clock has started and on it goes. This issue has been well rehearsed. As Deputy John Brady said, last December we put a motion before the House. I printed it again this evening. The main point made in it concerned the need to restore pension rates and bands to their pre-September 2012 position, which would deal with most of those who find themselves in this situation. I acknowledge and as the Government has stated that it would not deal with all of those affected. Despite all of its protestations, Fianna Fáil tabled an amendment to that motion. I also looked at that amendment and it did not mention anything about restoring rates to their pre-2012 position. However, the motion it has presented tonight states it wants the band changes made in 2012 to be reversed. Hallelujah, someone was on the road to Damascus and discovered that this needed to be done.

Deputy Willie O'Dea has made huge mileage out of this, saying Fianna Fáil always wanted to solve this problem. I understand the pressure is on. We have all met the women's groups which have been campaigning on this issue. I am sure the Government parties have done so also. The reality is that Fianna Fáil is the party in this House which has an arrangement with the Government through the confidence and supply agreement and it did nothing about it. What happened last December pre-dated the budget and it was before the announcement of t he budget that pressure needed to be put exerted. When we tabled the motion last December, Fianna Fáil buckled and resorted to type. It did not support it because it had not come from it. Now that it has seen the light because of the protestations of members of the public, it has decided that it wants to change the rates and bands back to the way they were pre-2012. We welcome this and support it, but it needs to be called for what it is. The reality is that it is a stunt. Fianna Fáil needs to stop the stunts and start living in reality.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is rich of Sinn Féin to talk about stunts.

Photo of Carol NolanCarol Nolan (Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The changes made in 2012 to the State pension mean that over 35,000 people have been left with a smaller pension payment than they would have received had they retired before that year. The vast majority of those affected are women, many of whom are receiving up to €35 less in their pension payments every week. That is wrong and this discrimination cannot be let continue. I commend the National Women's Council, Age Action Ireland, the ICA and the other groups involved for their tireless campaigning on this matter. Last December we brought forward a motion to try to address all of these issues. Sinn Féin attempted to have restored the pension bands and rates to their pre-2012 position in order to eliminate the unfair discrimination against women and end this blatant injustice once and for all. We also tried to provide for the restoration of the rates and bands in our alternative budget.

We have shown, time and again, that we are on the side of women and equality. We have shown that it is possible to balance the books and do the right thing. Fianna Fáil has come late to the party. It chose not to support our motion last year but it is enlightening to see that, ten months later, it is embracing our proposals so I suppose it is better late than never. Fianna Fáil did not lift a finger during the budget negotiations to try to ensure that this discrimination was brought to an end once and for all, which clearly shows that the party is only paying lip-service here tonight. It has taken the opportunity to score political points with this motion rather than taking action when action was required. Some would say that this is too little too late.

We will be supporting this motion in the hope that a real difference can be made to the lives of the many women who have been affected - better late than never. I urge the Government to take heed of the growing support and act on this issue as soon as possible.

6:45 pm

Photo of Kathleen FunchionKathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed but not surprised that we are again discussing an issue that has a disproportionately negative effect on women. Since I was elected last year, I have found this to be a common trend. It is unacceptable that women are receiving in the region of €35 less per week in their pensions because they took time out of work to care for their families and raise children. That is wrong, unfair and outdated and it runs contrary to the principles of gender equality. People are rightly outraged at this unfair discrimination, which is increasing year on year in the context of the number of people it affects. I commend all the women of Ireland who have become very active on this issue and campaigned to put it front and centre. The National Women's Council of Ireland has said that since budget 2018 measures were announced last week, it has been inundated with calls from women, some of whom who have only reached pension age and have realised that they have limited or no entitlement to a State pension. Equally, I have been asked about this situation by women from across my constituency on many occasions. The failure to respond to the tens of thousands of pensioners suffering because of the 2012 cuts is one of the biggest disappointments emanating from last week's budget

announcements. Given that I am out of time, I simply urge people to support Deputy Brady's amendment and the motion and end this discrimination for women.

Photo of Willie PenroseWillie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One can say with absolute certainty that the current pension eligibility system for old age pensions is complex, riddled with established and pronounced anomalies, discriminatory and clearly not fit for purpose in the current environment. It lends itself to wholesale reform in the interests of equity and fairness rather than, as the Minister stated, ad hoccorrections to some of these glaring problems or anomalies, which generally result in specific problems being addressed with a probable unforeseen adverse consequences down the line and thus triggering another chain reaction.

I want to state unequivocally and unambiguously on behalf of the Labour Party that we support the Fianna Fáil motion. The motion refers to a preference for a system grounded, to some degree, on total contribution record, which will need to be debated and examined, as emerged from the national pensions planning framework in 2010, which Fianna Fáil commissioned and pronounced at that time. In my view, it would eliminate many of the complexities and anomalies and ensure that people are fully au faitwith their entitlements to pensions and the precise amounts thereof well in advance of reaching the specified pension age. This has been complemented by the auto-enrolment scheme, with contributions or savings being invested in a private scheme to ensure that people have adequate income provision for their needs upon retirement.

Undoubtedly, the changes made by the former Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, in 2012 by way of increasing the number of bands pertaining to the threshold of eligibility emanated from the long-term strategy set out in the 2010 national pensions framework. These have caused significant difficulties by way of reductions of up to €35 per week for some recipients and that matter must be addressed immediately. Over 60% of those who have been negatively affected are women. It should not be forgetten that up to 38% of the people involved are men. One cannot but note that some of these adjustments that were, and clearly are, regrettable were not effected for some ulterior or specific reason other than to achieve the necessary savings as set out in the framework at the time. In 2012, we were in the midst of an unprecedented financial crisis, the details of which are well known so there is no need to recount them save to say that the deficit was over €13 billion. In 2018, we will have a zero deficit or, more likely, a surplus. A large number of measures were implemented to restore the State's finances. Due to the collapse in employment, as a result of which the unemployment rate rose to in excess of 15%, there was a huge fall in the volume and value of PRSI receipts and an unsustainable deficit of €2.8 billion in the Social Insurance Fund in 2012. I am not trying to justify the measures introduced, I am simply trying to explain how they arose. The troika was exerting extensive pressure to put the State finances on a sustainable path and the situation was clearly recognised in the national recovery plan by Fianna Fáil in 2010, which committed to changes in the State pension that would require some structural change to ensure the sustainability of State pension provision going forward.

This was a measure in 2012 that should now be reviewed and reversed in the context of the fact that the Social Insurance Fund will likely be in surplus to the tune of €1 billion this year. That will grow to at least €2 billion in 2018. As we have seen with some of the measures that had to be introduced during the very difficult years, as the economy has recovered, there has been process of pay restoration in the context of reductions imposed under the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation. The Labour Party believes that a similar process should be adopted or action taken in respect of pension entitlement and it should now be restored. This is just one aspect of this pension debate, albeit a very important one.

The media seems to be a bit confused because it was in 1997 that then Government passed legislation to provide for an increase in the minimum of paid contributions to the contributory State pension. That increased from 260 to 520 for persons who reached 66 after 5 April 2012, so it automatically came into being. It was not implemented by the then Minister, Deputy Burton, or by anybody else so let us be fair and clear. The record is very clear. I was here in 1997 when all of that happened.

Thankfully, people in Ireland are living longer. When the old age contributory pension was introduced in 1961, life expectancy was 68 years for men and 72 years for women. Now it is 79 years for men and 83 years for women. The increase in life expectancy means that the number of people aged 65 or older is rising all the time. The 2016 census indicates that the proportion of the population in the 65-plus age cohort has risen by one fifth since 2011, while the recent CSO population projections in 2013 forecast an increase of almost two thirds in this cohort between 2011 and 2026.

