Vol. 444 No. 6
I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:
Social Welfare (Old Age (Contributory) Pension) Regulations, 1994,
a copy of which regulations in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on 22 June 1994.
The purpose of these regulations is to disregard periods spent working in the home while rearing children up to six years of age or while providing full-time care and attention to an incapacitated person, when determining a person's entitlement to old age contributory pension.
The conversation in the lobby is such that the Minister can hardly be heard in the Chamber. Ciúnas le do thoil.
One of the qualifying conditions for old age contributory pension is that the person has a minimum yearly average number of contributions since entering social insurance to reaching pension age, that is, age 66. A yearly average of 48 paid or credited contributions is necessary to qualify for the maximum rate of pension. A reduced rate of pension is payable if the person has a minimum yearly average of 20 contributions. Under the present arrangements, periods spent working in the home are not disregarded when determining a person's entitlement to pension. It is predominantly women who are adversely affected by the way the average condition is calculated because where they take time out from the workforce to work full-time in the home the resultant gap in their PRSI record has the effect of diluting their yearly average number of contributions which is needed to qualify for pension.
Women who spend significant parts of their working lives working full-time in the home do not, in general, qualify for old age contributory pension in their own right. Instead, they rely on the means tested old age non-contributory pension or are regarded as adult dependants of their husband. The increase payable in respect of an adult dependant with old age contributory pension is about 70 per cent of the personal rate.
The problem of gaps in women's insurance records was highlighted by the National Pensions Board in its final report entitled, "Developing the National Pension System". The board highlighted this issue in the context of the increasing number of women who return to the labour force after periods spent working in the home. The board also identified that the increase in marital separation and lone parenthood will result in fewer women being covered by social insurance as dependants of their husbands in the future. Consequently, the board recommended that women's social insurance pension entitlements should be maintained while they are caring in the home.
The regulations I propose to make are based on the recommendations of the National Pensions Board. They give practical recognition to people, primarily women, working in the home. Under the provisions of the draft regulations, years spent caring for a child, up to six years of age, or for an incapacitated person will be disregarded when working out a person's yearly average number of contributions. These arrangements will be effective from the current contribution year. Up to 20 contribution years may be disregarded. This measure will ensure that those who leave the workforce to care for young children or incapacitated people will no longer be disadvantaged when they claim old age contributory pension. In effect, the new regulations will make it easier for those concerned to qualify for a contributory pension on retirement.
The 1991 labour force survey indicates there are some 476,000 women and 4,000 men, under 65 years of age, working in the home. This new initiative will increasingly benefit such people in the future when they reach pension age. Women in the home are the largest group of people excluded from compulsory social insurance cover in their own right. I regard this measure as an important step in providing them with access to pension cover. This initiative builds on other improvements I introduced such as extending social insurance cover to the self-employed in 1988 and to part-time workers in 1990.
This practical recognition of the work undertaken by parents and carers is a timely development in this the International Year of the Family. Under the draft regulations, parents who take time out from the workforce to care for their children up to school-going age will no longer be disadvantaged in terms of their pension entitlements. These arrangements are not confined to parents. They will also apply in situations where a person other than a parent is living with and caring for a child on a full-time basis. This would include adoptive and foster parents and any other person caring for a child on a full-time basis.
A person working part-time can earn up to £30 per week and still benefit under draft regulations. This is an important feature of the scheme which recognises the reality for a large number of women who undertake some work outside the home. People earning in excess of this amount would be fully insured in any event.
In addition to catering for those caring for children, the new provisions will also apply to people who provide full-time care and attention to an incapacitated or invalided person. It will apply to all carers, and not just those who are receiving the carer's allowance.
In 1990 I introduced the carer's allowance to provide a weekly income, on a means tested basis, to those carers who were unable to provide for themselves because of their caring responsibilities. Since then I have introduced a number of improvements in the scheme. In this year's Social Welfare Act, I relaxed the rules for the assessment of means in the case of a carer whose spouse is in employment or self-employment. From July next, the first £100 of weekly earnings of a working spouse will be disregarded in the assessment of means. In addition, the initial means disregard is being increased from £2 to £6 a week. Almost 1,000 carers will benefit from these improvements, some by as much as £29.50 extra a week including about 500 carers who will qualify for the allowance for the first time. A full-time carer without children with a spouse earning £160 a week, who would not previously have qualified for the carer's allowance will now receive a weekly allowance of £37.
