WordPress.com



[pic]

Submission from the Irish Senior Citizens Parliament

on

The Green Paper on Pensions, 2007

to the

Department of Social and Family Affairs

Table of Contents

Part One: Vision and Overall Philosophy 3

Part Two: Context and Background 5

Part Three: The State/Social Welfare Pension 7

Part Four: Private and Occupational Pension Schemes 10

Part Five: Women and Pensions 12

Part Six: Reform Options and Anomalies 14

Part Seven: Conclusion and Recommendations 18

Part One: Vision and Overall Philosophy

‘Older Persons should remain integrated in society, participate actively in the formulation and implementation of policies that directly affect their well-being and share their knowledge with younger generations’

(United Nations Principles for Older Persons, Participation, quoted in NCAOP, 2005; 47).

In this submission the Irish Senior Citizens Parliament[1] (ISCP) outlines what the 100,000 Older People we represent believe the overall philosophy underpinning the Irish pension system should be. We have used the wealth of experience of our members to outline the principles which should underpin our pension system. In preparing this submission the ISCP undertook a substantial consultative process. In October 2007 the pension sub-committee (members listed on page 20) was convened and met on six occasions. The committee worked through the Green Paper highlighting key issues and questions to be addressed in each chapter. Members attended the public consultative fora organised by the Department of Social and Family Affairs and a roundtable discussion held by TASC at TCD. Two workshops on the importance of income in maintaining health and independence were held in Westport and Cork. Research was undertaken on behalf of our members by staff at ISCP. Finally, the Green Paper on Pensions was the theme of our Annual Parliament Meeting held in Dublin on 28th & 29th March, 2008. The meeting was attended by over 250 delegates from affiliated organisations of Retired and Older People. Presentations were made by three experts in the field: Prof. Gerry Hughes, Trinity College Dublin, Dr. Orlaigh Quinn, Department of Social and Family Affairs and Fergus Whelan, Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Three workshops on the Green Paper were also held at the conference. This submission represents the result of this comprehensive process of consultation and research.

Our vision is of an Ireland where Older People are free to enjoy life and are equipped to deal with the challenges that come with ageing. An adequate income is the cornerstone of a positive ageing experience. Research has shown that low incomes lead to worsening health (Kennelly et. al., 2003; 2368), social exclusion and loss of independence. An adequate pension means that pensioners suffer less anxiety about the future, are more likely to engage in social activities and to retain their status as independent contributors to Irish society. The pension is particularly important in Ireland where quality free healthcare is difficult to access and government provide very little funding to Older People’s organisations and healthy ageing projects (O’Shea, 2006; 99). Essentially, the system that has evolved in Ireland is individualised without promoting independence. The result is that Older People are seen as responsible for meeting the costs of their own care, housing, health and welfare but are not provided with adequate means to do so.

This is a common theme across Europe where ‘the individualisation and privatisation of pensions is part of a more general trend towards the “individualisation of the social” (Ferge, 1997) where states are expecting individuals and families to take responsibility for risks that were previously collectivised’ (Walker in Baars, et. al., 2006; 66; Ginn, 2004; 123). The pension system we envisage seeks to address this trend by suggesting ways in which a pension system can promote collective responsibility without compromising individual choice and autonomy.

The ISCP is calling for a new pension system that guarantees an income adequate to meet the needs of pensioners. Respect for Older People and a commitment to maintaining independence in old age would underpin this system. In this system a pension would be an income replacement not a minimum anti-poverty measure. An adequate pension would lead to a number of gains for society, not least social inclusion and a positive ageing experience for all (O’Shea in O’Dell, 2006). A system underwritten by these principles would be progressive and sustainable.

Part Two: Context and Background

The Green Paper deals with future sustainability issues as a result of demographic challenges. ISCP members contend that some of the arguments made seem very pessimistic and overly reliant on projections.[2] Evidence suggests that the pensions time bomb is overstated in the Irish case. The CSO report that in 2006 “Ireland had the lowest proportion of its population aged 65 and over among EU countries at 11.0%.” The EU 27 average is 16.8% (CSO, 2007; 10). Similarly, rising dependency ratios will have a less significant impact on Ireland. From 2006 to 2026 this dependency ratio is expected to increase from 16.4% to 25.1% for Ireland and increase from 25.2% to 36.6% for the EU 25 (CSO, 2007; 10). Undue emphasis is, we contend, put on the cost of supporting pensioners in the future while other issues such as unemployment (the fact that many people start work much later in life now due to education/travel) and the lack of an adequate childcare and caring infrastructure are not identified as the disincentives they are to people taking out a pension. Moreover, ways of addressing the demographic challenge such as increasing the birth rate or increasing the number of people at work, as well as the fact that reductions in the birth rate will bring reductions in the number of young people who will be in education, are not being seriously addressed by the Green Paper.