When we review the pension entitlements in an historical context, there can be no doubt but that women were the subject of significant financial discrimination. The averaging system introduced in 1961 bears eloquent testimony to this State-sponsored and supported discrimination. The system of averaging takes account of a person's contributions for the first year of their employment and the last day prior to reaching pension age. This, in effect, could extend over a period of 48 or 50 years. For example, the working life of a woman who works from the age of 18 to 26, gets married, is then out of the workforce rearing her family until 38 years of age and retires at the age of 66 is effectively 36 years. However, for averaging purposes, she is deemed to be 48 years in the workforce and this leads to an automatic reduction in her pension. Indeed as Minister of State in the Department of Social Welfare in 1994, Deputy Burton introduced the homemaker's scheme which acknowledged for the first time the issue of child-rearing with regard to conditions pertaining to qualification for the State pension. The scheme provides for up to 20 years to be disregarded for contributory State pension purposes. This helps to deal with the travesty arising from the averaging provision.

Of course, the issue which arises and which cannot be dismissed is the effect of the marriage bar that was in place from 1933. As a result of the latter, an entire cohort of women were affected from 1933 until the bar was removed in 1973. That was discriminatory and outrageous in terms of its gender focus. One must ask how it could stand except if one looks at Article 41.2.2° of the Constitution. I wonder whether that was where it gained solace and was protected. European law was introduced in 1973 and wiped it out. Women who got married were banned from working in the public service and financial institutions but no such prohibition was implemented for spouses who could have been working side by side with them in the same jobs. It was only our entry to the European Economic Community in 1973 that precipitated the abolition of this preposterous and discriminatory measure against women. As a young Deputy in the early 1990s and 2000s, I was strongly in favour of and advocated a system whereby all women who found themselves the subject of discriminatory treatment arising from the marriage bar should have received from the State, via the Department of Social Welfare, an imputed contribution record of 52 contributions or stamps for each year they suffered under the marriage bar. That would at least have served to rectify the injustice when they reached pension age. While the 1994 homemaker's scheme was an advance in terms of recognising the practicalities of child-rearing, it did not address the glaring deficit stretching back to least 1973. That anomaly remains a major injustice to this day. Of course, it could be looked at but is now a cost issue.

There is also an urgent need for action on the overall gender pension gap that disproportionately impacts upon women. A number of factors contribute to the gender pension gap, such as the predominance of women in low-paid and part-time employment as well as the fact that it is women who usually take career breaks to look after children or relatives.

Another bugbear of mine in the context of the pensions system is the concept of the qualified adult dependant, usually the wife or partner because the system was clearly based on the male breadwinner model. This should clearly be changed in the current context.

The wife had her value assessed initially at 70% and now 90% of the value of the recipient. She is now treated as an appendage of her husband, instead of the couple being dealt with as a unit, whereby if the husband qualifies for a certain figure based on his contributions that his wife or partner should be treated similarly, and get the same amount. It is only recently that she would have been paid out a reduced sum in her pension in her own name. Previously, it was part and parcel of the husband's pension payment, and sometimes she might not receive a red cent of that. Let us consider that and treat both parties as a unit and not treat the wife or partner as a percentage in terms of qualifying payment.

There is clearly a strong argument for a provision to be introduced to allow the exclusion of a fixed number of years where no or low contributions were made for lifetime averaging purposes. This can be addressed by the introduction of the total contributions system. As Ireland slowly recovers from the economic crisis, reverting to the pre-2012 system should be a central part of a wider strategy, which is to achieve a more equal Ireland between men and women in pay, pensions and in taking up responsibilities of care. This strategy should also include compensating those who have lost out due to the 2012 changes.

I have also spoken in support for the elimination of the mandatory retirement age in employment contracts, where people who voluntarily wish to do so should, if their heads are good, continue to work as they wish. It would help to address another major issue to which Deputy John Brady referred, namely, the abolition of the State pension transition. Another pet hate of mine, and something that irritates myself and my colleagues, is that at 65 years one is compulsorily retired in accordance with one's contract. One is paid jobseeker's benefit for nine months, and then one has to apply for jobseeker's allowance which is means tested for three months, and it is possible to lose out because of this. At the stroke of a pen the period for jobseeker's benefit available to those who are forced to retire at 65 years should be extended to 12 months to deal with the three month period with which they are now faced. That would stop the situation where people who have worked 44 or 45 years are forced to turn up at a social welfare exchange, having never set foot in one their whole lives. Give these people jobseeker's benefit until they reach the pension age, which ought to be 66 years.

6:55 pm

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Paul Murphy is sharing time with Deputy Bríd Smith.

Photo of Paul MurphyPaul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No matter how well prepared or steeled one is for what happens inside this House, sometimes the mind boggles at the depth of cynicism and the degree to which brass necks are ubiquitous. It has been well exposed around us during this debate. To begin with the Labour Party, it is welcome that it is supporting the motion. The party is calling for a reversal to the cuts but it should be clearly stated and acknowledged that when in government, Labour and its then Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, implemented these cuts, made these savage cuts to social protection payments and was responsible for disgusting attacks on the living standards of the most vulnerable in society, the young, the elderly and the disabled.

It is not the case that the bad impact of these reforms has been newly discovered. The Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, knew it at the time. There is a very good article in the Irish Examiner from 2014 entitled "No country for old women as females bear the brunt of pension cuts" which highlights how, as Minister, Deputy Burton had access to research from her Department which illustrated precisely how this would impact on older people and disproportionately on women. It was a disgusting and brutal cut.

Then there is Fianna Fáil which could have argued strongly on this during the budget negotiations with the Government. Its support, or at very least its abstention, is essential in order to pass the budget. Fianna Fáil could have made this a matter of principle and said that unless the Government resolved this issue and unless it undid the cut, it would not support the budget. It did not do that. More recently Fianna Fáil has discovered the issue and I welcome it putting down a motion on it but it has another chance on the matter. The motion is all very well - Solidarity-People Before Profit Alliance has an amendment to it but we will vote for the motion and it should pass - but Fianna Fáil knows, as does the Government and everyone else, that it does not make any difference in the real world, it only places some political pressure on the Government. The real question arises over the Social Welfare Bill. If Fianna Fáil was serious about having these cuts reversed it would say to the Government that it will not vote for the Social Welfare Bill unless it includes the reversal of the cuts in the Bill. It is that simple and that will be the test of Fianna Fáil's sincerity on this issue.

It was clear in the Taoiseach's response on Leaders' Questions last week and in the motion today that the Government's approach is to say that the matter is all very complicated. This week the Government's amendment argues that these are complex reforms which will require significant political, legal, technical and administrative challenges to be addressed. It is an effort to make it unintelligible for ordinary people and suggest that something really complicated is going on. Fundamentally, that is not the case. Age Action has produced an excellent briefing document which explains it simply for people. The National Women's Council of Ireland has done similar work on the subject.

The issue is simple. Since 2012, 36,000 people have had reduced pensions. Those affected are overwhelmingly women. As a result of the changes to the bands of contributions, about 50% of women who are eligible for the pension have been affected. We all have constituents who are retiring now who were compelled to give up work on marriage. Even today many women are unable to take up full-time paid work due to high child care costs and so on. It comes down to the Taoiseach's response last week at Leaders' Questions when he opposed the universal state pension on the basis that it would mean saying to people who had paid PRSI that their payments now counted for nothing. The point is that these people did make a contribution to society. They may not have paid PRSI, their contribution may have been one of caring and taking the role that the State should be playing in caring for elderly people, people with disabilities and for children, but everyone has made a contribution to society and that is why we should reject the whole notion of pension reform which is fundamentally an attack on workers, on pensions and on the delayed payment of wages to people and instead defend the idea of people having a pension and fight for socialist pension reform which would mean a universal state pension which would allow all to enjoy a high quality of life after retirement.

