Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Whelan for his presentation which echoes much of what was in the original petition which, I imagine, he got sight of from Mr. Henry Gaynor. One of the points raised by Mr. Gaynor towards the end of his presentation which was interesting - I wonder if ICTU has done an analysis of this - was that the net cost-benefit to the Exchequer is actually very small.

He suggested that the numbers of people who actually end up retiring at 65 years is rather small, because some finish work early and others do not stay in work for health or other reasons until they are 65 years of age. I do not have the figure to hand, but it was a rather small figure. Has ICTU done a cost-benefit analysis on the matter? Let us compare that with the net cost to the State. There would be a loss of tax revenue because those people would not be working and we would be paying them unemployment benefit for that period. On the face of it, only a saving of €500,000 annually to the State is at issue in respect of introducing something that has major implications. Has ICTU had a chance to examine the net cost and the implications?

Another point mentioned by Mr. Gaynor is the ring-fencing principle in industrial relations. We have seen it with newly qualified teachers and nurses. People who were already in the system were ring-fenced and any changes brought in to working conditions were only for new entrants to the system. Mr. Gaynor has suggested that if something like this were to be introduced, then it is only right and proper from an industrial relations perspective that we should only introduce it for people who start to pay PRSI from when the agreement is made, and anyone who is already in the system should be ring-fenced. Mr. Whelan is an industrial relations negotiator. This seems to be a generally accepted principle across unions and employers. Does this fly in the face of that?