This initiative is a further example of the Government's commitment to focus social welfare improvements on families and, in particular, on women working in the home. The family income supplement is providing much needed support to workers on low pay bringing up families. Over 10,000 families are now getting FIS, and will receive an extra £6 a week in the new improvements to come into effect next month.
Child dependant increases payable with social welfare payments also increase next month. The new minimum payment for child dependant will be £13.20 a week. The monthly rate of child benefit will be increased from £20 to £25 for the third child and from £23 to £25 for subsequent children from September next.
Over 9,000 widowed men and their families will benefit for the first time under the new contributory survivor's pension from October next. The National Pensions Board also recommended that widowers should have the same pension entitlements as widows.
All of these developments are particularly important in the context of the International Year of the Family. The new arrangements provided for in these regulations add to these developments and will benefit a very large number of women in the coming years.
Article 1 of the regulations is a general provision relating to the citation. Article 2 defines a homemaker as a person who resides with and provides full-time care to a child under age six or to an incapacitated person. In both cases, the homemaker must be under age 66, resident in the State and not engaged in remunerative employment, other than employment of inconsiderable extent. This means that women who do some part-time work and earn less than £30 per week can still be regarded as homemakers. Article 2 also provides that in determining whether a person is so incapacitated as to require full-time care and attention, the criteria applying under the carer's allowance scheme will be applied.
Article 3 provides that with effect from the current contribution year, any contribution year in which a person is a homemaker will be disregarded in determining the person's yearly average number of contributions for the purposes of the old age contributory pension scheme. Up to 20 contribution years may be disregarded in this way.
These regulations are being made under the powers contained in section 84 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993. Section 4 (5) of that Act provides that regulations made under these powers may not be made until a resolution approving the draft regulations has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. I recommend the draft regulations to the House.
This measure is long overdue and will recognise the importance of people, mainly women working in the home. In recent years there has been a tendency to undervalue the role of the housewife and to look down on her if she is not involved in a profession or other activity outside the home. She is often made to feel inferior.
This measure will reduce the penalty imposed on home makers over the years, but how many women will benefit? The Minister did not say. Is it much ado about nothing? I wonder how the age limit of six years for qualifying children will affect the scheme. I am unhappy with this limit. A woman caring for children over six years of age will not get the credits she would get in respect of children up to that age. This is a fatal flaw in the provision because some of the major social problems in other countries are beginning to surface here. The problem of the latchkey children who come from school to empty homes and roam the streets until their parents arrive from their respective jobs late in the evening is a growing phenomenon here. I thought the Minister would address this problem and it is disappointing that he has imposed an age limit of six years.
The Minister spent much of his time speaking about the International Year of the Family. In that context I would have thought the Minister would have taken the opportunity of dealing with the growing problem of the feminisation of poverty. On the recent Social Welfare Estimate I spoke about lone parents who are now compelled by ministerial directive or the Consolidation Act, 1992, to surrender maintenance payments to them by their husbands. The Minister and his fellow party members have given good reasons for making this provision. However, the Minister accepted on a number of occasions that it has caused severe problems for some families. I know a family whose income has been reduced by up to £80 a week because of this new provision. No single parent family with an income of £150 a week can accommodate such a reduction in income. The Minister promised to look at my suggestion to give alleviation payments to these families. I heard nothing from the Minister since he gave those assurances during Question Time and again in the debate on the Social Welfare Estimate. The Minister should again look at that because the measure is creating definite hardship.
A headline in The Irish Times of Tuesday, 24 May said: “Woods says ways of granting women pensions without means tests under study”. Is this the full extent of the Minister's proposals in regard to pensions for women who decide to stay at home and raise a family? If he is planning other measures we would like to hear about them.
The Minister referred to the impact this measure will have on carers. The carer's scheme has been a disappointment in that eligibility limits mean that only 4,600 carers qualify. That will now increase to between 5,200 and 5,300, far short of the number of genuine carers who cannot fulfil themselves in a professional way because of the necessity to stay at home and care for elderly parents or sick friends and relations. Does the Minister intend to extend the carer's allowance scheme or to incorporate the principle of empowerment so that the handicapped and the sick will have a say about how moneys can be spent by them to employ carers? The Minister must agree that the limits imposed under that scheme are such that the maximum number who can hope to qualify, even up to the end of this year, is 6,000.