Photo of Bríd SmithBríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Once again, the House has before it a Fianna Fáil motion that addresses a very real issue, in this case one which impacts cruelly on 35,000 pensioners and there will be more in the future, who have had inflicted on them a cut of between €15 and €30 weekly. That is a lot of money over the course of a year, never mind over the course of however many years a person has left during their retirement. Again, we see a motion that appears to address the real issue and I have no doubt that many of the pensioners outside the House and in the Visitors Gallery believe that Fianna Fáil is addressing the cuts which have been inflicted but that is not the case. To misquote Shakespeare, in common with many Fianna Fáil motions this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It cannot deal with the core issues because Fianna Fáil is supporting the Fine Gael Government which will continue to practice this discrimination and any changes it makes will be in terms of rearranging deck chairs, of appearing to be fairer. Crucially, it will not result in more State funds being spent, ensuring the savings achieved by Deputy Joan Burton's cuts will remain.

It is worth reminding ourselves of what those savings amount to. The Government abolished the transitionary pension to which workers were entitled at 65 years, saving €75 million per annum, that is €75 million taken from pensioners; it changed the contributions necessary to be entitled to the pension which saved €50 million annually and €10 million year-on-year after that; and it extended our working lives incrementally, from 66 years, to 67 years, to 68 years and now its academics and advisors in the ESRI are suggesting that it be extended to 70 years. The Government continues the discrimination against women who raised their families prior to 1994. This motion and all its pieties and the pieties from the Government which talks about valuing our older population will not do what is necessary and the Government will not change what is happening. It will not do so because although Deputy Joan Burton and the Labour Party pulled the trigger, the gun was loaded by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in the justifications which they gave to this move. They say people are living longer but that is not the problem; the problem is not that we do not put away enough money while working. The problem is the system of capitalism itself and how it prioritises profits over decent wages and public services. Even workers' defined benefit schemes in the most lucrative companies which make huge profits are under attack because the firms want to maximise profits.

I will finish by looking at what the Taoiseach said when he was Minister for Social Protection.

The Taoiseach, and then Minister, said when he was arguing this last year in the debate on the social welfare Bill, that it is unfair and needs to be changed but that any changes need to be financed from the same pot and that the pot is only so big and if some gain others must lose. I argue that the pot is the size it is for many reasons, not least because we have one of the lowest PRSI contributory rates from employers in Europe. Bogus self-employment is rampant in industries such as the construction industry, where the State is actually losing hundreds of millions of euro a year that could be paid in PRSI contributions. The Government will not take the Apple tax or the proper corporation tax. The Government will not try to increase that pot for pensions that determines the benefits pensioners get. The only thing that will really change the minds of this Government is what the pensioners did when Fianna Fáil attacked their medical cards. They gathered in their thousands outside here in Kildare Street. That rapidly changed the minds of the then Government. At the end of the day, we need to have a State that fully funds pensions for everybody through taking contributions from employers and employees in a just way across the board and delivers real services in health and transport and all of the community needs that older people have. That will not happen under the Minister's Government or, indeed, under a Fianna Fáil Government.

7:05 pm

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy does not want to be in government.

Photo of Paul MurphyPaul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We do.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He wants to be shouting from the outside.

Photo of Paul MurphyPaul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We want a left Government.

Photo of Catherine ConnollyCatherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, even in my short three minutes. I also thank Fianna Fáil, although I share the deep cynicism in the room about its commitment to see the actual changes through. I also welcome the amendments from the real Opposition, which go to the heart of a debate on pensions that needs to be had in this Dáil in due course. I also wish to acknowledge the tremendous work done by Age Action, the National Women's Council, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the ICA.

It is also worth highlighting that the Department, and presumably the Minister and the Government, had full prior knowledge of the unequal impact of these changes on women and, more particularly, of an analysis of a comprehensive sample of PRSI contributions carried out by the Department at the time, details of which were released under a freedom of information request, which highlighted and indicated that gender disparity, and it was quite clear. More specifically, the documents show that the impact on the lower categories, where there were mostly women, was flagged by officials in October 2011. That the Government of the day and this Government would persist in first introducing and then leaving in place a pension that is totally discriminatory beggars belief, even more so given the very recent budget speech by the Minister in which he said, quite unbelievably, "I am also pleased to say that work on equality and in gender proofing of the budget continues".

The changes introduced by Deputy Burton at the time were and remain particularly egregious given that they widened an already unequal pension gap. We know that women retire on at least 30% less pension, and that is on top of a pay gap prior to that. We also know there is a need for a wider debate on the other issues that have been raised, particularly the absurd situation whereby 65 year olds are forced to retire and then have to suffer the indignity of going down and saying they are available for work and filling out a form confirming they are available for work. The Government, with this policy, is asking people to lie. There is a solution to this problem. It is a very specific solution to deal with a very finite number of people. I have absolutely no hesitation in supporting the motion.

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the motion and I will support it. I will also support the amendments. In budget 2012, a Labour Party Minister in her first budget cut the social protection budget by €475 million. This was following a cut of €810 million in 2010 and €515 million in 2009 under Fianna Fáil. In 2012, a total of €1.8 billion had been taken out of people's pockets, the pockets of those who needed protection who were reeling the most from the recession. Deputy Burton announced and continued to announce that primary weekly social welfare payments would be protected. We in the Opposition knew then this was not the case, and it has now been clearly demonstrated that she did not protect those payments.

I remember discussing the cut during the guillotined debate in the Chamber. It was a really cunning cut because it went under the radar and not many people understood exactly what it meant. The Government knew that those affected, who were mostly women, would not realise the change until they hit pension age, and it hoped they would be isolated and would not cause a fuss and it would continue on. People were shocked and angry at what they met when they hit pension age.

The gender discrepancy was clear in an analysis done in 2011. The Department of Social Protection was aware that thousands of mainly women in low-paid work, would lose out, but it went ahead. Deputy Burton was not for turning. It looks like the Labour Party is for turning now that it is in opposition. No wonder people in this country are so cynical about politics. There was talk of some measure of restitution by introducing a homemaker's credit scheme, but this was passed to the Department of Finance, which stated it did not have the money. The Minister does not need to do an analysis because it is already there.

The Taoiseach was very disingenuous this morning when he stated many of those affected even under the previous scheme would not receive a full pension. How sneaky is that comment? There is a huge difference between being down by €4.50 of the full pension and being down by €30 of the full pension. On 31 August 2012, workers retiring with an average of 21 annual PRSI payments throughout their working lives received a contributory pension of €225. The workers who retired two days later who made up to 29 contributions per year received €196, which is €30 less. The bands were changed and were broadened out from four to six. In particular, band 2 was divided into three, with the lowest band of 20 to 29 average contributions getting just 85% of the minimum payment, whereas before it would have been 98%, and the other two bands were reduced from 65% to 40% and from 75% to 50%.

I support the motion, but ask why Fianna Fáil did not make this a key demand during its discussions with Fine Gael as part of the confidence and supply agreement. Why did it not make it a principle and something under which lines should be drawn, and even threaten to bring down the Government if necessary, if it thought it was so important? Some people would say this is a cynical political ploy by Fianna Fáil. I do not know whether or not it is, but people can make up their own minds on that.