The ISCP can only conclude, therefore, that long-term population projections cannot accurately take account of future economic growth, employment or immigration levels. It is simply too early to predict to what extent population ageing will affect the cost of pensions in the future. Nevertheless, Ireland is at a critical juncture where decisions made now could lead to policy development which is progressive for present and future pensioners. At present, Ireland has one of the more modest pension systems in the OECD (Whitehouse, 2006; 293).

Irish pensioners have less financial security and less economic independence than their European contemporaries. In fact, 20% of people over 65 live at risk of poverty (CSO, 2007; 10). We accept that recent increases in the State pension have improved this situation, however, EU SILC[3] statistics reveal that of the 25 countries making up the European Union Irish pensioners are amongst the worst off after pensions and social transfers are taken into account (CSO, 2007; 27). These statistics demonstrate that our low basic State pensions and unequal access to second tier pensions are the main reason why pensioners live in poverty.

As is well documented, Ireland is also one of the wealthiest countries in the European Union.[4] In this context pensioner poverty is evidence of the inequality experienced by those who have worked hard and raised families to build this wealth.

Such inequality is unacceptable. If the proposed reform of pensions is to achieve anything it must rectify this inequality.

A complete re-think of the relationship between income and ageing is necessary if present and future Older People are to have a viable quality of life and intergenerational solidarity is to be fostered.

The best pension systems provide economic security for Older People in a sustainable and equitable way. In order to be acceptable and socially sustainable they must also support intergenerational solidarity. No one age cohort should be disproportionately responsible for meeting the cost of pensions. If a pension system has legitimacy amongst all sectors of the population then it must be fair and obviously so.

The ISCP supports a pension system where mandatory contributions are made to a State run scheme which guarantees a pension of at least 50% of Gross Average Industrial Earnings (GAIE) on retirement.

Part Three: The State/Social Welfare Pension

All OECD countries have ‘first tier redistributive schemes’ which act as ‘safety nets to prevent older-age poverty’ (Whitehouse, 2006; 276). Ireland and New Zealand are unique in that they have no mandatory second tier and, as a result, are almost exclusively reliant on the basic State pension. This results in many Older People living in relative poverty. It also means that reforming the current system must begin with improving the social welfare pension which must become the cornerstone of any new pension system.

TABLE 1: Summary of Pension System Parameters

| |Australia |Belgium |Greece |Ireland |Luxembourg |NZ |UK |

|First Tier | | | | | | | |

|(% average earnings) | | | | | | | |

Adapted from Whitehouse, E. (2006) ‘New Indicators of 30 OECD countries

pension systems’ PEF, 5 (3): 275-298, Nov. 2006

As Table 1 demonstrates Ireland’s State pension is relatively low at 31% compared with countries like Luxembourg and Portugal where minimum pensions are worth well above 40% of average earnings (Whitehouse, 2007; 280). This gap persists despite the fact that Ireland’s State pension is index linked to GAIE. The problem is that the index is at too low a level and the State pension would need to reach 50% of GAIE to remove most pensioners from relative poverty.

Table 2 overleaf (also adapted from Whitehouse’s (2006) comparison of 30 different OECD pension systems) shows Gross and Net Replacement Rates of average earnings across 7 OECD countries comparable with Ireland. The results are not positive for Ireland which, according to Whitehouse: ‘has the lowest replacement rate’ of 30 OECD countries compared in Whitehouse’s (2006) study.[5]

TABLE 2: Gross and Replacement rates by earnings level, mandatory pension programmes, men

|*(per cent of individual |Gross Replacement Rate |Net Replacement Rates |

|pre-retirement earnings) |Individual Earnings |Individual Earnings |

|Australia | |40.0* | | |52.4 | |

|Greece | |84.0 | | |99.9 | |

|Luxembourg | |101.9 | | |109.8 | |

|UK | |37.1 | | |47.6 | |

Adapted from Whitehouse, E. (2006) ‘New Indicators of 30 OECD countries

pension systems’ PEF, 5 (3): 275-298, Nov. 2006

Moreover, these figures reflect the working pattern of men who have a full social insurance record and a full career pattern. Income levels for women, carers and other groups with broken career patterns would be even lower. The problems for those who make a contribution to society and the economy but are unpaid (mainly women) are further elaborated on in Part Five: Women and Pensions (page 11).

