Mr. Justin Moran:

Naomi may come in to speak on the strategy for planning for the overall population. I shall take some of the Deputy's points and I will consider the issue of private pensions first.

When we talk about the State pension in Ireland the figure of €7 billion is generally used as the spend on the State pension, which is absolutely accurate. We actually spend around €9.5 billion in pensions because the private pensions tax breaks, as calculated by Dr. Micheál Collins, amount to €2.5 billion. When we consider the figure of €9.5 billion spent on pension supports for older people there is a very strong argument to look at that €2.5 billion and ask ourselves if we are getting the best value if our objective is a fair and sustainable State pension system that keeps people out of poverty.

One of the aspects of the national pensions framework that has always interested me is that the measures that will be unpleasant for pensioners, such as increasing the retirement age, have been delivered whereas some of the other measures were not delivered, such as the State pension being 35% of average earnings. The framework also suggested changing the private pension supports from 41% to 33% which would save a substantial sum of money that could be invested in the State pension system. The short answer to the Deputy's question is that we are very conscious of the amount of money spent on private pensions. We do not have a problem with the State providing an incentive for people to take out private pensions. It could be part of the solution to people having a guaranteed and decent retirement income. We believe, however, that the people who benefit the most from private pensions are not necessarily those who need the benefit.

On PRSI, Age Action has identified that at 10.75% employers' PRSI is one of the lowest in Europe. One of the issues that will come up is if employers' PRSI is to be increased then what is it paying for? In delivering a sustainable pension increase, generally speaking there is broad agreement that part of the solution would be a need to increase PRSI rates at some point in the next three to five years, whatever that figure might be. Some people may argue for a substantial PRSI increase and to leave the retirement age as it is. Others may see it as part of a suite, which might include an increased retirement age. The issue is also being looked at in the context of home care provision.

One of the arguments around how we could pay for home care is an increase in PRSI rates. This could be a way of doing it. When we consider the Health Research Board's recent research that looked at home care systems in Germany, Sweden and Scotland - I want to say the Netherlands also but I could possibly be wrong on that - one of the systems of payment used by those countries is a version of long-term social insurance contributions specifically designed and set aside for home care. In Ireland, the model of that would be an increase in PRSI designed to pay for home care supports. Age Action's attitude to this is if we are to increase PRSI to pay for home care, does this make it more difficult to increase PRSI to pay for a sustainable State pension if that is something we need to do? Can we do both of those things?

We are genuinely entering into the consultation on home care with an open mind around financing. We want to see more evidence and more of the arguments that will be put forward.

With regard to public sector pensions, as an organisation we would typically focus on the State pension and this is where most of our efforts go. This is the area with the highest numbers of pensioners who are dependent on State transfers, especially at the lowest income rates. We would certainly be uncomfortable with measures around public sector pensions that could end up driving people into poverty. Our focus, however, would generally be around the State pension.