The Minister must end this pension discrimination and gender discrimination against women and the people affected by this measure. The Government should remove the bands and go back to the 2012 system and then deal with the general overall pension issue.

Photo of Tommy BroughanTommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is incredibly and totally farcical that Fianna Fáil has brought this motion before the House just a mere ten days after it signed off on budget 2018 with its coalition partners, Fine Gael. Where were Fianna Fáil’s concerns when negotiations were ongoing or, indeed, in the run-up to the 2017 budget? Where was Fianna Fáil then? We on this side of the House cannot help but wonder if this was an agreed publicity stunt between the two conservative parties that are running the country and hoping to swap partners and continue to run it after the general election. The Minister for Finance called the situation "bonkers" on air and then Fianna Fáil came to the rescue with a motion that will surely pass in the Dáil. Of course, Fianna Fáil also supported all of the economic decisions of the last austerity Government.

The Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, tried to muddy the waters this morning by claiming the Opposition did not understand that restoration of the pre-2012 social insurance bands would still not give all women a full pension but, of course, we do understand precisely. The Taoiseach has spoken about universal pensions. The ESRI made proposals to merge PRSI and the universal social charge and give everybody a decent pension. These are welcome. We know that since late 2011 in this House, the Government and the previous Government have hugely disadvantaged that cohort of women and some men now in their 50s and 60s. Professor Alan Barrett of the ESRI summed up the current and last Governments' disgraceful actions by stating they changed the rules in the middle of the game for that most vulnerable generation of women workers.

My colleagues have explained the impact of the change from the four bands to the six bands. Under the new system, those with an average of 20 to 29 contributions now receive just 85% of the maximum. We Deputies meet a lot of these women, week in, week out, and we know a very serious injustice has been done to them.

Those with an average of 15 to 19 contributions per year are down to 65% of the maximum and those in the bottom band, with an average of ten to 14 contributions per year, who spent a lot of their lives doing caring duties, are just receiving 40%.

Where was Fianna Fáil's concern on 9 February this year when Age Action Ireland published its report, Towards a Fair State Pension for Women Pensioners, by Ms Maureen Bassett? Shortly afterwards, on 21 February, I raised the matter on Leaders' Questions with the then Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, and he informed me he would refer it to the Committee on Budgetary Oversight for consideration and that Ministers would reflect. Ministers reflected and did nothing. The committee, unfortunately, did nothing either, and we are still left in the same situation.

The motion is of great importance and I welcome reports that it will be passed by the House. I hope it will not be just empty rhetoric. Despite the comments of those who voted year in, year out for the budgets of the previous Government, I hope this measure will bring forward a restoration for the citizens - particularly women - this Government and that which preceded it treated so disgracefully.

7:15 pm

Photo of Michael FitzmauriceMichael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I support it fully. I commend Age Action Ireland, the ICA and each individual who picked up the telephone to contact Deputies in recent years to highlight this grave injustice. Many women were forced to give up work, as everybody knows, and stay at home. They reared the next generation. In fact, some of those present are of the generation in question. The women have been given no thanks for what they did and are basically treated as second-class citizens.

We talk about how the problem should be resolved. All evening I have been listening to comments on who did what in 1977, 1997 or 2011. That is not going to solve it. We have to find a way of solving this and moving forward. To be brutally honest, we have to be careful about bringing people up to the top of the hill and leaving them there. Many people rang me today and asked whether the matter will be dealt with when the vote goes through. The answer is that it will not. I have not been a Deputy for that long but I have seen many motions on subjects that have featured for months but in respect of which nothing happened. This is because a motion is not legislation or a budget. People need to be told that straight out. Unless those in opposition all work together and do not support a finance Bill, or unless some deal is done, no change will be made. I have listened with interest to Deputy Penrose, who has said there would be money in a fund. We should not hesitate in this regard.

We also need to bear in mind that it is not only women who are affected. There are men who have contacted me and who are caught in this scenario also. We must ensure we treat all our elders equally. It is awfully unjust if people who stayed at home to rear a family or men who went away to England to work and came back do not get fair play as a result of a break in credits. This needs to be sorted out.

Photo of Michael HartyMichael Harty (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This issue constitutes financial discrimination, mostly against women who took time out of their working lives to rear their children and care for their families and who, prior to 1973, were forced out of the workforce by the marriage ban, which was correctly described by the Minister for Finance during the week as "bonkers". The inequality in contributory pension payments that arises from this anomaly is, in effect, an institutionalised pension levy on homemakers and caregivers. Such a levy needs to be corrected as a matter of urgency. The changes introduced by the former Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, in 2012, during the term of the previous Government, caused a pension reduction by introducing a new requirement for a higher number of PRSI contributions, a new averaging rule and new bands relating to the number of contributions paid divided by the notional number of years worked, including years taken up by rearing a family and, perhaps, holding down a part-time job as a student. In 2012, the rules were changed, which has resulted in a reduction of €1,500 per year in the pension. Some 36,000 women have been affected by this. Two thirds of those affected are women. Those who retired before 2012 were not affected by the changes. Women rearing their children prior to 1994 did not have their absent years taken into account.

The pension rules are complicated but close examination reveals discrimination inherent in the system, which was driven by austerity in an unfair manner. The legacy issues must be addressed. The anomaly ignores the social and historical context of how women ran their lives and how they worked as homemakers. The State contributory pension scheme is heavily gendered, in favour of men, who historically were paid more than their female counterparts. The anomaly needs to be addressed immediately. A pension change that is introduced should not have any losers, no matter how small the numbers. In this case, however, it is 36,000.

Austerity has many legacy issues, including the housing shortage, homelessness, health care waiting lists and, now, pension levies. The Minister for Finance stated that he will move to a pension system which takes account of the entirety of people's contributions. This inequality needs to be corrected over as short a period as possible if we are to have any credibility as a republic of equal opportunity.

Photo of Danny Healy-RaeDanny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very glad to say a few words on this but I am very disappointed that the woman, the Deputy, who caused this trouble is not present to hear this debate. I do not like talking behind someone's back but, be that as it may, I will say what I have to say. It was the former Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, a woman who was supposed to have been representing women, who signed off on this anomaly, which has affected so many women adversely around the country. I first came to know about this in and around 2014. It took me a long time to get my head around what was going on. It took me a good while to understand what has happened. What has been done to the women of Ireland is totally unfair. I refer to the women who are not getting their full pensions and who have been subject to cuts of €30 and €40. As I understand it, there are some women who are getting no pension but whose husbands are getting a payment for them. I do not know who organised that or set that scheme up, but that is totally unfair. It is degrading for a woman. That system must be rectified as well.

What was done to these people, lovely women, is the height of blackguarding and we have highlighted that fact. While I support the motion, I am disappointed that Fianna Fáil could not have a positive input and ensure that the matter was redressed in some small way so that the affected women would get some start and be recognised in the way they should be.

Let me give an example of what is happening. Two sisters went to work at the same time in the 1970s. One of them had a stamp paid for her while the other girl worked in the black economy. The woman who worked in the black economy, when she went back to work in the late 1980s or early 1990s, is getting a full pension while the other, who paid her stamps, has had her pension cut by €30 or €40. That is very wrong.

Photo of Michael Healy-RaeMichael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy O'Dea of Fianna Fáil for bringing this motion before the House. It is very important. I will give the lady her proper title. Like my brother, I do not like talking about anybody when she is not present. "Wonder Woman" is how she was known at the time by her favourite pets in the newspaper organisations. They used to call her Wonder Woman; I will never forget it. I will never forget them, and they know who they are. They gave her that title in their own infinite wisdom. Wonder Woman did this to respectable ladies, hardworking women who did an awfully important job: they reared families. They were workers and wanted to help their families but they lost out. They are losing out every week. People only live for so long. These women are being disenfranchised.