We favour a pension system that is clearly linked to GAIE as this is the best way to ensure that the income of Older People is indexed to current wages. The present objective is for the State pension to reach 34% of GAIE (McCashin in Stewart and Hughes, 2007). The ISCP argues that an increase to 50% of GAIE as a minimum replacement income would be a strong basis on which to build future pension policy.

The ISCP proposes a State pension system which guarantees a pension of 50% of GAIE on retirement.

Indexing of Social Welfare Pensions

The question of indexation has become increasingly important in designing equitable and adequate State pension schemes across the OECD (Whitehouse, 2006; 283). If Irish pensioners are to be protected from economic downturns and rising inflation then pensions must continue to be linked to GAIE and not prices.

Some countries have switched pension indexing from earnings to prices ‘as a cost-cutting measure’ (Whitehouse, 2006; 284), however, UK experience has shown that the value of the pension can diminish leaving pensioners in poverty and relatively worse off. The ISCP proposes that the State pension should continue to be linked to earnings and should aim to reach 50% of GAIE as soon as possible.

The question of pension adequacy can be dealt with clearly and effectively by basing reforms on the principle of income replacement and social inclusion, therefore, all pensioners should be assured of an income replacement pension adequate to meet their needs and indexed to earnings in their retirement.

Part Four: Private and Occupational Pension Schemes

Despite the relatively strong position of private pension schemes in the Irish system Ireland and New Zealand are the only OECD countries which have no mandatory second tier pensions (Whitehouse, 2006; 280). Increasing privatisation and the move towards defined contribution over defined benefit schemes suggests that Walker’s (2006) ‘individualisation of the social’ is a reality across the OECD, including Ireland.

International research reports that ‘Charges for administration, investment management and annuitisation may reduce the value of contributions by 45%’ (Murthi et. al., 2001 in Ginn, 2004; 128). This research is also quoted by Hughes (in Stewart and Hughes, 2007; 95) in his comprehensive analysis of the Irish pension system: ‘The possibility that 40% or more of individual pension funds in Ireland could be swallowed up by charges should be addressed in the government’s pension review. The problem of high charges becomes even more of a problem when one considers the intimate relationship between private and occupational schemes and tax relief. If tax relief is at 42% and charges account for between 40% and 45% of funds then the entirety of government funded tax relief is consumed by charges. Hughes (in Stewart and Hughes, 2007) argues that the vast majority of the benefit of this tax relief goes to the top 10% of earners. If this is the case then tax relief on private pensions is not the best use of public resources. Therefore, we propose that any second tier that is developed be State guaranteed and that any occupational pension scheme should be mandatory. In the spirit of intergenerational solidarity, ISCP members argue that joining a pension scheme should not be an option but, rather, should be mandatory from a young age. This suggestion is made on the basis of experience. Most current pensioners report that they felt no need to take out a pension when they were younger and those who joined good occupational schemes did so because it was a requirement of the job.[6] Their opinion is that given a choice young people will not join a pension scheme.

The following considerations must be undertaken when implementing a mandatory scheme:

• There should be a requirement on every employer to offer a pension plan, preferably a Defined Benefit Scheme. Contributions should include employer and employee contributions.

• Guarantees of schemes should be managed centrally by government.

• The issue of who is responsible for Pension Funds is very important. The Government should regulate the management of the Fund.

• The role and appointment of trustees of occupational schemes must be reviewed and reformed.

• The membership of The Pensions Board needs to be reviewed and the balance redressed in favour of scheme representatives over those of providers.

• Pension schemes should be run in an open and transparent manner.

• Many pensioners and members of occupational schemes find it difficult to get information on how the scheme is performing. An Annual General Meeting (AGM) of all representatives together with fund managers and trustees must be introduced as a means of assuring accountability.

