Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister's answer points exactly to the problem which is that the Commission's examination explicitly excluded consideration of the tax relief. It is not necessarily even about removal but reform of the private pension tax relief, which is currently set at a marginal rate. This means that a higher earner gets 40% tax rate relief. Low-income earners only get 20% tax relief. Not surprisingly, it is mainly higher earners who benefit. The research literally states that 70% of higher earners benefit. The Minister is saying it could cost €2 billion to €3 billion. That is what we spend on private pension tax relief. The idea that we cannot talk about tax relief is not valid. We should be able to consider it and test it on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. As stated, the idea of a universal pension was considered and it was found that it could potentially cost €2 billion to €3 billion. Questions were asked as to where we would get that money. However, there was an explicit exclusion whereby the commission was not allowed to talk about the giant, expensive elephant in the room, which is private pension tax relief. Private pension tax relief was off the table. Meanwhile there was a discussion about having to find €2 billion to €3 billion. It is literally right there.

As I pointed out, when we went through austerity, this was, as people may recall, one of the recommendations made by the troika. Many very harsh recommendations of the troika that should not have been implemented were implemented. This recommendation was not implemented, however. The troika stated that private pension tax relief should be standard rated, at 20% or 30% in order that all workers with private pensions and tax relief would benefit at the same level rather than higher earners, who are the least likely to be needy being advantaged.

The policy problem that the State faces is, as the Minister said, the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of workers who do not have access to secure pensions. The problem the State has there is a gender pension gap and a pension gap when it comes to those on low incomes. That is why we need an analysis of the big-ticket item. If the big gap relates to those on low incomes and women, is the €3 billion we are spending on private pension tax relief, which mainly goes to high-earning men, perhaps not the best use of money? It is not about whether it would be nice to give that tax relief. The question should be whether it is the best use of our resources. That is relevant because we have a new scheme coming in. The gender aspect matters. There is a real concern, particularly as women are more likely to be carers and carers do not benefit from the scheme, that we are literally about to make the same mistake again.We are going to try yet another scheme in which there is a real risk that women will be disadvantaged and the pension gap could widen rather than narrow. This is why I am asking the Minister very robustly what plans exist to track the gender equality impact of this scheme. We cannot be complacent because our contributory pension system left the majority of women on a reduced rate pension, some of them with just €50 or €100 per week, and our private pension tax relief also disadvantaged women because they were more likely to be on a lower income rather than in the higher income bracket that benefited all the more. If we have made the gender inequality mistake with the two other big bits of our pension plan, surely trying to make sure we improve things should be front and centre. Could the Minister elaborate on what measures will be introduced to track the gender equality impact of this? I appreciate that there are a lot of women who may benefit from the scheme but what will that be in proportion to the number of men who will benefit from the scheme? Will it address the gap or will it just bring a few more people into a pension system but still leave that fundamental inequality cemented because care is the invisible piece yet again and care is not properly recognised yet again? The Minister mentioned that care may be considered down the line so what is the timeline for that? Could she elaborate on that?