Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 11, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:“(2) The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas, a report to include—

(a) an estimation of the potential cost of calculating this scheme on the basis of 1,560 contributions rather than 2,080, and

(b) a comparison of the likely difference between a 1,560 contributory requirement and a 2,080 in terms of weekly income levels for those affected.”.

This amendment is in respect of the 2012 changes that were made relating to the pension payments and the ongoing issues that the averaging system has caused in disadvantaging people, especially women. This has resulted in many people being on a reduced rate despite high levels of contributions over the years. There was much to welcome in the new proposals in respect of the 2012 changes, and I have welcomed those, but my key concern is that while the proposals in the new scheme for those pensioners address the issue of the gap by offering a preview of a total contribution approach that could be taken, the gap is addressed but the goalposts are pushed out. While the system for calculating the contributions required may in fact prove to be fairer in many respects, and men and women who are affected can opt for previous ongoing system or for this new system, I am concerned at the decision to frame it not in terms of a 30-year contribution but in terms of a 40-year contribution. Currently it is the case that 20 years is required to deliver a full pension. We know that under the averaging system, it can be only ten-----