Deputy Jim O'Keeffe gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of the administration of the local government pensions scheme and a particular person aggrieved thereby.
Adjournment Debate. - Local Government Pensions Scheme.
I should like to thank the Chair for granting me permission to raise this issue on the Adjournment. I do not notice the presence of the Minister for the Environment in the Chamber, a Member I am anxious to impress with my logic on this issue. May I take it that he will be here?
I hope to be able to deal adequately with the points the Deputy will be raising.
May I record my disappointment that the Minister has not bothered to attend. There is an old saying that law does not always equate to justice. Therefore, it is the duty of politicians to continually reform our laws, regulations, State schemes and Government imposed rules so as to ensure, as far as possible, that they equate with justice, equity and fair play. Where our social customs and traditions change, or where outrageous anomalies show up, there is all the more reason for reform. A particular case in point is the local government officers' widows and orphans contributory pension scheme as extended to female local authority and health board employees in 1984. There is no provision in that scheme whereby a person who joined the scheme may opt out or whereby a spouse's pension may be paid to any person other than that spouse. What happens in the event of desertion, legal separation, judicial separation, annulment or any of the consequences of marital breakdown?
There is increasing evidence, if only from the figures in the social welfare booklet on deserted wife's allowances, of marital breakdown in our society. At the very minimum, apart from the question of divorce, that is divorce a vinculo matrimonii where remarriage rights are the issue, let us ensure that there is some element of fair play and equity in dealing with such problems where they arise. I should like to give details of a case in point, that of a nurse who has a large family and who had been the main support of that family. The income of her husband was rather irregular and tended to be spent on purposes other than maintaining and rearing that family. When the scheme was offered to female employees of health boards in 1984 she was concerned at the position of her family in the event of her death and, accordingly, she opted to join the scheme. She wanted to ensure that there would be some provision for her children in the event of her death. The following year she was deserted by her husband who went to live with another woman. There followed a legal separation and, thereafter, a church annulment. Needless to say that large family have no support whatever from the departed spouse. That woman is in the position that she has to continue making payment into that scheme, but for the benefit of whom? It is for the benefit of the departed spouse. In fact, she worked nights so that her earnings would be greater, so that she would be able to provide for her children, and now she is forced to pay almost £400 per annum into the scheme. There is no provision for payment to any person other than the spouse. These are not my words but the words of the Minister for the Environment in response to efforts I made to have the scheme changed.
That person, who suffered a personal tragedy, is making an effort to ensure that her children are cared for and get good schooling — one of them is in third level education — but she has to continue to make those payments without there being any possibility of the pension being of any benefit to anybody other than the person who left her, and her family, high and dry. She is not the only woman in that predicament and, because of the increasing trend of marriage breakdown here, we are likely to see more such instances. That is why there is a duty on the Government to make the necessary changes to take into account such circumstances.
I should like to tell the House what that woman has done. After she was deserted by her husband she explained her position to the health board and indicated that she did not wish, obviously, to continue paying for the benefit of her departed spouse. The health board advised her that their hands were tied and referred her to the Department of the Environment. When I raised the issue with the Department I was told by the Minister, in 1987, that there was no provision in the scheme whereby a person who opted to join during the option period may opt out or whereby a pension may be paid to any person other than the spouse.
I accepted that the scheme did not provide for such a case and that there was a need for a change. In the course of a question in the House to the Minister for the Environment I asked him to consider changing the terms of the scheme. In his reply the Minister said there were no provisions whereby the contribution requirements of an entitlement to a benefit may be cancelled in cases of marital separation. Furthermore, he said his Department had no plans at present to initiate changes in that area. When I raised the matter with him again I set out the basis on which I felt changes should be made. I wanted him to take into account the question of marital breakdown. Again, there was a refusal.