The Minister says this measure is an improvement for women. However, I put the Minister on notice that the ongoing festering controversy about equality payments to women is not forgotten.
Since this matter is in the courts today, and last week, I suggest that the House might leave it to them to complete their deliberations.
Is the Minister suggesting that a High Court judge would we swayed by what we say in this House?
The matter referred to by the Deputy has been dealt with extensively in this House and, having regard to its sub judice aspect, I earnestly appeal to the Deputy not to pursue it.
I respect what the Chair is saying, but if the Minister had contained himself and listened to what I was going to say——
He does not want Deputy Allen to talk about it.
He wants to sweep it under the carpet and project himself in this House and in the media as a champion of women. In fact he is trampling on women's rights. If he would contain himself and not try to——
I said it would be fully discussed in open court. There is nowhere more open than that.
The Minister is very sensitive. If he listens to what I am about to say, I have relevant questions.
There is a strict time limit on this measure, an overall limit of one hour.
The Minister is interrupting me.
Let us utilise that time in an orderly fashion.
The Chair is right. The Minister should be orderly. I was about to say, before I was interrupted, that I am aware of the High Court hearing last week and that a reserved judgment will be given, possibly before the end of July. The Minister used the High Court case as an excuse to deny Members information about spending taxpayers' money. A decision will be given in July and the Minister will have no further excuses for not giving information to Members of this House and to women who have already been paid sums of money by the Department of Social Welfare.
Will the Minister give a pledge that he will provide all the information required by Deputies when the High Court case is settled and a decision given? He is responsible for taxpayers' money. On the debate on the Social Welfare Estimate he acted unprecedently by denying Opposition spokespersons information they required about spending money on the basis that the matter was sub judice. There should be no further excuses for the Minister to deny that information. I put him on notice that in the forthcoming session I will be pursuing the matter until all information is made available to the House and to the thousands of women involved.
Like other speakers, I welcome the regulations. Any measure that contributes to the role of women in society is to be welcomed. It is ironic that in presenting the regulations the Minister talked about elements of policy in the context of the International Year of the Family. It is particularly ironic in view of the debacle of the EU equality directives which undermined women's confidence in the Minister and the Government. That was unfortunate and unnecessary and resulted in a long, tortuous process. It is sad the Government had to be forced into action by women who can ill afford to do so and I hope it will never happen again.
When talking about equality for women we should remember that the Government has not provided for joint ownership of the family home, and that is a matter of regret. The regulations are the Minister's way of getting a good end-of-term report. He is finishing off the session on a positive note for women. Notwithstanding the fact that there is a Ministry for Equality and Law Reform, unfortunately much of the good work that has been done has been overshadowed by the events I mentioned.
Reference has been made to the age limit set down in the regulations. We are told that the regulations are specifically designed to disregard periods spent working in the home while rearing children up to six years of age. That could be seen by some women as putting pressure on them to get back into the workforce once their child is over six years of age. I am sure that is not the intent, but it could be the practical impact of the regulation, which is unfortunate. I would like the Minister to clarify this issue. That stipulation negatives the main thrust of the regulations which is to encourage women to stay at home to mind their children.
It has been stated that the emphasis should be on encouraging women to go out to work rather than to be home makers and that home makers do not get due credit. I have always given great credit to women who stay at home to mind their children because it is a most difficult job. Those women generally receive nothing more than lip service. Evidence of that is the avoidance of the issue of joint ownership of the family home. Admittedly, much work has been done in this regard but there has been no follow through which is regrettable.
The Minister should re-examine the six years of age clause or explain how that age was arrived at. Obviously the period of 20 years is designed to facilitate people with two or three children, but what is the position of a family with one child? It would be unfortunate if the effect of the regulations was to force people to go outside the home to work.
The regulations are timely but they are not retrospective — they will not take effect for ten to 15 years. When considering regulations such as these one must think of the cost to the Exchequer. Fortunately in this case the position will be different from that of the EU directive in that these regulations will take effect over a long period. There is no mention of how many people will be involved or what the cost will be to the State. When introducing regulations we should be given as much information as possible. I do not know if there is a guesstimate of how many women will qualify in this instance. Will the Minister give a projection of the number of people who will be involved and the potential cost? In the long term there will be no great cost to the Exchequer. The principle should be established whereby people are entitled as of right to social welfare and other payments. I am sure the Government is grateful that this is a principle it can enshrine at no cost to the State.
