Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Oct 1991

Vol. 411 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Pensions Scheme.

Michael D. Higgins

Question:

11 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the fact that there is discrimination against male primary teachers in the provisions of the social welfare pensions scheme and that the scheme provides for the payment of a widow's pension to teachers who pay class D PRSI and while all permanent and temporary teachers, male and female, are liable for PRSI at class D rate, a male teacher is not entitled to a survivor's benefit if his spouse dies; if he will make a statement on this matter and on the steps being taken by his Department and Government to eliminate this discrimination.

Paul Connaughton

Question:

34 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the fact that there is discrimination against male primary teachers in the provisions of the social welfare survivors pension scheme in that the scheme provides for the payment of a widow's pension to teachers who pay class D PRSI and that while all permanent and temporary teachers both male and female are liable for PRSI at class D rate, a male teacher is not entitled to a survivor's benefit if his spouse dies; and if he will make a statement on the steps being taken by his Department to eliminate this anomaly.

Enda Kenny

Question:

37 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will make arrangements to rectify the current situation where widowers are not entitled to six weeks contributory pension based on the pension of their late spouse; the reason for this anomaly; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Dr. Woods

I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 34 & 37 together.

Under the present social welfare arrangements a widow becomes entitled to widow's pension in the event of her husband's death. A contributory pension is provided, subject to certain contribution conditions, which can be satisfied either on the widow's own or her deceased husband's insurance.

In 1989 I extended the widows (non-contributory) pension scheme to cover widowers with dependent children. Following this I initiated a comprehensive review within my Department of the income maintenance provisions for the various categories of lone parents. Arising from this review I introduced the lone parents allowance scheme in 1990. This provided for the first time a non-contributory pension for widowers with dependent children.

The extension of the present social insurance arrangements to widowers would cost an estimated £25 million in a full year. The issue of extending such cover to widowers generally arises for consideration in the context of proposals published in 1987 by the EC Commission for the adoption of a directive aimed at completing the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security. The EC Council is continuing its examination of the proposal for such a directive. As Deputies will be aware, the 1979 EC directive on equal treatment of men and women in matters of social security did not apply to widows pension and similar payments.

The question of social insurance provision for widowers is also being examined by the National Pensions Board in the context of the proposals for a new national pensions system. I expect to receive the board's recommendations shortly.

In relation to Deputy Kenny's question, I presume he is referring to after death payment. This is payable where a claimant dies and the payment which that person was receiving included an adult dependant increase, or would have included such an increase but for the fact that the claimant's spouse was in receipt of old age (non-contributory) pension, blind pension or carer's allowance. The payment made to the deceased may continue for six weeks after his or her death. This after death payment is available to both men and women.

Mr. Connaughton

I agree that this is a very complex matter, but I would like to know why a male teacher is not entitled to survivor's benefit if his spouse dies. This is obviously a matter that is of grave concern to a great number of people. That is the reason for this question.

Dr. Woods

Obviously the reason is that the pension cover for the teacher does not include a widower's pension. This is one of the areas which causes major problems right across the EC. It has delayed implementation of the directive in this regard, but the directive is being considered. The difficulties and the costs arising for the different countries involved are very substantial. As far as I am concerned, I want to continue making progress in that direction. That is why we brought in the lone parent's allowance scheme which for the first time covers everybody on a means tested basis, including widowers.

Mr. Stagg

We are basically talking about two groups of people. Both groups pay equal tariffs and the only difference between them is their gender. How can the Minister justify continuation of a difference in the benefit arising from the payment of the same tariff by two groups of people, the only difference between them being their gender? Is the Minister going to continue with this arrangement? Is it not likely that a case will be brought to Europe on this matter if the Minister does not implement the equality regulations?

Dr. Woods

No, the regulation does not include this matter. Discussions are taking place with a view to the adoption of a directive aimed at the whole principle of equal treatment.

Mr. Stagg

It complies with all the directives.

Dr. Woods

There is no directive at EC level on this matter.

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

12 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Social Welfare the basis on which he intends to calculate the dependant allowance for persons on mixed contribution pension; and if he will give an assurance that the full dependant's allowance will be paid.

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

21 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason he proposed to use a different method for calculating the amount of pro-rata pensions for persons with mixed contributions than that which was used for persons in the intermittent group; and when he intends to publish the regulations for mixed contributions.

Dr. Woods

I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 21 together.

Regulations will be introduced shortly to enable people who have gaps in their records as a result of having been insured for periods in public service type employment to qualify for pension. These new arrangements will provide that in cases of a "mixed" insurance record a pro-rata pension will be payable which will be proportionate to the periods of insurance completed at the rate appropriate for old age-retirement pension purposes. Any increases of pension payable in respect of an adult dependant will be calculated on a similar basis.

People qualfying for the new pro-rata pensions will also become eligible for additional benefits such as free electricity, free television licence, free telephone rental which would otherwise not be available to them.

