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

Go raibh maith agat. I hope I do not repeat the questions I asked previously when the witness appeared before one of the committees - I think it was the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection. This issue comes before us because somebody has appealed to us, as a petitions committee, that the public service and public policy is doing them a disservice. That is the reason the petition is before us and the reason Mr. Whelan was invited to appear before the committee.

I have wholehearted sympathy for the position the witness and the petitioner have taken. I agree in particular with the point he made around the lack of debate and the lack of foresight for those who are affected in any way. Normally if an entitlement is to be taken away there is negotiation or compensation. In this case neither has happened. What is even worse is that this was one of the Bills that was guillotined where we never reached the debate which had been scheduled so that we could tease out all the implications of a move such as this. Has any analysis been carried out around the number of jobs that will be affected? There is a whole range of contracts, including Mr. Whelan's own case, where it is hoped employers will extend the contract or else one will be retired. One is not pensioned any more because the pension age is 65, 66 or 67 as the case may be and one will be put on the dole, the jobseeker's allowance. If all those people have to extend their contracts that means there are many young people whose job opportunities have been delayed to them by one, two or three years. Has a job of work been done to see what will be the effect on the jobs market?

The other question is around alternatives. I agree with Mr. Whelan's scepticism around the actuarial approach being given to this pension timebomb as it is presented. Have any alternatives been offered, for example, to look again at the PRSI contributions, the reinstatement of the National Pensions Reserve Fund or such like to ensure that the Social Insurance Fund is adequate to address what is a perceived shortfall? That is not correctly linked to the petitioner. The petitioner basically said that it is unfair to lose an entitlement which they were led to believe their PRSI contribution was going to bring them at retirement age.