I wish to refer to the question of carers as referred to by the Minister. It is regrettable that eligibility limits for carers are very restrictive. I appreciate that there has been an easing of the restrictions in recent times but we should consider this matter in the context of the cost to the State in the event of elderly, incapacitated people who are cared for in their homes being institutionalised. That would give a true picture of the payments carers should receive. I acknowledge that they have received a slight increase, but it is an insult to expect people to exist on such a small amount of money.
In seeking increases in the carer's allowance at Cabinet the Minister should put forward the genuine argument of the savings to the State from the work done by these people. It is on that basis that payments should be calculated rather than by plucking a figure out of the air. We are playing on the good nature and devotion of these people. It is similar to the treatment of nurses who we believe will accept a low salary because their job is a vocation. The Minister should put forward a strong argument for increased allowances for carers. Eligibility limits should be re-examined and payments increased. They should be doubled or trebled, but that is a matter for the Minister.
I welcome the regulations although I will not get over excited about them. If their introduction means that the Minister gets a good end of term report, my comment is that he made a burst at a very late stage.
I join other speakers in welcoming the principle of these regulations but it is an extraordinary penny-pinching approach to fix it in such a way that very few of those who give up work to care for children or incapacitated people will qualify for a considerable period. There is no sense in enshrining in regulations a principle which may mature in 15 or 20 years time when there are retired people or people who will retire in the near future who will not qualify under these regulations. It is disingenuous of the Minister to provide for a debate on this good news measure but when he introduces regulations to cut people's income he is very reluctant to provide time for debate in this House. I propose to deal with that briefly.
Will the Minister agree to delete a part of section 2 (a) which refers to the interpretation of homemaker? I suggest that the words, "and is under pensionable age" should be deleted because people who are unemployed may be denied a pension as a result of having to leave work to return to the home to care for children or an incapacitated person. If the Minister and Minister of State were serious about this issue they would not have included that phrase in the definition. I take exception to the term "homemaker" because it implies that those who are working outside the home while at the same time caring for their children are not homemakers. It would have been better if the phrase "homeworker" were used, but that is a relatively minor issue compared with the critical issue of fixing a date when the clock starts to run.
The regulations are the result of many years of discussion by the National Pensions Board to find a way of ensuring that people — primarily women — would qualify for a pension even though they had gaps in their insurance record because they left employment or took up part-time employment in order to care for children or an incapacitated person. The Minister has acknowledged and accepted the recommendation of the National Pensions Board but the manner in which it is being implemented in the regulations is grossly inadequate. I appeal to the Minister of State, in particular, to persuade the Minister to delete this phrase, as otherwise it will be useless. It is fine in print and the Minister may go abroad and say he has introduced X, Y and Z provisions in support of the family but the reality is that the regulations do very little. It is notable that the Minister did not provide a costing of the implementation of the regulations in the next five to ten years. It would be interesting if he could supply information on what it would cost if the regulations had retrospective effect of five years. It is unfair to treat people in this way.
Deputy Allen referred to the equality issue that is before the courts and I do not propose to dwell on it other than to mark the fact that the Minister has refused information to this House but after a great deal of pressure has admitted that there is possibly a pool of 70,000 women who might qualify for payment if their court case is successful. My understanding is that the figure is nearer to 80,000 but, in any event, the court will decide on the issue. Will the Minister accept the decision of the court and not put the women through further appeals to the Supreme Court and, perhaps, the European Court? I hope he will accept the High Court decision.
It is notable that the Minister was not reluctant to deny us a debate on what he regards as good news but when regulations to give effect to the "dirty dozen" cuts were introduced by a previous Fianna Fáil Minister, no debate was allowed. Although the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, claims consistently that the "dirty dozen" cuts are no longer in force the reality is that all 12 bar one are there and the number has been added to by taxation on unemployment and disability benefits. Instead of the "dirty dozen" cuts we now have the baker's dozen. The Minister of State may shake her head, but that is a fact and part-time workers will tell her clearly that they are still there.
I have a specific case, about which I have written to the Minister a number of times, of an old age pensioner who is one contribution short on the basis of the criteria for mixed contribution pensions. I requested the Minister on several occasions to introduce some flexibility in the regulations that cover these criteria. It seems grossly unfair than an old age pensioner who may qualify for a pension of £10 or £11 under the criteria for mixed contribution pension is deprived not only of that money but the ancillary benefits that social welfare pensioners enjoy such as the free television licence, electricity units, free travel and so on. Will the Minister of State ask the Minister to introduce some flexibility in the regulations that govern the mixed insurance contribution criteria? It would not cost a fortune to do this but it would make the lives of a small number of pensioners a great deal easier.