The new arrangements are similar to those which apply under EC regulations to people who have mixed insurance in a number of different EC member states. A similar formula applies under various reciprocal agreements on social security to which Ireland is a party. Accordingly this formula is regarded as the internationally recognised standard for the award of pensions in cases of mixed insurance.

I believe that these arrangements represent a fair and equitable basis for the treatment of people with mixed insurance records under both Irish legislation and international agreements.

In 1988 I introduced special partial old age pensions for people who became compulsorily insured for pension in April 1974 but failed to qualify for pension because of gaps in their insurance record caused by the operation of the remuneration limit. These pensions are provided to persons with contribution averages of between five and 19 per annum. These arrangements were devised to deal with this once-off situation arising from the removal of the remuneration limit in 1974. They were designed to provide such persons with pensions which bear a reasonable relationship to those payable to persons becoming insured for the first time in 1974.

Mr. Gilmore

I wish to ask two supplementary questions. First, is it still the intention to have these arrangements in place for the month of November and, if so, could the Minister be more precise as to when the regulations will be made? Second, in relation to the calculation of the adult dependant rate on a pro rata basis, would the Minister accept that that is a departure from the regulations which already exist for reduced contributory old age pensions and for the intermittent group, in both of which cases the adult dependant rate is given in full? Would the Minister agree that the method he is now proposing to introduce for the mixed rate contributions will create an anomaly whereby people, for example, with the same average contributions in the intermittent group would be entitled to about £35 a week more than people with mixed contributions?

Dr. Woods

They are two different cases. The intermittent group is a specific clear-cut group who were forced out of the system. The other group is a long term, ongoing group and there will always be cases of people with mixed insurance changing from one situation to another. We have adopted the generally accepted principle which is applied at EC level and under international agreements. As an ongoing arrangement we would have to comply with those in any event. While the adult dependant allowance is paid at the pro rata rate, the child dependant allowance remains at the full rate.

Mr. Gilmore

Would the Minister reconsider the position regarding the adult dependant rate since the method he is now proposing to introduce for the calculation of the adult dependant rate is a very significant departure from the traditional method by which adult dependants have been treated? Would he not agree that this is creating a very dangerous precedent which may be extended to other areas of social welfare payments?

Dr. Woods

Up to now cover was not provided for mixed insurance; this is the first time it has been provided. It is a very major benefit to the people concerned, many of whom were particularly anxious to have some cover under mixed insurance because it would enable them to get some of the extras which other people were able to benefit from, but they could not get it in any event. That was one of the major points they made to me during our discussions. I am introducing a broadly based and continuous scheme, but we have to be consistent with the EC transfers between countries and with the agreements outside countries. The scheme will be operated on that basis. In fact that is what we have to do.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Sin, sin. Caithigh mé dul ar aghaidh anois.

Mr. S. Barrett

May I avail of the opportunity while the Minister is still here to raise an issue. I tabled a Private Notice Question today in relation to the courts dispute which is in its ninth week. To my amazement it was refused on the grounds that it lacks urgency. I cannot think of anything that is more urgent than access to the courts by members of the public. In fact, I reckon it is a constitutional requirement on the part of the Minister to provide access to the courts. This is something that should be discussed in the Dáil but I am being denied the opportunity to do so through a parliamentary question. I ask that the Minister for Social Welfare will convey to his colleague, the Minister for Justice, the need to come into the House and make a short statement in relation to this matter. I do not think I can raise this matter tomorrow.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not want to be flippant. The Deputy has been here for a long time and, I think, realises there are many matters that are a source of amazement to Deputies. Matters here are governed by Standing Orders and regulations that already exist. The Ceann Comhairle adjudicates on all matters and anybody who is unhappy about a decision is at liberty to discuss it with the Ceann Comhairle. It is the Ceann Comhairle who makes the decision and not the Minister. I could not allow the Deputy to issue that invitation to the Minister as I must uphold the decision of the Chair.

Mr. S. Barrett

I do not wish to have an argument with the Chair. I recognise that I may disagree with the decision but I have to accept it. All I wish to do is to ask the Minister for Social Welfare to ask his colleague to give us five minutes and make a short statement to bring us up to date to what is happening in our courts. I cannot table a question tomorrow nor can I raise the matter on the Adjournment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Barrett is trying to have the best of both worlds. He is acknowledging the limitations under which we must all operate and, simultaneously, is trying to circumvent them in a nice way.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I support my colleague on this? There are basic constitutional rights involved. I know the Chair has to stick by the rules of the House but the Constitution governs us all.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

So should you, Deputy.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I genuinely feel where our basic constitutional rights are being denied, the point raised by Deputy Barrett should be allowed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not going to prolong this. I would remind Deputies O'Keeffe and Barrett that the rules to which I adhere are those which Deputies have given to me. If they are changed I will then apply them in that fashion.

Mr. S. Barrett

There is nothing more urgent than the courts dispute.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As far as the Chair is concerned the most urgent business now is that I announce to the House the Adjournment Debate matters.