Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

To clarify, the amendment specifically relates to the scheme up to 2020. It is significant, and the two issues are related, but I am not asking for something that does not exist yet. I am simply pointing out that a new precedent has been set. This scheme represents the first time that a threshold of 40 years has been set, which is significant. While I respect the fact that no decision has been made, and hope that the decision will take into account the many submissions received, it would not be appropriate if we ended up in a situation where there was a suggestion that there must be a trade off between recognising care or extending the gaps. A scheme should be provided that accommodates both, and it should take the form I have proposed. There will be different perspectives; the majority have suggested that it should fall within the 30-year threshold.

My amendment related specifically to the change in 2012. The Minister is correct that the 2012 people will not be affected by the total amount envisaged in this approach. However, the 40-year versus 30-year decision has relevance for 2020, which is why I sought that analysis. The Minister told us that 70% of persons would qualify for a full pension under the new change, and that is welcome. If there was a 30-year approach, would 85% or 90% have qualified?