• Contributors and beneficiaries to Pension Funds should be fully informed about how the Fund is being managed and is performing.

Supplementary Pensions/Savings

• There needs to be incentives to invest in a pension.

• Supplementary private pension schemes should be an optional addition for those who wish to save for a higher income in retirement.

• These schemes should be regulated so that they are not used as a tax avoidance mechanism.

Finally, when the balance is being struck between State pensions and private pension schemes we suggest that the benchmark system to be applied should be the best that is on offer.

Part Five: Women and Pensions

It is widely recognised that ‘the caring commitments entailed in motherhood (or in having frail parents) constrain women’s employment, earnings and ability to contribute to pension schemes in most countries’ (Ginn, 2004; 124). In Ireland this is certainly the case where those who undertake caring duties for young and old, and those who had to leave employment due to marriage are severely disadvantaged. This section clearly states the case for a pension for women in their own right.

1. Legacy of Inequities for Women

Women are often left without a pension in old age because having spent much of their working life caring and raising a family they fail to have the minimum number of contributions in their own right to qualify for a contributory pension. While the Homemaker’s Scheme introduced in 1994 is often seen as the solution to this anomaly, women must still meet the ‘standard qualifying conditions in relation to paid contributions’ (DSFA, 2007; 60) in order to qualify. A major problem with the scheme is that it fails to recognise caring periods prior to 1994 and, as a result, it is of no real benefit to current pensioners who did much of their caring before the 1990s.

The nature of the scheme has also been criticised for the fact that the system is one of Disregard rather than of awarding Credits. Older Women who spent significant periods of their lives raising families are disqualified from receiving a pension in their own right. There is no recognition of their contribution to society and the economy in this role. Many were effectively disqualified from making social insurance contributions. Societal attitudes were such that labour force participation and motherhood were viewed as mutually exclusive roles. [7] Many of the women who lived under those restrictions are now pensioners. The 1994 Homemakers’ Scheme is of no benefit to Older Homemakers and only benefits those who have paid full rate PRSI at some stage.

The ISCP calls for the Homemakers’ Scheme to be backdated to allow Older Women to receive a full pension in their own right and also to award Credits to those currently in the scheme.

2. Means testing for qualified adult payment

The means test for the qualified adult allowance is regarded by many as unfair because it allocates 50% of the actual or nominal income or capital value of assets to each partner. Essentially, it is based on an outdated model of marriage where women were defined as the dependent spouse.

While there is now a general belief, that couples should endeavour to have joint ownership, the existence of a pension scheme which denigrates one half of the partnership to the status of a dependent adult goes against this stated aim.

The Green Paper correctly identifies these difficulties and points out that under a system of social insurance coverage of a spouse at certain vulnerable life stages should be ‘part of the contingency covered’ (DSFA, 2007; 64). One way to deal with all of these anomalies is to introduce a universal or citizen’s pension.

International research by Schokkart and Parijs (2003) recommends ‘a basic non-means tested universal minimum pension to ensure intergenerational redistribution and to reduce gender inequality in pension income’ (Ginn, 2004; 131). The lack of any childcare infrastructure means that many Older Women who are grandmothers provide free childcare for family. The State is benefiting from the expertise and hard work of these women twice, firstly, when they raise their own children and again as grandmothers. This socially and economically valuable work is not recognised.

The ISCP calls for women and carers to be provided with a pension in recognition of their contribution to society and to the economy.

Part Six: Reform Options and Anomalies

Reform A: Maintain Current Arrangements

This is not a viable option given that the ISCP has been calling for pension reform for many years.

The ISCP believes that a social welfare pension funded by contributions from employers and employees is the most progressive and sustainable means of bringing the State pension up to 50% of GAIE.

Reform C: Reforming and Backdating the Homemakers’ Scheme

As we have outlined in Women and Pensions above there is general agreement that this scheme is not recognising the caring role of women and leads to poverty and lack of independence for many women in old age. This is especially relevant given the fact that recent CSO figures report that 88% of women over the age of 65 are in receipt of some form of social welfare payment (DSFA, 2007; 77). As such, the majority of women live in relative poverty in old age. There are a number of possible options for reforming this scheme:

a. Allowing credits for periods of caring

Some variety of the credit for caring system operates in Germany, Spain, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Norway, Austria and the UK. This means that a defined period of time spent caring is allowable in terms of social insurance credits.

b. Replacing the disregard system with credits

Credits are seen as preferable to a disregard as they keep the account active and classify homemakers as active labour market participants. This allows for greater mobility between workplace based activity and home based work.

c. Backdating the Homemakers’ Scheme

Backdating the Homemakers’ Scheme is of particular interest because it could mean that many women who do not currently qualify for a pension due to finishing caring duties before 1994 could then qualify for a pension. However, backdating the scheme will still only benefit those who were in insurable employment long enough to accumulate the basic requirement of 260 contributions. In order to benefit the largest number of women possible backdating to 1953 would be necessary.