I have seen in reports today which indicate that the Government will address this situation in 2020. That is not good enough.

Photo of Regina DohertyRegina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not true.

Photo of Michael Healy-RaeMichael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I really hope I am wrong.

If the Minister could tell me I am wrong I would be delighted. If the people who reported that today are wrong I would be very pleased to hear that also. A couple of years is a very long time when one is relying on one's pension and €20 or €30 a week is a significant amount of money when one has reached pension age. It is fine for people that are earning and who are able to go out to work. They have their own troubles but when one is in retirement and depending on the pension one's money is tight and curtailed. I plead with the Government to address this anomaly. I am delighted that the Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty, was shaking her head to indicate I was wrong about 2020. I would be delighted if I am wrong. I call on the Minister to clarify the position.

7:25 pm

Photo of Mattie McGrathMattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In July the Joint Committee on Social Protection published a review of the contributory State pension. Some of the main recommendations made by the committee include the fact that the joint committee is of the view that the current averaging system is inequitable and a new type of contribution system should be devised. The joint committee noted that the Minister is considering the introduction of a total contribution system to replace the averaging system. However, the joint committee believes that proposals should be developed for a universal pension payment to replace the State pension, contributory and non-contributory.

Is it not strange that there is not one representative of the Labour Party here? I think I saw one of them speak earlier but given that the then Minister-----

Photo of Danny Healy-RaeDanny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Wonder Woman.

Photo of Mattie McGrathMattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Miserable woman I call her for the way she treated people. The joint committee considered that the 2012 changes, specifically-----

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure that is parliamentary language.

Photo of Mattie McGrathMattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All right but I think I am parliamentary enough at this stage. The joint committee recognises that pension recipients deserve to have a feeling of stability and security about their incomes, and urges the introduction of some form of indexation of pension rates. Family carers, women who stayed at home to mind sick children, sick husbands or their in-laws are the hardest hit. It is a mean system.

I reserve some criticism also for Deputy O'Dea and his colleagues. They have provided the supply and confidence arrangement. They should have started somewhere. Charities got a mere €5 million. The Minister must start somewhere in order to rectify the situation.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, referred to the system being "bonkers". Successive Governments - I was a member of one myself - have continued with this approach and it is being perpetrated on people who have contributed, who were homemakers, and who provided a good service to the State at a time before there was ever child care, crèches or free child care years. There are significant blocks.

What about the republic of opportunity? I said when the former Taoiseach, Liam Cosgrave, died that he was a man who looked after that long before our newest whizz kid on the block, the current Taoiseach, thought of the republic of opportunity. To hell or to Connaught with the women. It is a disgrace. I am meeting women and men, but mainly women, carers and many proud mothers who are €35 a week worse off, up to €100. Shame on this House for continuing to treat them in this way. I know we could not change it all overnight but surely we should attempt to rectify the situation. We talk about equality in many areas but this is the most glaring inequality affecting married women that we will ever see. It is a disgrace.

Photo of Róisín ShortallRóisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputy Catherine Martin.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed. There is a total of nine minutes.

Photo of Róisín ShortallRóisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I very much welcome this motion which the Social Democrats will be supporting. It begs the question of why this issue was not dealt with in the context of the confidence and supply agreement and, furthermore, why it was not dealt with in terms of the budget that we have just put through this House. One would wonder why Fianna Fáil would seem to have come to the issue so late in the day in terms of proposing solutions to this problem, even though I acknowledge it has been raising it for some time.

The changes introduced in budget 2012 by the then Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, have given cause for a lot of concern among many people, in particular women. It was said at the time by the Minister that, "a core principle of sustainable social protection systems in advanced economies is that citizens receive benefits in proportion to their contributions". That all sounds fine and perhaps people were misled by that but it is not what happened. The reality is that the changes to the bands in terms of qualification for a State pension impacts very negatively on many people and disproportionately affects women because they are far more likely to have engaged in irregular and low-paid work. In addition, we know that in the main it has been women who have taken time out of the workforce in order to engage in caring for their children or caring for other family members. Again, that is the reason it disproportionately affects women.

Added to that we had the prevailing circumstances of the time in recent decades. In the first instance it was the accepted norm that families would operate on the basis of a single income and generally have a male breadwinner. There was also the marriage bar and little or no support for child care. All of those issues conspired to give rise to a situation where women took time out of the workforce to look after families in the main and it would seem they are now being punished for having done that.

The changes that were introduced do not recognise the reality of life for many women who took time out. That reality of the need to make provision in the social welfare system is recognised in the subsequent homemaker's scheme. That is a very important scheme and it does recognise the principle that credit must be provided in terms of social welfare for those years taken out of the workforce. That principle has been accepted in the homemaker's scheme but, unfortunately, the Government seems to be not prepared to accept the principle in respect of qualifying arrangements for pension provision.

There is a solution. We know that it would cost an estimated €60 million this year to sort out the problem and it would be approximately €10 million in each year subsequent to that. That is possible. It is what this motion is calling for. What the motion does not do is identify where the money will come from. I want to identify where the money will come from because we know that in 2013 the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, gave an undertaking to this House. He promised to restrict tax relief on private pension pots to ensure that any tax benefit would be limited to a pension of no more than €60,000. A pension of €60,000 is very substantial. He promised to limit it but, unfortunately, he did not follow through on the promise. What he did was to introduce a minor change but he did not go the full way. That has resulted in a situation where Ministers and senior officials are now entitled to pensions of up to €100,000. What we need to do now is deliver on the promise made in 2013, make the necessary changes in this year's Finance Bill and that will provide us with a figure of €120 million to address this serious problem that has been created through the 2012 changes.

Photo of Catherine MartinCatherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá an Comhaontas Glas sásta tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún seo. Maidir leis an míchothromaíocht atá á léiriú ag córas pinsin an Stáit i leith na mban sa náisiun seo, is léir don dall nach bhfuil meas a léiriú ag an Rialtas ar na mná seo. Agus mar sin, mar shocaí agus mar pholaiteoirí, caithfimid dul i ngleic leis an éagóir seo gan mhoill.

The pension gap has widened in recent years between men and women, with women now having, on average, 37% less of a pension to live on than men. The introduction in 2012 of new bands for pensions, the homemaker's scheme not applying prior to 1994 and the marriage bar are all measures which discriminated strongly against women, and they all continue to maintain discrimination in society and the economy today.

The Taoiseach said that he planned to "reward work and enterprise" in budget 2018, but it appears that fair pensions for women forcibly barred from work by the State were not on the radar of his so-called just society or republic of opportunity. The Green Party has submitted an amendment to this motion seeking the homemaker's scheme to be applied retrospectively to 1973 and calling on the Government to indicate a timeline to eliminate this patent discrimination which the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, has described as both "bonkers" and "unbelievable".

In 2012, the previous Government introduced changes to the eligibility criteria for the contributory State pension, changes which adversely and disproportionately affect women. The Government seems intent on continuing this discrimination, as it indicates plans to replace the current system with the "total contribution" approach for "new" pensioners from 2020 - the key word here being "new", as the Government will be ostracising pre-2020 pensioners by excluding them.

The Green Party amendment to the motion calls on the Government to ensure that any such introduction would apply to all contributory State pensions and pensioners.

