Mr. Justin Moran:

Exactly. I agree with Deputy Mitchell's point regarding people at the age of 65 being forced onto jobseeker's benefit. There are more 65 year olds on jobseeker's benefit than there are people of any other age, which we hear frequently from a lot of our members and supporters who would not only be in receipt of a smaller payment than the pension but who in many cases find it dispiriting to be told that despite their having worked their entire lives, they now have to go on the dole. This is, in part, linked to the issue of mandatory retirement, which was raised by Deputy Brady and in respect of which Deputy O'Dea has also introduced legislation. The fact is many of those people were forced to retire at 65 when they would have liked to continue working, not perhaps for ten, 15 or 20 years but until State pension age.

On the point regarding how we sustain the State pension and make it more sustainable, as a first step, we need to have that debate and to identify ways of doing it. The proposals that came forward from the national pensions framework were around increasing the retirement age. I would view that as an ask of older people to continue working for longer to get a State pension to make it more sustainable. Perhaps it is time we looked at other asks that could be made. For example, could we consider how to make the State pension more flexible? Some people would like to put off getting the State pension and to continue to work for longer while other people would like to continue to work for longer but they cannot do so because of the mandatory retirement clauses. If we enabled them to do that, not only could they continue working, they would continue paying tax. Currently, older workers pay no PRSI and employers pay only a small amount of PRSI for them. Perhaps that could be looked at in terms of trying to increase the amount of money that would be going into the Social Insurance Fund.

When talking about the State pension we need to move away from the very black and white and fixed concept of a person being entitled to a pension at 66 years. As I said, some people might want to put off getting the pension to a later age and others might want to get it earlier. In a number of European countries particular classifications of workers are entitled to claim the full state pension a couple of years earlier because they work in very physically demanding areas, including construction, heavy industry, home care and so on. In France and Belgium people who work in those areas are entitled to a full state pension a couple of years earlier. Consideration could be given to the introduction of a similar model here. I am not talking in that regard about making the State pension more sustainable but it is worth bearing that in mind. I have worked in offices most of my life. When it comes to retirement, the demands in terms of the wear and tear of my body will be very different from those of friends of mine who have worked in construction and continue to work in that area. I agree with the point regarding the need for full recognition of the carer's role. In that regard, the homemaker's scheme needs to be addressed.

On Senator Higgins's point regarding the breakdown in gender, in terms of the contributory State pension, 64% of recipients are men and 36% are women. These are figures from the Department in relation to 2015. Regarding the non-contributory State pension, 62% of recipients are women and 38% are men. The figures we got in terms of the impact of the 2012 changes are that 62% of people affected by that were women and 38% were men. In terms of the new rates that were brought in, the biggest cut was to the rate that had the highest proportion of women. It is almost 2:1 for women in general but in terms of band 4, which is the one that lost around €30, the cut is higher there. That needs to be borne in mind. As stated, these are people who were doubly discriminated against. In many cases, the people who approached us were forced out of employment because of the marriage bar. In other cases, people believed that they had difficulty getting employment in the 1970s and 1980s because they were women. There are layers of discrimination involved.

I agree also with the point about the contribution that workers have made. On the point about linking the contributions to the pension, the example that comes to mind whenever I discuss this issue is that of an Age Action member who worked for 18 months in 1968-1969, left the workforce to provide care to her family, which I would strongly argue was a contribution, returned to the workforce in late 1990s and worked for about 12 years and then retired who, had she not worked in 1968-1969 would have received the full State pension but because she worked during that time, a decision she made more than 40 years ago and one which I suspect the Government of the time would have been encouraging people to make, she is in receipt of a much smaller pension. These types of anomalies could be addressed by a move to a total contributions approach. Taking into account the Senator's point and also the point made by the Chairman, we believe that could be a better system, but in terms of the mandatory retirement system, we have not had sight of what the Department proposes. A system that is closely linked to the contributions made by workers over their time in employment would be more positive and would remove some of the anomalies in the current State pension system.

However, that system would have to provide fair treatment for care that is not considered to be paid employment but is the care of family members, and not just children but also people with special needs or disabilities.

One of the reasons we are a little bit cautious about it is that when the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, was discussing this issue before the committee last year, he said that in the move to a total contributions approach, there would be winners and losers. Considering the people we represent, we want to ensure there are as few losers as possible in this regard.

I strongly agree with the point that the initial tier should be addressed first. Elected representatives who deal with people in their constituency clinics will know how complicated the State pension can be with all the different stamps and changes to it. My colleague, Mr. Scully, deals with it daily on our information line. We need to reform that system by making it simpler, fairer and more effective. That is not just because it is the one that most people rely on but also to achieve that issue of trust in moving to a second tier pension.

I also wish to mention the question of whether 35% is the best model to choose. This is also the point the Chairman made. Honestly, the answer is probably not but it is the one that is there. As an advocacy organisation, we look at the commitments the Government has made and entered into. It has carried out its own research and decided that the best way of doing this, and the simplest formula, was to look at a 35% figure based on average earnings. In that way the pension would continue to rise in line with the demands of the economy. It would be far preferable to take the approach outlined by the Deputy, which was that we would examine building a system specific to older people and responsive to their needs.

We have looked, for example, at research undertaken on the cost of living for older people. Much of it, however, does not include the fact that many older people have high rates of private health insurance coverage. They will make enormous sacrifices to ensure they meet those insurance payments. There is, therefore, a difference between demands on older people and demands on others that could be addressed with a different formula.

I regret to tell Deputy Carey that we are not familiar with the homemaker's scheme in other countries. Our research programme over the past year has focused on the 2012 State pension cuts, which is the material we have produced. We also examined the homemaker's scheme as it operated in Ireland. Our pension research programme will examine gender and not superficially the homemaker's scheme. I regret to say that I do not have an answer for the Deputy's question, but it is something we have recognised as a priority to be examined.

As regards the Chairman's points, I welcome the fact the committee will consider making recommendations and suggestions. That is important ahead of the budget later this year and given the cross-party nature of the committee. The figure of €290 million comes from the Department. As the Deputy will see from the footnote, we are not completely clear about the evidence for it either. The committee may be aware that the original figure for backdating the homemaker's scheme was around €140 million. It came from the 2007 Green Paper on pensions and was the figure we were using for some considerable time.

In his contribution to the committee in December 2016, the representative from the Department of Social Protection said they had done a more substantial piece of work and had now identified the figure at €290 million for backdating the scheme. The question is, however, how far it would be backdated. There is a big difference between backdating it forever, or to 1973 or 1974 when one uses the marriage bar to link it back to something. I would not question the Department's figures and I am sure the €290 million figure is accurate. However, it would be great to get some context on how the figure was calculated and achieved.

I agree with the Chairman's point on the specific index. I would encourage members of the committee to look at the work that has been done by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice, including minimum essential standards, not just for older people but in general.

Rental issues for older people have been coming up more from our members in the past six to 12 months. It concerns not only those in rental accommodation but also owner-occupiers who would like to move into sheltered housing, but there is no such accommodation available. One of the challenges in the years to come is how we can provide housing options for older people that are not currently in place. We have owner-occupiers who would like to move into sheltered housing but cannot do so because they are not on the housing waiting list due to their status as owner-occupiers. We also have people in rental accommodation who would like to move out into communities that are more responsive to older people's needs.

Sheltered housing is one of the issues that will need to be addressed in the years to come. There is much more investment in it in Britain and the private sector is much more involved in building retirement homes and communities. It has not really taken off in Ireland. Organisations such as Clúid are doing fantastic work, but the matter has not been sufficiently addressed so far.