The ISCP calls for women with inadequate contribution records to be provided with a pension in recognition of their contribution to the economy and society.

Reform D: Replacing the Average Contribution Test with a Total Contributions Approach

Problems arise for people who were in and out of work as they have gaps in their social insurance coverage. In some cases the impact on their current pension is insignificant, in others it has a large impact on their income in retirement. An annual average of 10 contributions is required to qualify for a minimum pension and an average of 48 contributions qualifies for a maximum pension.

The ISCP is aware of a number of cases where a person started to make contributions in their first job at 16, made 8 years contributions and then took time out to raise a family especially pre-1994. Many of these people fail to qualify due to the averaging test. The move to a total contributions assessment would be more transparent and would allow for payments to be more clearly related to contributions made (DSFA, 2007; 83).

As the Green Paper states, the averaging test ‘leads to inconsistency in the relationship between contributions made and pensions awarded’ (DSFA, 2007; 62). The Green Paper suggests that a total contributions approach might be ‘more transparent and equitable’ (DSFA, 2007; 62). If averaging is to be used it should be for the best 10 years in line with the arrangement for self-employed pensioners.

On balance, the ISCP favours and calls for a total contributions approach to qualifying for a pension as every contribution made can be used to fund pensions and it should be redeemable regardless of when or how the contribution was made. If averaging is to be used it should be for the best 10 years.

Month of Retirement

All contributions paid should be taken into account for pension purposes including those paid up to the day that one reaches 65yrs and not the end of the year before reaching 65.

Reform E: Miscellaneous Issues relating to Social Welfare Pensions including indexing, the existence of two contributory pension schemes, the role of the Living Alone Allowance, social insurance for spouses of farmers/self-employed.

Legacies from previous social insurance structure

Policies in the past were modelled on the basis of the permanent pensionable job. This meant that public sector workers with sickness benefit and an occupational pension scheme were considered not to be in need of social insurance coverage. Further, there was distinction within the social insurance structure between “White collar and Blue collar workers” where income level or a promotion to supervisor moved, often low level earners, outside the social insurance system. The result was that they ceased paying the full stamp and paid Class D instead.

Class D Stamps

All contributions made regardless of class of stamp should be taken into account for social welfare purposes and especially class‘D’ stamps. The employees who paid these stamps were not given the choice to be covered by the social welfare scheme. The ISCP notes the comment at paragraph 6.153 (DSFA ,2007;95) and urges the resolution of this matter as part of this Green Paper Review.

In the context, we have for some time been advocating that if all stamps are not treated equally then that every four (4) class D stamps be equal to one (1) class A stamp.

Qualified Adult Allowances

The introduction of a universal pension would end the anomolies and remove the Dependency issues surrounding the payment of these allowances. The Green Paper deals with the Means Testing of Increases for Qualified Adults (DSFA 5.31 63). We note that for the means tested payment income and property are split 50:50. The implication of this is that the couple are partners equally in their property and income.

We are pleased to see that social insurance coverage for spouses working on family farms/business (DSFA 6.146 93) will allow for spouses assisting in a family farm to pay PRSI and to benefit from a pension in their own right. The arrangement is providing a solution for some farmers/self-employed spouses. Further, the SCOPE model agreed under the “Towards 2016” Social Partnership Agreement” by the IFA, DSFA and Revenue, we contend, provides an innovative blueprint for the resolution of other anomalies particularly for qualified adults and class D. (“The Social Welfare Implications of Spouses Working Together”) (SCOPE) in non-farm situations.