Finally, I ask the Minister to delete the phrase in the regulations to which I have referred. It is too late for me to table an amendment, but if the Minister is not agreeable to making such a change, I will have to find some other means of achieving this, perhaps by tabling an amendment to the Social Welfare Bill next year.
In responding to some of the comments the important aspect to this regulation which is, as the Deputies rightly pointed out, of limited effect and will apply in future, is that it marks a turning point in our social welfare structure which has been based on the concept of a family in which there is a bread-winner — generally a man — and a dependent spouse — generally a woman — at home. This regulation will recognise that many women wish to have a choice as parents and workers and this will permit that. In future, if a woman currently in the workforce has a child and wishes to take a substantial period off — up to six years — to care for the child, she will be able to do so without affecting her statutory entitlement to a social welfare pension. The same will apply if the woman becomes a carer.
In many ways this marks a turning point in the social welfare system we inherited which is based on a system of families and has the concept of dependency running through various elements. The NESF recently examined this in some detail. There are advantages to the family concept but, particularly for women, there are also disadvantages in a social welfare system based on families. This regulation is significant in that it now formally recognises women who wish to have the choice of staying at home or working. It is also appropriate, of course, for many people who wish to work but for whom work is not available at the moment.
Next week marks another turning point in the social welfare system and one with which I have been particularly associated, namely, the introduction for lone parents of substantial disregards in respect of child minding, travel expenses and earnings. Again, this is confined to one group, lone parents, who, most Deputies agree, have special needs but I believe the success of this measure may mark a turning point in our approach to the social welfare system which should be freed up to allow people as many choices as possible and for a mix between caring and working. The new disregards will come into effect next week and we will be watching closely the effect they have on the take-up of employment by lone parents because, for the first time, they will be in a position to earn significant amounts of money, either on a full or part time basis, and to retain it in recognition of the fact that they have incurred child care and travel expenses.
While in many cases we are dealing with detailed regulations and, as Deputy De Rossa pointed out, a number of anomalies in the system, we also must examine its overall framework towards which we want to work. We must work towards a system where equality is a principle. That is one of the issues currently under examination in some detail by the working group which I established on the integration of tax and social welfare. That working group brought forward the suggested reforms in relation to lone parents which will come into effect next week.
While this regulation may not benefit women until some time in the future, it nonetheless represents an important turning point in the construction of the social welfare system. The Government, in the Programme for Government, is committed to the concept of equality and we have endeavoured, in each of the Social Welfare Bills and the previous two budgets, to introduce changes which will free up the system and offer people a number of alternatives. Some of those alternatives are offered through the locally based initiatives but others will come about through regulations such as this. Over a period of time we will see a significant change in the overall construction of our social welfare system.
Women who may be home makers or carers working at home may not wish to remain so indefinitely. They may wish to engage in such work, which they regard as valuable and important, for only part of their lives. Everybody in this House talks about being pro-family but if we are we must recognise that that involves choices in relation to the type of family care that different parents and families choose to give their children. We must also recognise — and we are increasingly doing so — the demands of women for return to work opportunities and for education and training. That is being addressed, particularly through the community development programme and the women's grants for which the Department of Social Welfare is responsible. It is being addressed also in a significant way in the national plan.
While this regulation, as the Deputies have rightly said, will apply in future, it marks an important turning point in how we look at how families live, how they make arrangements in relation to their children and, in particular, the mix which I believe most women favour, the option to be part of the workforce when that is suitable and when work is available but also the valued option of staying at home with their children, either permanently as a home maker or a home worker — in deference to Deputy De Rossa, I am happy with either term. Many women wish to stay at home with their children while they are small and before they go to school. This regulation marks a turning point in our approach to how we regulate the participation of women as equals within the social welfare system.
Cuirim fáilte roimh na rialacháin seo. Céim mhór chun tosaigh iad. Ba mhaith linn uilig dul chuile chéim in aon léim amháin ach, ar ndóigh ní minic go bhféadaimid é sin a dhéanamh. Mar sin féin, is maith an rud, go mór mhór i mbliain seo an teaghlaigh, go bhfuil an t-aitheantas seo á thabhairt faoi dheireadh do mhná agus d'éinne eile a fhanann sa bhaile ag tabhairt aire do ghasúir agus do sheandaoine.
