Mr. Liam Berney:

The issues with the 2012 change have been well aired. Congress is on the record that it should be reversed. There is no doubt about it and we will say no more on it. The question of increasing the rate of the State pension and whether it should be linked to 40% of average industrial earnings or whatever is important. One of the things our retired members speak to us about is certainty. If the old age pension is €238 today, they know they do not have to worry about watching the television on budget day to find out whether as a result of a Minister for Finance announcement their living standards will be reduced. It is about having some certainty, which is the most important thing for them. There are also issues around what it is linked to and all the rest of it, but as the Chairman has pointed out there is an index of inflation for pensioners that is different from the index for a lot of other people. It is a very innovative idea to have an index which looks at the position of pensioners differently in the context of inflation. It is an idea which is worth exploring.

People spoke about tax relief on pensions. It is a very complex question. Our view is that it is far too heavily weighted towards people who, quite frankly, do not need it. However, there is a relationship between occupational pensions, tax relief and the State pension. I say that because a lot of people with an occupational pension have that pension co-ordinated with the State pension. In my case, if I can talk about myself for a moment, my final salary is reduced by 1.5 times the rate of the State pension. As the State pension goes up, the cost of providing for my pension for my employer comes down. All of these things are interlinked, which brings us back to the point that we need a universal system which takes account of the question of care. It will have to be done over time because one cannot disadvantage people with a current pension expectation to which they have made contributions. There is a transition as the Chairman has rightly pointed out.

It is important to suspend the move to 67 years of age. It is crucial to do that. I am not saying it cannot eventually be 67, but I do not think it can be 68. We must look at this again. It was introduced with a sledgehammer. Senator Higgins referred to a below-the-radar cut but it was certainly below the belt. We need to look at it again to see what the implications for people are. If the evidence shows it is fair and the right thing to do, people will accept it. The reason it is unacceptable is that it has been implemented without any consultation or proper analysis. I could say a great deal more but we would be here forever.