Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am speaking to section 13 because it relates to the question of new social insurance benefits and rates. I had proposed amendments to this section but they have been ruled out of order. I will speak to them with regard to the general point. I have a very significant concern about the manner in which they have been ruled out of order. That is not a concern for the Minister but I have raised it at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP, and I will raise it again. We have been told that amendments which are explicitly around the question of rates of social welfare, which is the subject of the Bill, have been ruled out of order as not being relevant to the purpose of the Bill. The Social Welfare Bill is the annual review of our social welfare rates. Provisions that relate to those rates are relevant to the purpose of the Bill.

If we start having narrow interpretations of amendments, it means that it is against the purpose of the Bill to discuss any aspect of social welfare other than the proposals made by the Government. That would be completely contrary to previous practice. We would move into an area in which there would never be any scrutiny of the social welfare code or any opportunity to amend the founding legislation. Such an interpretation would be a very dangerous trend. I will challenge this at the CPP. We might look at how we might revise the Standing Orders of the House to clarify this matter. I apologise to the Minister because I know this is not her decision. However, it is a really significant issue. We are in danger of not having proper scrutiny of our legislation if we start to have such prohibitive interpretations.

Section 13 looks at new social insurance benefits. One of my amendments had asked for a report on the potential introduction of a bench-marking link to minimum essential standards of living. One of the best things the Department has ever done has been its work in supporting the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice. I understand the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has now taken up that work in respect of the assessment of the minimum essential standards of living. The minimum essential standards of living are expressed by an independent expert group of academics and others and, crucially, by families. It examines 2,000 items on which households rely. These are the needs - not the wants - of households in Ireland. It gathers very important information from that in respect of what is adequate for different kinds of households to live on.

The Minister will be aware I tabled specific amendments about to the €12 increase in adult personal social welfare because it falls somewhat short of the recommended €20 increase. However, we could look to a stronger link between the minimum essential standards of living and our social protection payments.

The other amendment I proposed to this section related to pensions and the need to examine a universal pension. I know many pension proposals have been discussed. I have a significant concern, which I expressed to the Minister of Finance earlier today, that the Commission on Pensions in its financial calculations did not look to the €2.9 billion spent every year on private pension tax relief when it assessed what the revenues for the Exchequer might be with regard to addressing our pensions system. It is very notable that the approximately €3 billion which is estimated as the cost of a universal pension almost matches perfectly with what gets spent on private pension tax relief. Research has shown 70% of the benefits of this relief go to top earners - those on higher incomes, who are predominantly men - whereas a universal pension would largely address the issue of women and the inequality in our pension system that women have experienced for a very long period of time.

I had looked for a comparative report on these different points. I have very serious concerns in respect of the potential increase in contributory requirements. I was working with older people's organisations and, indeed, subsequently with the Women's Council during the period when we saw the impact of the 2012 change from ten years to 20 years. While the theoretical rate of the pension remained the same, we saw considerable numbers of women fall to a reduced-rate pension. I know that was under the averaging scheme and this is the total contributory scheme. However, I have a very significant concern that if we go not just from a 20- to 30-year contributory requirement, which had been widely and anticipated, but to a 40-year contributory requirement, there is no doubt it will have significant impacts on equity and distribution and large numbers of people will be on a reduced rate pension.I am very concerned that we will see a widening of the pension gap and more women falling below the threshold if we move to a 40-year contributory pension.

The core of amendment is that we need to have much stronger gender analysis of the difference between a 30-year contributory requirement and a 40-year contributory requirement and gender analysis of the auto-enrolment system. All of these need to be considered alongside a gender analysis of the private pension tax relief. Any new policy decision we make in respect of pensions must narrow the gender pension gap and increase equality rather than potentially take us further into the inequality that women in Ireland have suffered with respect to pensions for decades.