Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 44, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“(c) the gender and equality implications of the prescribed age and prescribed amount;”.

Amendment No. 37 seeks to amend section 56(2) by inserting a new paragraph providing that when making decisions on the prescribed age and earning limits under the scheme the Minister would have regard to the gender and equality implications thereof.

I am not going to elaborate too much because I have spoken about these issues when discussing the amendment tabled by Senator Sherlock. Effectively, the gender and equality implications of a "prescribed age and a prescribed amount" need to be considered. I have outlined some of the explicit and specific ways. There are negative gender and equality implications about what is initially prescribed, namely the decision to have an age threshold of 23 in terms of starting payments. Again, I said it is an inequality for those who may not have college education and who may be entering the workplace at a young age. It may be due to parents or family status that they are not attending university and that they are seeking to earn at an early stage. There are equality implications. So those sectors in society who are less likely to attend university education will now be doubly disadvantaged as in they will also be less likely to be able to access the scheme in terms of securing their future.

Let us bear the following in mind, and this is an issue that we have seen in France and elsewhere. Those who start working at 18 years may well wish to retire at an age of 65 or 67. They may not wish to work until 70 years, as we heard about some of the schemes earlier, because if they are working for extremely long periods they may not wish to have the same length of work at the other end of their working life. This is something that we have seen in some of the debate that took place in France which recognised that there are those who have a long working life but it begins at a very early age.

Again, there are equality issues in terms of the age threshold at 23. There are practical issues in terms of missing the opportunity to engage people at the earliest point and make it an automatic part of a person being in the workplace that he or she contributes to a pension. There are serious concerning issues about the income threshold of €20,000. I have outlined that such a threshold really disadvantages those in part-time work and women, in particular, because they are more like to have part-time employment, and more likely to be on low wages and low income. It is a fact that I used to extensively quote the Women and Men in Ireland study by the Central Statistics Office when I worked for the National Women's Council of Ireland. The CSO used to produce the study as part of its annual review and the study contained lots of useful statistics on men and women in Ireland. I quoted the study for a couple of years. When the next study was produced the CSO had stopped provided that statistic, which was interesting. Then the CSO stopped producing the Women and Men in Ireland study on an annual basis and produced it on a three-year basis. That meant it became increasingly harder to get the figures. However, the 2015 figures show that 50% of women in the State earned €20,000 or less. None of them would qualify under the threshold set out in this legislation. That is a useful but somewhat out-of-date statistic but one we should bear in mind when considering thresholds and the kind of information that would be useful if one had a gender and equality analysis in respect of the prescribing of age and earning limits.

Amendment No. 38 seeks to amend section 56 by inserting a new subsection which provides that in making determinations around age and income thresholds that "the Minister shall have due regard" to the need to ensure that persons availing of carer's allowance, or the one-parent family payment. For example, these people may qualify for the income disregard but may be working. There are others who are working but for amounts that fall underneath the income disregard as they are carers or one-parent families. It would be really good that as well as building an attachment to the workplace they would build an attachment to a pension system that might give them security in the long term.

Amendment No. 38 states that "carers allowance, the one-parent family payment, disability allowance or the working family payment have equitable access to secure pensions.” so that we do not see those who are disadvantaged in terms of either their working capacity or working hours of availability - to the point where they do need income supplements from the State currently - finding themselves further disadvantaged when it comes to their later life and retirement. I hope that the Minister will consider my amendments No. 37 and 38.

It is regrettable that no amendments have been accepted because there are Government amendments. There are amendments on ethics, oversight and other practical amendments on offer, even the SIPO one, so that when people appear before the Committee on Public Accounts, they might actually discuss investment strategy and policy. Accepting any of those amendments would not have delayed the Bill one jot because there are so many Government amendments. We legislate at our best in these Houses when there is genuine consideration given to whether an amendment could strengthen or improve a Bill. I believe genuinely that there have been some amendments put forward that would have strengthened the Bill, would not have cut across its purposes and certainly would not have delayed the Bill one iota given that so many Government amendments have been tabled. It is regrettable that we are losing an opportunity to have amendments Nos. 37 and 38 aaccepted.