Integration of Occupational and Social Welfare Pensions

Integration/Co-ordination/Abatement of an occupational scheme with the contributory State pension has resulted in much criticism especially amongst low paid pensioners. The growth in State pension has resulted in savings for the occupational schemes which was not envisaged when integration was first introduced. Some alleviation has been introduced for some categories of workers based on amended tables, the 120% rule (DSFA 9.34 136) and for those who qualify for a lump sum payment on retirement. However, for those on low pay there are still a large number of occupational schemes that do not apply the amended tables and where there is not an automatic right to a lump sum on retirement. For people, especially those on low pay, the effect is that as the State pension grows then only the higher earners in occupational schemes will benefit.

Since integration is usually applied when the person is in receipt of the State (old age) pension at 66 many pensioners especially women who are already in receipt of a survivors or deserted wives pension are shocked when their income is reduced.

The position needs to be examined for low paid pensioners in particular as the Programme for Government target of €300.00 by 2012 could have the effect that a person with 20 years service could be paying into an occupational pension scheme without a corresponding benefit accruing. In effect, “the current situation has resulted in a windfall saving to sponsors of integrated schemes as the increased social welfare payments have reduced the benefits the schemes were expecting to pay” (DSFA 9.36 136).

Social welfare pensions and longer working

The ISCP view is that retirement age should be set at 65 and should be flexible enough to allow those who wish to continue working to do so. Any extension of working life should be voluntary to accommodate individual needs and preferences. Part-time or full-time work after retirement should be facilitated and, where possible, social welfare contributions should be allowed to continue on a voluntary basis.

The Transition pension should be phased out and the State (old age) pension should be paid at 65 to all. The requirement that a person has to cease full-time work or earn as low as €38.00 per week to qualify for the Transition payment is, we contend, a disincentive for people to continue working.

Living alone allowance

Research has shown that “the number of older people living alone in Ireland is projected to increase dramatically in the next two decades with a doubling of the numbers between 2002 and 2021 for both males and females” (Connell and Pringle, 2004 quoted in Timonen et. al, 2006; 4).

Pensioners who live alone are at the greatest risk of poverty and this is recognised by the Department of Social and Family Affairs by the provision of the living alone allowance. The allowance which is currently €7.70 per week has not been increased for a number of years and should now be increased to €16.00 per week and extended to low income public service pensioners and to those who are in receipt of State pensions from abroad.

Part Seven: Conclusion and Recommendations

This submission has sought to address the key questions raised by government in the Green Paper: What sort of pension system do we want for now and for the future? Should the social welfare pension be an income replacement or a poverty prevention mechanism? What is an adequate pension? How can we encourage people to save for retirement? How can we address anomalies arising from the current system?

In addressing these questions we have outlined what we, as current pensioners, see as the ideal pension system. We have undertaken a review of and made recommendations on how the social welfare pension could be reformed. We have addressed issues around transparency and regulation in relation to private schemes. A special case was made on behalf of Older Women many of whom suffer most from anomalies in the current system. Finally, we have addressed anomalies and reform options raised in the Green Paper directly. We have provided concrete suggestions on each area. We have applied our wisdom and experience to come up with the following recommendations.

Recommendations on Pension Reform from the

Irish Senior Citizens Parliament

1. The Irish Senior Citizens Parliament is calling for a new pension system that guarantees an income adequate to meet all the needs of pensioners. Respect for Older People and a commitment to maintaining independence in old age would underpin this system. In this system a pension would be an income replacement not a minimum anti-poverty measure. An adequate pension would lead to a number of gains for society, not least social inclusion and a positive ageing experience for all (O’Shea in O’Dell, 2006). A system underwritten by these principles would be progressive and sustainable.

2. The Irish Senior Citizens Parliament proposes a new pension system where mandatory contributions are made to a State run scheme which guarantees a pension of 50% of Gross Average Industrial Earnings on retirement.

3. Mandatory occupational pensions should be offered to all staff. Staff should not be allowed to opt out as most of our members state that where they have a GOOD PENSION it is because they had to pay for it.

4. The Irish Senior Citizens Parliament calls for reforms that would enable all Older People who need it to qualify for the State non-contributory pension.

5. The benchmark system to be applied should be the best that is on offer.

6. The Irish Senior Citizens Parliament calls for the Homemakers’ Scheme to be backdated to allow Older Women to receive a full pension in their own right.

7. The Irish Senior Citizens Parliament calls for women with inadequate contribution records to be provided with a pension in recognition of their contribution to the economy and society.

