Catherine Ardagh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for addressing the House and am happy to be able to contribute on the provisions and changes contained in the Social Welfare Bill.

This year's budget goes some way towards introducing elements of fairness to the social welfare system that have not been seen in this country after five years of harsh, punitive and regressive budgets under the previous Fine Gael-Labour Government. Without the backdrop of the confidence and supply agreement, any element of fairness would be missing completely. The ESRI has commented on the budget, stating that its greatest gains are in the lowest income quintile. Though minimal, this would not have happened but for the influence of Fianna Fáil. The €5 increase in the State pension and other social welfare payments, the 85% restoration of the Christmas bonus and the extension of optical and dental supports were central to Fianna Fáil's election manifesto.While these are not huge gains, they go some way towards addressing the inequality in our society. Fianna Fáil also welcomes the cross-party amendment to provide for a review of the one-parent family payment. The Fianna Fáil Party has fought long and hard to reverse the punitive changes introduced in 2012 and we welcome that the Government has agreed to review those changes on foot of amendments tabled by Deputy O'Dea on Committee Stage in the Dáil.

Our social welfare system is evolving. It is by no means perfect. One of the major discrepancies in the system is the gender disparity when it comes to the contributory State pension. As we know, entitlement to the State pension varies depending on an individual's circumstances. A person may have an insufficient yearly average number of contributions or an insufficient number of overall contributions to qualify for a pension or full pension. In 1994 a home maker's scheme was introduced to address some concerns, specifically in regard to the impact of time out of the workforce spent caring. This allows for up to 20 years spent caring to be disregarded when an individual's yearly average is being calculated. It does not, however, apply to women who gave up work before 1994 and therein lies the problem. It has been suggested by many sources that the home maker's scheme should be retrospective and that the current disregard system should be replaced with a system of credits. Issues around making the home maker's scheme retrospective were examined against the qualifying conditions for the old age contributory pension and retirement pension schemes 2000, which found no fundamental reason in principle the scheme should only apply from 1994. I am calling on the Minister to prioritise the regularisation of the gender disparity in this country and I ask that he make this issue a priority.