I commend Deputy O'Dea on bringing this motion before the House. However, it is a shame this issue was not a priority in the lead-up to the budget. Thus it did not feature in budget 2018. That is most regrettable. It is a missed opportunity, but not only on the part of the Government. Where was the Fianna Fáil voice when it was needed and could have made a difference for thousands of women in budget 2018?

At last, this campaign, which has been championed by the National Women's Council of Ireland, Age Action Ireland and the Irish Countrywomen's Association, is gaining momentum. The Fianna Fáil intervention today, however belated, is still to be welcomed because it is never too late to do the right thing. It is better late than never.

During the past week we have heard many Government politicians talk the talk about how unfair the current pension system is. Despite the candid admissions, there remains a deep reluctance on the part of Government to give any firm commitment to redress this issue effectively and fairly. The demands of these people, mostly women, are not unreasonable. They simply seek equality and justice, and they are right to insist on these. When discussing pension contributions, we should not forget the contribution these women have made to society. Their valuable contribution to society is clearly underappreciated and undervalued by this Government. The thousands of women who continue to be forgotten by this Government deserve more than recognition of their plight. They deserve so much more than words. They deserve equality.

7:35 pm

Photo of John CurranJohn Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I intend to share time with Deputy Michael Moynihan and Deputy Fleming.

During the course of this debate a number of political charges have been made against our party. I am not going to respond to them at this stage. I will leave that to Deputy O'Dea in the summing up.

Some of those listening to the debate might think this issue has not been discussed or highlighted. However, it has been brought up over several years. In particular, it was highlighted during last year's budget. The Joint Committee on Social Protection looked at this in significant detail over the course of the year. The purpose was to examine the matter in a timely fashion and make recommendations in advance of the budget. Deputy John Brady was on the committee and he understands the process. We did it faithfully and honestly. We did not simply publish a report and leave it at that.

I regret that the Minister is not in the Chamber now because I would like to address her directly on this point. In advance of the budget on 28 September, the Minister attended the committee. I raised this matter with her, and I have before me the transcript of the debate. It is not as though she was not familiar with the issue or that the issue had not been addressed in significant detail, because it had been. The Minister addressed the committee that day, and Deputy Brady will probably remember that during the course of her opening statement she said it would be of use to her in preparing the budget if two or three issues of concern to the committee were highlighted. On concluding the meeting, I put it to the Minister that the two issues of most significance to the committee were the two areas where we had prepared reports: the areas of pensions and lone parents. Let us make no mistake, the Minister was aware of the anomalies that existed and of the priorities of an all-party committee in which there was agreement on the issues. We made the issues clearly known.

I am disappointed by the outcome of the budget because this issue was not addressed in any sense. I listened today to the response of the Minister with great interest. She gave all the reasons this could not be done. I put on record that the pensions element of the social welfare budget is €7.5 billion, and yet we need approximately €60 million to address this issue in 2018. Are we really saying that these people who dropped out of the scheme and who were put on a new scheme in 2012 are to be left languishing? We have heard the Minister and the Taoiseach refer to how we need to introduce a new system. We talked about the anomalies that exist and, in the Taoiseach's own words, not doing things in a piecemeal manner, yet that is exactly what the 2012 changes were. They were decisions and actions taken in a piecemeal manner. Women have been adversely affected by 2:1. They had no choice and there was nothing they could do. They were already working and in the system. They are being treated differently simply because they got to pension age after 2012.

In her contribution tonight the Minister spoke clearly about the other schemes, including a contributory pension scheme versus a non-contributory pension scheme and what could be done. However, this would apply equally to people who were in the pension system before 2012. We have an anomaly of unfairness and it needs to be dealt with. We need to be clear in the House tonight when we discuss this issue. Many people have talked about the big picture and the changes that will come from moving from the averaging system to a new system. That does not necessarily address the cohort of people who have been adversely affected from 2012, because they may not be accommodated in the new system.

The committee was clear in its findings. We recognised that the averaging system had anomalies and was not working as intended. The Taoiseach, who was formerly the Minister for Social Protection, and the current Minister clearly indicated they were moving to a new system of total contributions. The committee made several recommendations. The most important was the recommendation that while the Minister was getting on with the job of developing a new system of pension payments based on total payments, the 2012 changes should be postponed, averted or rewound. Moreover, the people now caught in that category should be dealt with fairly. The committee clearly wanted a suspension of the changes made in 2012 while the new programme was rolled out.

On a personal note, I am sorry the Minister is not here today. I am disappointed with her comments on my party. I took personal offence when she said this party could not be trusted. I am Chairman of the committee that has worked closely with the current and previous Ministers. We have done nothing but treat the Ministers on the other side of the House with courtesy and respect. We have done our work as a committee in a diligent and fair manner. We have honoured the confidence and supply agreement. Not only have we carried it out to the letter, but also we have acted within the spirit of it. The Minister's comments should be withdrawn. This side of the House deserves an apology for those unwarranted remarks.

Photo of Seán FlemingSeán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to join in the debate because this issue of the unfair treatment of women in respect of their State pensions has been well known by many people for a long number of years. I have raised this matter in the Dáil on several occasions over recent years, both in the Chamber and by way of parliamentary question. I would go so far as to say that it is not an anomaly. It was actually a decision by the previous Fine Gael-Labour Party Government to attack women.

During the course of 2012 and 2013, I responded to the various budget statements issued by the then Ministers, Deputy Noonan and Deputy Howlin. On all occasions we highlighted a lack of gender proofing. There was a concerted attack on women by the previous Government. It did this to hit people - females - who were coming to pension age and who wanted the full State contributory pension. During that period, the Government also cut child benefit, which was payable in practically every case to the mother. The Government also cut the one-parent family payment, which in practically all cases was payable to the mother. The Government actually reduced the maximum qualifying age of the child at which a mother can claim the one-parent family payment. There was a concerted attack on women's rights by Fine Gael and the Labour Party when they were in government last time around. It is no wonder we are here today.

We have raised this time after time. We have asked for these issues to be dealt with. Essentially, we all know the situation. Women who have worked for their full lives, some of whom have worked more than other colleagues in the workforce, get less of a pension because their years of contribution are averaged out, in some cases over 51 years. This came to my attention first when the State pension of a lady was cut by €30 per week, which is €1,500 per annum. This was all because she did three weeks of work when she was a teenager during the summer holidays. Had she not worked, she would have got a full pension.

This system is perverse. It penalises people who work early in their lives. It penalises women and it needs to be reversed. We want a timetable for when the Government will address this. It is unanimous that this has to be dealt with. I call on the Government to give us the timetable. If a Supplementary Estimate is required, we will assist in that.

7:45 pm

Photo of Michael MoynihanMichael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleagues for the few minutes available to me. This is a very serious issue. The 2012 Act that was changed has detrimentally affected people. Other parties spoke, criticising our party for putting down this motion. Many anomalies in this pension system go far back, such as the pro rata pension that was introduced because self-employment was included in 1988 and in 2010 when there was an attempt by the Department to take farmers' wives' pensions off them and the Attorney General had given advice that it should be removed. An amendment put down by former Deputies John Cregan and Noel Ahern and by myself resolved the issue, against the advice of the Attorney General, but we were proved right in the documentation we put before the House.

It was clearly known at the time how the attack in 2012 would affect people. It affects men as well as women, particularly men who worked in business. No PRSI was paid for self-employed people up to 1988. They would have had jobs off-site that they would have worked in their earlier years and then when it came to their contributions, there was a huge gap and they would be left without pensions. Men and women are affected by it, but predominantly women. We see now, as people come on board, that the Department has over the last weeks refused to send out PRSI records to people. They must now go online for those records. These are people heading into their mid-60s who may have no access to broadband or computers and they are told that they do not get a paper copy of their records. The simple issue here is how the 2012 Act was implemented by Deputy Joan Burton, with all the wailing that she went on with prior to 2011 when she was on the Labour benches, to give a fair assessment of her speeches, and again when she went to the other side. This is her legacy for the women of Ireland. It is a very dangerous legacy and we need to find a way to address it because men and particularly women are being extremely badly treated by this legislation.

