Vol. 421 No. 1
3 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Social Welfare the plans, if any, he has to introduce a contributory widower's pension; if his attention has been drawn to the discrimination against widower's; if widowers are entitled to arrears of social welfare in the same way as women have been deemed to be eligible for such arrears following a series of EC Court of Justice decisions.
Provision was made in the Social Welfare Act, 1989 to extend the widows (non-contributory) pension scheme to cover widowers with dependent children. This scheme was replaced by the lone parents allowance scheme in the Social Welfare Act, 1990 which made provision for the various categories of lone parents, including widowers with dependent children.
The 1979 EC Directive on equal treatment of men and women in matters of social insurance did not apply to widows and old age pensions. Accordingly, the issue of arrears does not arise.
The issue of extending social insurance cover to widowers could arise, however, for consideration in the context of proposals published in 1987 by the EC Commission for the adoption of a further directive aimed at extending the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women to the remaining areas of social security including pensions. The EC is continuing its examination of these proposals.
The question of social insurance cover 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 report shortly.
It is estimated that the extension to widowers of the present social insurance arrangements for widows would cost an estimated £25 million in a full year and clearly would have considerable budgetary implications.
May I put it directly to the Minister that widowers are and continue to be discriminated against. Would he agree that it is very difficult for a widower who, on the death of his wife, may be left with three, four or five children? Furthermore, would he agree that, because there is no contributory widowers pension, resulting in there being no dependant allowances, a widower is placed at a particular disadvantage? Would the Minister tell all widowers, when we can expect to have this problem redressed?
This matter was raised with me in the past week by the Association of Widowers and Separated Fathers' Association. The reply I gave them was that I will await the final report of the National Pensions Board which, among other things, will address this matter. Since the EC Commission proposed a directive aimed at extending the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women to the remaining areas of social security, including pensions, nothing further has happened in that regard. The Deputy asked me directly whether I considered this was discriminatory against widowers. The history of this matter must be examined. When the widows pension scheme was introduced the ethos at the time would have been that it would have been women who would suffer more severely when their husbands died. That is how the widows pensions schemes came into being. Over the years there has been a change of ethos, or whatever one likes to call it. I would have to say that, on face value, it is now discriminatory that widowers do not qualify for a contributory pension. Of course, since the Social Welfare Act, 1990 they qualify for lone parents allowance, the same as anybody else. On the question of a contributory pension, I will await the report of the National Pensions Board. There are cost implications of the order of £25 million in a full year. After the National Pensions Board report we might be in a position to do something about it within budgetary considerations.
Do I detect a note of concern on the part of the Minister, that if widowers resorted to the legal process right up to the EC Court of Justice, as did women in recent years, they might find they were entitled to retrospective payments also? Would the Minister agree that it might be better for the Government to face up to the issue at this stage?
I do not think so because the 1979 EC Directive on equal treatment of men and women in matters of social insurance did not cover this issue. It would be a foolish person now-adays who would attempt to anticipate a court decision, as we have learned in other areas. It is my belief that the Department have fairly good grounds for defending this action because with the stamp, as it was known, or the PRSI contribution, as it is now known, there is built in part of the rate which allows people to have a widow's pension. Therefore, people who would have been paying stamps over the years, in theory, would not have been paying for a widower's pension. I do not think it can be justified on those grounds. In fairness — while awaiting the final report of the National Pensions Board — we hope that something would be done to equalise it. I do not think we would lose a case — I say that with tongue in cheek — in the courts in that regard because there would not have been a contribution made by way of the former stamp or present PRSI contribution.