More recently, on behalf of that constituent, I raised the matter with the Ombudsman — I did that as a last resort — and I indicated to him that I saw in this case a major injustice. I felt that the anomaly would apply to other people at present and would most certainly apply in the future, and I asked him to intervene. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman found himself precluded under the Act from examining complaints of this nature and, therefore, was unable to intervene. We had already raised the matter with the health board and my constituent told me that she had also raised it with the Irish Nurses' Organisation. I have raised it by way of parliamentary question and by way of correspondence with the Minister. It was also raised with the Ombudsman.
My understanding is that there is provision in the scheme in the event that she had been widowed and it seems that while her husband has not departed this world, he certainly has departed from the family household and at no time since so doing has he contributed one brass farthing for the support of the family. The entire burden rests on her.
I suggest, a Cheann Comhairle, that we cannot ignore, like the ostrich, the increasing extent of marital breakdown in our society. I further suggest that where our laws, rules and regulations, procedures or schemes make no provision for the fall-out from marital breakdown they must be reformed and amended. There is a clear duty on us, the Members of this House, to take the necessary steps to take account of the consequences of marital breakdown and to introduce the necessary changes of a practical nature to deal with it. I am not talking about the issue of divorce with a right to re-marry, that issue was dealt with in a referendum a few years ago, but I am raising the practical consequences of marital breakdown and our clear duty as legislators to make the necessary changes and to introduce the necessary amendments in our laws, rules and regulations and schemes to take account of such circumstances.
We have already had all-party agreement on my colleague, Deputy Shatter's Bill on judicial separation. I was glad to see a consensus emerging in this House on the principle of that Bill. I accept there were some minor difficulties on Committee Stage but the broad principle was accepted and that is the way difficulties of this kind should be attended to.
Tonight I have raised what I believe to be an outrageous case of injustice. The lady in question has difficulty enough in ensuring that funding is available to cater for the needs of her large family without having to pay into this scheme. Justice demands that the scheme be amended for cases of this kind. There is no use in pretending that in our society there does not exist a growing number of cases of desertion and marital breakdown, which in many instances are ending in legal or judicial separations.
I had intended appealing to the Minister for the Environment, but since he has not bothered to show up, there is no point in appealing to him. However, I see that the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Gallagher is here. I know the Minister to be a family man who would understand fully the situation I have described. I appeal to the Government, through the Minister of State, to make the necessary changes to ensure that amendments are made to the scheme so that the outrageous consequences of marital breakdown that I have described will not occur in future.
The Local Government Officers (Widows and Orphans Contributory Pension) Scheme, 1984 which applies to health board nurses is a statutory scheme and is in line with similar schemes operating throughout the public sector generally. The scheme provides for the grant of a pension to the spouse and children of a deceased member or former member of the scheme. These are the only persons who can obtain benefit under the scheme. There are no provisions whereby this entitlement may be cancelled or transferred. Neither are there any provisions whereby a person who joined the scheme may opt out of it at a later stage.
The scheme was originally introduced for male officers on a non-statutory basis in 1968. Following negotiations with staff interests membership was extended to female officers in 1984. Existing female pensionable officers were given an option to join the scheme and I understand that the nurse in question exercised this option within the option period which, as Deputy O'Keeffe has said, was between January and September 1984.
The scheme is structured on an actuarial basis to cover certain risks and on certain assumptions, for example, life expectancy, that the payment of benefits will not arise in respect of all members, and that a person may not opt out of membership at a later date. The combination of these factors ensure the operation of a relatively low contribution rate, 1½ per cent by the member and 1½ per cent by the employer. Proposals to change the existing structure could have financial implications for the viability of the scheme and could lead to a higher contribution rate following an actuarial reevaluation.
In addition to the above considerations it should be noted that any proposal to amend the scheme would require the consent of the Minister for Finance who is responsible for public sector pension schemes generally. This could not be considered in isolation and would have to be dealt with in the context of all similar schemes operating in the public sector. As I have already indicated, the scheme was extended to female officers following negotiations with staff interests. There are no current proposals from the relevant unions and staff associations to amend the scheme.
I am totally disappointed with the Minister of State's response which is typical of the extremely hard-hearted and uncaring attitude of this Government.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 9 November 1988.