Photo of Helen McEnteeHelen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Taking into account the views of Deputies on this debate so far tonight, I want to reiterate the Government's recognition of the need for fairness and equity in the provision of State pensions and the importance of the issues raised. The State pension system is of primary importance in the provision for the old age of our citizens. There are approximately 680,000 persons over 66 expected to benefit from State pension payments next year. Regardless of work history, breaks in employment or years out of the workforce, the State non-contributory pension provides a basic level of income. There are generous disregards in this means-tested pension which means that pensioners are protected against poverty. The State contributory pension is a social insurance based scheme for those who have contributed to the PRSI system. It is complex and while it has pros and cons, some of these stem from the history of the State pension system and the type of society it was devised in.

As we all know, Ireland of 2017 is very different to the Ireland of 1961 and the breadwinner model on which the State pension was based. Women's participation in the workforce has changed radically over the intervening decades. Spending on State pensions has increased rapidly in recent decades. This year, the cost is €7.3 billion. This is estimated to increase by €1 billion every five years due the increase in pensioners. These projections mean that there are big sustainability and affordability challenges in the years ahead and we must start to address them now. The State contributory pension comes from the Social Insurance Fund which is funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. That means workers of the day pay for the pensions given to older people. The policy choices we make today must be made carefully so that we can continue to pay good State pensions in the future. The Government wants to combine increases in the rates of pensions with reforms that make the system sustainable for future pensioners. The motion, which proposes to make changes to the State pension, would cost €70 million next year to reverse the rate band changes and €290 million to backdate homemakers' disregards prior to 1994. This is a very significant amount of money and would increase in every following year as the number of pensioners increases. To do all this would undermine the affordability and sustainability of pensions in the medium term and will not allow for the wider structural reforms that are needed, such as the total contributions approach which was mentioned earlier.

When the contributory pension was introduced in 1961, a yearly average approach was used for calculating entitlements. The reason was that, as reckonable social insurance had just been introduced eight years previously, no-one would have had the 30 to 40 years of contributions necessary to be paid under a total contribution approach. However, the yearly average approach would allow many people to qualify for a full pension quickly. With the extension of PRSI over the years, notably to self-employed and farmers in 1988, a total contributions approach can be used from around 2020 without disadvantaging people in those sectors. They will have had a 30 year window to accumulate contributions. The main difficulty with the yearly average approach is that it is possible for people to start paying social insurance much later in life and still qualify for a pension at the maximum rate. This is not very fair on those whose pension payments are more proportional to their contribution to the system. The total contributions approach reform will remove this unequal outcome.

The yearly average system resulted in reduced pensions for those who had taken time out of the workforce to look after their families. The homemaker's scheme was introduced from 1994 to alleviate that. It makes qualification for the contributory State pension easier for those who take time out of the workforce for caring duties. It allows caring or homemaking gaps of up to 20 years to be disregarded from 1994 when a person’s social insurance record is being averaged. Backdating the homemaker's scheme at the time to include periods before 1994 would have been extremely expensive and there would have been much less money for improvements in pensions for more people. Backdating the scheme now would still be costly, at an estimated €290 million.

The rate bands of the State pension contributory have been discussed in great detail. The current rate bands applying to the State pension contributory were introduced from September 2012, replacing previous rates introduced in 2000. It must be pointed out that rate bands prior to 2000 were less generous, and the improved rate bands introduced in 2000 were a feature of the economic and political environment at that time. The economic crash changed the focus and the core rates of the pension, which many other pensioners were solely dependent on, were not reduced. Instead, the rates for people who had additional means and lesser PRSI contribution records, were reduced. The 2012 rate bands more closely reflect the social insurance contributions history of a person than those in place between 2000 and 2012. The current rate bands still provide pensions to people which are not proportionate with their level of contribution. A person with only 20 years of contributions over nearly 50 years will still get an 85% pension. Had all pensions been cut, regardless of means and contribution records, the hardest hit would have been pensioners with no additional incomes, those paid a State pension non-contributory, and widows and widowers living alone on only one pension payment. A significantly higher proportion of such pensioners are women and such an approach would have affected them badly. People on the lower rate bands with other income which meant they did not qualify for a non-contributory pension, which is 95% of the contributory pension, are generally in a better financial position than those solely dependent on the non-contributory pension, as otherwise they could claim that payment instead. Changing these bands would give additional money to people who already had means and nearly 40% of those are men. It is estimated that to revert to the previous bands from January 2018 would result in an annual cost of over €70 million in 2018, and this annual cost would increase by an estimated €10 million each following year.

It is intended to introduce the total contributions approach replacement for new pensioners. This will make the rate of contributory pension more closely match contributions made by a person. The position of women who have gaps in their contribution records as a result of caring duties will be considered very carefully when developing the new model. A public consultation is planned on this reform, and this will provide an opportunity for people to submit their views on what they want to see in this reform. It must be noted that the pension system is very effective in protecting both men and women from poverty and social exclusion. The average pension payments made to men and women over 66 years of age are within approximately 1% to 2% of each other and figures from the CSO show that while 2.9% of men over 65 are in consistent poverty, only 2.6% of women in that age category are in consistent poverty. EU statistics also show that the gender gaps among the elderly in Ireland are much narrower than across the European Union. Among those over 65 at risk of poverty and social exclusion, the gap in Ireland, of 2.1%, is half the gap across the European Union.

The main aim of Government policy on pensions is to make sure that pensions are affordable, sustainable and keep their value in the coming years. The reforms that are planned will result in a more inclusive and fairer pension system for all citizens. The Minister has acknowledged the need to examine how many people, mainly women, who spent time out of the workforce for child-rearing and caring duties are impacted by the current system. I ask that consideration be given to allow time for this examination to take place so that a fair approach can be developed to tackle the issues debated here. Any changes need to be effective, fair and proportionate and in line with the reforms planned.

7:55 pm

Photo of Mary ButlerMary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil has brought forward this motion as its members believe steps must be taken to address the inequity in the pension system that disadvantages women, in particular, but also men. Fianna Fáil Deputies the length and breadth of the country have heard from pensioners, many of whom are women, who were distraught to learn upon reaching retirement they are not entitled to a full State pension.

Contrary to some of the charges made here tonight about Fianna Fáil being late to the party, I welcome my colleague, Councillor Michael Sheehan, who is in the Gallery and thank him for organising a series of meetings over the past 12 months at which both Deputy O'Dea and I spoke with members from Age Action and from the Irish Countrywomen's Association, ICA. I welcome them all here tonight. It is lovely to have them here. Moreover, I decided to look at my diary to ascertain when I, as Fianna Fáil spokesperson for older people, first met Justin Moran from Age Action on this issue and contrary to what had been stated, it was 17 months ago. It is good to have an electronic diary as one can find out such details. The charge made by the Minister earlier that this motion arose out of an issue raised during post-budget discussions is another anomaly. I am delighted to put on record that my party's spokesperson on expenditure, Deputy Calleary, met the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, on 4 October. I am glad to note the Taoiseach cleared up that point today.