I welcome these regulations. We all wish that such measures could always be retrospective and that we could jump all the fences in one go, but there is an old saying in Irish, tús maith leath na hoibre. These regulations are a step towards getting recognition for people who stay at home to look after old people or children. This measure relates not only to women but to a fair number of men.
I particularly welcome the recognition given to all carers of incapacitated or elderly people, not only those in receipt of the carer's allowance but all those who stay at home to give full-time care and attention to old people. One of the criticisms often heard about the carer's allowance is that it is means tested and restrictive but in this particular case no such restriction is imposed and in time that will have a bearing on the effects of this regulation.
I accept it will take time for this regulation to take effect because of the time lapse involved but if we did not implement this measure now, we would still be considering the situation in ten years' time. By taking the first steps we are ensuring that in future this problem will be resolved. A large number of people want to have a mixed career; they want to work during parts of their career and remain working full-time in the home during other periods. The average clause caused great problems for such people. I had the case of a person who worked in the early 1950s and then became a full-time home maker. Later the person returned to work but there was a difficulty because of the clause. The problem would not have arisen had this regulation been in existence. It is a huge step forward in dealing with this problem.
Uair amháin eile tá sé feicthe go bhfuil an tAire tar éis céimeanna a ghlacach ní amháin chun aitheantas a thabhairt do na daoine seo ach chun cur len a seasamh agus leis na cearta airgid agus pinsin atá acu trí na rialacháin seo a thabhairt isteach. Beimíd ag súil go mbeifear ag tógáil ar an mbunsraith seo atá á leagadh síos, go mbeifear in ann an córas seo a leathnú amach agus le cúnamh Dé de réir a chéile go dtabharfar aitheantas iomlán taobh istigh den chóras leasa shóisialaigh do dhream nár tugadh aitheantas oifigiúil dóibh riamh go dtí seo, sé sin don dream a thugann cúnamh don óige, do sheandaoine agus do dhaoine tinn. Ar an ábhar sin cuirim fíor-fháilte roimh na rialacháin seo.
I thank Deputies and the Minister of State for their contributions. Deputy Allen asked how many people would benefit from this. The total number of women in the labour force survey who come under these categories is 476,000 and the number of men is 4,000. After that it will depend on how many people are full-time carers and the options people choose in future. It is important to provide options which will not adversely affect their pension entitlements. It is more a question of ensuring people have an entitlement and are not disadvantaged. Compared with men, women are disadvantaged under the pension system and we are removing that element of disadvantage.
Deputy Allen asked about the six year provision. That is the time mentioned in the National Pensions Board's report. It is to cover the early stage and give the option of staying with children until they reach school going age. All the other possibilities can be considered in the future. I agree with Deputy Ó Cuív — tosach maith leath na hoibre. I am given to that to some extent. When there are problems with huge financial implications very often it is by taking out an element and making progress on it that one can prove it is not insurmountable. I have done that on several occasions and have succeeded in breaking down established ideas and notions based on actuarial studies and so on. Invariably they turn out to be manageable problems.
Deputy Keogh said it was a late burst or an end of season item. It is an early burst.
A consolation goal.
That might be nearer to the truth. The final report of the Pensions Board is being studied. I have taken out this element because it can be tackled now. It is operative from April this year. Deputies know my ideas on that. It is an important start.
The Minister has a good set of notes.
It is important to recognise that this applies to all carers. The Alzheimers association estimate that there are about 25,000 carers in their association. There are many other carers to whom it will apply. The gap will not exist in future and that is important.
Deputy De Rossa raised the issue of the homeworker as against homemaker. "Homemaker" is the term used in the report of the National Pensions Board. We can develop that when we come to deal with it further. Pensions, the article in The Irish Times on 24 May and the fact that pensions were being studied was raised. The report is under examination and contains substantial implications.
The Deputy also suggested that age 66 is under pensionable age and should be removed from the regulations. We are taking about the pensions legislation and from age 66 down is the age referred to. The averaging is between the time one starts and one reaches 66 years of age. It is for the sake of consistency. The retrospective element is a separate matter and all these matters can be looked at further.
I welcome the support for this measure. Deputies know that I looked for this before the Pensions Board reported. It was discussed in the House over the years and is something the House wanted. That is why I was anxious that the Pensions Board would address the issue.