8. The Irish Senior Citizens Parliament calls for a total contributions approach to qualifying for a pension because every contribution made can be used to fund pensions and should be redeemable regardless of when or how the contribution was made.

9. In the context of class D and dependent adult allowances, we suggest that the agreement for some farmer/self-employed spouses may provide a solution to deal with them. The SCOPE model agreed under the “Towards 2016” Social Partnership Agreement by the IFA, DSFA and Revenue surely provides an innovative blueprint for the resolution of other anomalies.

10. We recommend that the pension be paid at 65 and the Transition pension be abolished.

11. The Living Alone Allowance should be increased annually in line with inflation.

Members of the Pensions Sub-Committee:

Anna O’Farrell (Chair), Jim Quinn, Austin Ryan, Ena O’Mahoney, Eddie Bolger, Gemma Carney, Máiréad Hayes, Jim Cousins, Charlie Hammond, Barney Hartnett, Jim Keegan, Sally Quinn

Thanks to:

Dr. Gerry Hughes, Trinity College Dublin

Dr. Orlaigh Quinn, Department of Social and Family Affairs

REFERENCES

Galligan, Y. (1998) ‘Women and Politics in Contemporary Ireland: from the margins to the mainstream’ London: Pinter.

Ginn, J. (2004) ‘European Pension Privatisation: Taking Account of Gender’ Social Policy and Society 3: 2, 123-134.

Hughes, G. and Stewart, J. (eds.) Choosing your future: how to reform Ireland’s pension system Dublin: TASC, 2007.

Kennelly, B., O’Shea, E. and Garvey E. (2003) ‘Social capital, life expectancy and mortality: a cross-national examination Social Science & Medicine,’ 56, pp. 2367–2377

National Council on Ageing and Older People (2005) An Age-friendly Society: a position statement Report No. 88, Dublin: NCAOP.

O’Shea, E. (2006) ‘Developing a healthy ageing policy for Ireland: the view from below’ Health Policy 76, pp. 93–105.

Stewart, J. and Hughes, G. (2007) Choosing Your Future: how to reform Ireland’s Pension System Dublin: TASC at New Island.

Timonen, V. Convery, J., Cahill, S. (2006) ‘Care Revolutions in the Making? A comparison of cash-for-care programmes in four European countries’ Ageing and Society 26, 2006, 455-474.

Velladics, K., Henkens, K. and Van Dalen, H.P. (2006) ‘Do different welfare states engender different policy preferences? Opinions on pension reforms in Eastern and Western Europe. Ageing and Society 26, pp. 475-495.

Whitehouse, E. (2006) ‘New indicators of 30 OECD countries’ pension systems’ Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 5 (3), pp. 275-298.

-----------------------

[1] The Irish Senior Citizens Parliament was founded in 1994. The Parliament is non-party political, non-sectarian and non-profit making. It is an autonomous organisation concerned with promoting the interests of retired and older people.

[2] A clear and informative account of the risks inherent in making policy by projections was presented by Peter Connell ‘Sustainability and Population Ageing’ at the TASC Roundtable Discussion on the Green Paper, held at TCD, Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008.

[3] EU SILC refers to the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions which is a Europe-wide survey which provides comparable data on standards of living for States across the European Union.

[4] Household wealth in Ireland is set to surpass the ¬ 1trillion mark in 2008. More details available at

[5] Whitehouse (2006)eland is set to surpass the €1trillion mark in 2008. More details available at

[6] Whitehouse (2006) acknowledges that cross-country comparison of pension systems can be difficult. However, the paper ‘provides consistent data on pension entitlements for the 30 member countries of the OECD, allowing cross-country analysis of the adequacy and distribution of pension promises’ (Whitehouse, 2006; 275). The countries compared are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Rep, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Lux, Mexico, Netherlands, NZ, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, US.

[7] This finding results from meetings of retired members representing a wide variety of occupations at workshops held in Cork and Mayo, at the Annual Parliament meeting and at meetings of the pensions sub-committee.

[8] Until the mid to late 1970s, public attitudes towards women and employment reflected the constitutional status of women as primary care-givers and homemakers rather than wage earners. A (1975) survey of attitudes towards women and work reported that ‘a substantial number of married men, single men and single women held negative views about married women working’ (Galligan, 1998; 28).

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download