As for Sinn Féin, we are well used to the politics of attack. I do not expect anything else. However, I noted that while the spokesperson for social protection from Sinn Féin was speaking, he omitted the fact that we had tabled an amendment to the motion he had brought forward. I also was surprised that while discussing the motion, he spent half his time attacking Fianna Fáil and not discussing the issue to hand.

The issue is gathering momentum and people are wondering why. The reason is that as more people reach the age of 66, they realise to their absolute horror that having worked for most of their lives they are not entitled to the full pension after the changes introduced in 2012 by Deputy Burton, then Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection. Deputy Burton has said she now regrets them but the regret does not put the €15, €25 or €30 per week back into the pensions of those who are missing out on those amounts.

The current pension system, which is based on an averaging system, disadvantages women in particular who took time out of the workforce for caring and child-minding duties. The situation was further exacerbated by the disastrous changes introduced by Fine Gael and the Labour Party in 2012. Of the 36,000 people affected who receive a lower pension because of these changes, 62% are women but I also refer to the 38% who are men. Age Action, which I spoke to again today, states it has been contacted by many men who, during different recessions over the years and during downturns in the economy, had to travel abroad, mostly to the UK, for work in order that they could support their families and send money home. Case studies have shown that a woman with twice as many PRSI contributions as another person can have her pension greatly reduced because of the changes made in 2012.

The Government must outline a roadmap over the course of a number of budgets to bridge the gap and end the inequality that is clear for every right-minded person to see. The State has a role to play in leading the way and ending gender discrimination in this country. It needs to start with this glaring obvious problem that is affecting so many of our citizens.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everybody who spoke here this evening and I thank people for the support they have expressed for the motion. Nevertheless, there is a few matters I have to clarify.

Deputy Brady stated that we refused to support the exact same motion as the one before the House when he put it forward. The motion the Deputy put down is the same motion as he has tabled tonight, including his amendment, which would cost more than twice as much money. It is a different motion. We amended the Deputy's motion to focus on this particular anomaly. That is what we supported and that is what was actually passed by the Dáil.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was specifically calling for the reversal of the changes.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When Deputy Brady is purporting to tell the truth, he should learn to tell the whole truth.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The whole truth, so should Deputy O'Dea.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The fact of the matter is that Sinn Féin has no interest in pensioners. It has no interest in people in receipt of social welfare benefits and I will tell Deputy Brady why. After the last general election with a weakened Deputy Enda Kenny looking for support, Sinn Féin could have approached him and said, "Look, we want to do all those wonderful things that we are talking about", and the door would have been wide open to it, but Sinn Féin did not. Deputy Michael McGrath, my colleague, said Sinn Féin prefer to remain as hurlers on the ditch but I prefer to think of you as snipers behind the ditch. That is Sinn Féin's role, and that is in its character.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Dea was the first sniper earlier to come with something like that but he is in a position to do something in the different areas.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You were a mass sniper earlier on.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are in the position now to do something about the various matters.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Dea, without interruption. Deputy Brady got his opportunity.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not interrupt Deputy Brady but we are used to this sort of militaristic fascism from Sinn Féin. When they do not like what you are saying, they shout you down.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who was shouting me down?

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They shout you down. They do not let you talk. That is it. That is the line.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who was shouting me down?

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was not.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Act responsibly.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Dea was shouting me down.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was not.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Brady, please.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We might as well put a candle in the window for Shergar as ask him to act responsibly.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been an orderly debate and we want to conclude in an orderly fashion.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Second, Sinn Féin has happily presided over a starvation system of social welfare in Northern Ireland where those in receipt of the old age pension are getting paid approximately €100 per week less than those down here are, and they come down here lecturing us. In Northern Ireland, the rate of carer's allowance is €69 per week.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Rates set at Westminster.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is approximately €200 per week here and they are lecturing us.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is set at Westminster.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Brady should have respect for the House. The Deputy got his opportunity and I have to exercise control.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He has no respect for democracy, that is his problem. If he keeps talking, I will keep answering him.

I asked Deputy Brady quite recently why Sinn Féin did not make this a priority when it was entering the Executive in the first place. Why did they not say they would not enter into government in this country and preside over a starvation rate of social welfare? A second question to Deputy Brady is, why did Sinn Féin not decide to bring down the Executive then, when the rates of social welfare payable to some of Deputy Brady's supporters were so inadequate? Sinn Féin decided to collapse the Executive, based on a scandal admittedly, with regard to some sort of heating payment scheme, the details of which escape me-----

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Corruption.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but if Sinn Féin really wanted people to be paid rates of social welfare in Northern Ireland, why did it not collapse the Executive on that? It obviously had a different priority. Do not lecture me about priorities.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the Chair.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is ironic that Sinn Féin comes in here obviously so worried about women. The only women I read about are the women who are being bullied out of Sinn Féin. That is the only thing I read about or hear about. Do not try that caper with me because you certainly will not succeed. You can bully young women but you certainly will not bully us.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, I never bullied anybody. That is a specific charge.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Your party.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Brady, you had an opportunity.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was a specific charge that I bully women. I ask him to withdraw that comment.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I withdraw nothing.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Dea, through the Chair.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I said Sinn Féin has bullied women.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I ask him to withdraw that comment. I have never bullied anybody. That is a very serious charge.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Dea.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask him to withdraw that comment.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Dea, through the Chair.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask him to withdraw that comment, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a parliamentary debate.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not accuse you.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Dea, through the Chair.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to make it clear I am talking about the Sinn Féin Party, not Deputy Brady.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask him to withdraw that comment.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the Chair. It is a matter for-----

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is typical.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot force anybody.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was a specific charge made that I have been engaged in bullying women.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is typical. He asked me to say something and-----

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hold on, I am not the one who has been in court for mistreating women.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----then he will not give me the chance to say it.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies, I will adjourn the debate.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking you to withdraw that charge against me.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Brady, please.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have never been engaged in bullying anybody.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Brady and Deputy O'Dea, I would ask both of you to address the Chair, and if there are any personal accusations-----

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I am asking you-----

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Brady, hold on.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----to call for Deputy O'Dea to withdraw that comment.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Brady is long enough in this House to know that if the Chair is on its feet, both of you should take your seats. I am asking both of you to refrain from across the Chamber charges and any debate has to be through the Chair. We will bring it to a conclusion shortly.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not make any charge specifically against Deputy Brady.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, you did.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I made a charge against his party.

Photo of John BradyJohn Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will check the record. Yes, you did.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Brady.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If you say I did, you misinterpreted what I said.

We also had a lecture from the so-called left here, stating Fine Gael will not do this in government and Fianna Fáil will not do that in government.

The irony is that those to whom I refer do not want to be in government at all. They want to be shouting from the sidelines permanently. Toy town demagogues, that is what we are dealing with here. How can people lecture any of the major parties in this House about what they will and will not do in government when those individuals have absolutely no intention whatsoever of serving in government themselves?

I am very disappointed with the Government's response. It is talking about the whole matter being examined, analysed, reported on, trashed out and legislated for again. As I said previously, however, Age Action has done all of this work already. It is pure prevarication on the Government's part and nothing else. I listened to the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, saying that we need to give the Government time to go through all of this consideration. Time is one thing that the elderly do not have. I know people who were adversely affected by the changes introduced in 2012 and who have died in the interim. The more time we provide in respect of the changes the Government is proposing, the less people will benefit from them. The benefits will end up being paid to their estates. What I am seeking is a definite timetable in respect of those changes promised by the Minister in the amendment she tabled.

Amendment put.

8:05 pm

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In accordance with Standing Order 70(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Thursday, 19 October 2017.

The Dáil adjourned at at 8.50 p.m. until 10 a.m on Thursday, 19 October 2017.