Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

There are consequences and one which was never discussed was the impact on youth employment. The further retirement age is extended, the less opportunity there is at the other end. That is one of the contradictions. We are trying to encourage people to leave the unemployment queues, especially young people, but, at the same time, their working life is being extended. The later retirement age is, the more the State benefits from PRSI payments and its liabilities are lowered. In the past those whose contracts terminated on their 65th birthday may have been entitled to a contributory or non-contributory pension, but nowadays they are in receipt of a much reduced payment and that has not fully emerged. The State contributory pension is €42 more per week than jobseeker's benefit. The household benefits package also needs to be taken into account in calculations, but everybody does not qualify for it because it is means-tested.

These changes have happened quickly and people who reached 60 years in recent years would have had an expectation regarding the amount they would have to survive on at the age of 65, 66 or 68 years. Those who were better paid had the opportunity and were encouraged through tax relief to set aside money for a private or occupational pension. They had something to fall back on, but the lowest paid are dependent on their PRSI payments and will struggle most with the effects of this change. That was argued at the time in 2011, but it is only now that the consequences are hitting. Are my figures correct? Are those whose contracts terminate at the age of 65 years in receipt of substantially lower payments than previously?