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

I thank the three speakers for their contributions.

The Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2011 gives effect to some of the arrangements we are discussing today. When we discussed that legislation, it was guillotined, like so many other Bills. These Bills were rushed jobs and we did not get to discuss fully the implications of the proposed changes. There was some minor discussion. I raised concerns on Second Stage of the social welfare and pensions legislation and submitted amendments. However, the way the business was done in the House meant we did not discuss the implications that Mr. Fergus Whelan rightly pointed out would affect those on low pay and often those working on sites, for example. There are not many working on sites now. Such people are the ones who opted to retire at 65 and are now being asked to continue working until 68. People who have made arrangements for their pensions now suffer the consequences of going on a reduced payment for six months because the jobseeker's benefit and allowance are being rowed back. Previously, the individuals would have managed to get the State transitional pension.

Can Dr. Quinn answer the question that Mr. Fergus Whelan was putting? Were the consequences of these changes examined? Is Europe out of touch with Ireland, or are we out of touch with the changes and the speed with which we have introduced changes supposedly because of an increase in the life expectancy of the retired? The logic given to us at the time for the measures introduced was that the social insurance fund would be depleted in the future and that, because people are living longer into old age, there should be a change to the retirement age. Was no alternative considered, such as getting rid of the tax relief on private pensions or increasing the PRSI payments made by employees or employers to levels similar to those that obtain in Europe?