Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Where do I start? I am surprised that the Deputy is surprised by what he considers to have been an announcement today. It was not an announcement.

It was made clear in the Dáil in January that I would introduce new legislation and what that new legislation would do. That is what the couple of hundred people outside the gates were told. In the correspondence I have received from most of them, there is an understanding there will be a new adjudication process for their cases using a different method, namely, the total contributions model. The payment will come into place in the first quarter of 2019. Whatever back payment is owed to someone from 30 March 2018 will be made in one lump sum on the first day after the adjudication. Based on the adjudication, the pensioner will move to a new payment if he or she has decided to change payments.

The Deputy's second point was that he wanted me to abolish the mandatory retirement age, but my difficulty with that is there is no such thing as a mandatory retirement age. I cannot abolish something that does not exist. I have considered a number of ways of getting around what it is the Deputy is trying to fix. I have met industry representatives. The reason we cannot introduce a new law to the effect that, for example, Willie O'Dea cannot be made to retire at 65 years of age if he wants to work until he is 66, 67 or so on is the terms and conditions included in his contract are a matter for him and his employer. Presumably, he would have signed that contract; therefore, if he wanted to change its terms, it would be a matter between him and his employer and it would not be for the State to intervene. However, I have tried to ask employers to be cognisant of the fact that people are living longer and healthier lives and a valuable resource in an environment in which employers are telling us that they have recently been finding it more difficult to get workers. Thankfully, that is a new problem for us. They are proactively going to seek to extend contracts. They have agreed with me that, where new contracts are concerned - for example, if someone's nephew was to start working in Dunnes Stores tomorrow - they should reflect whatever is the current age of retirement when workers retire. As we all know, someone who is now in his or her 20s will not retire at 66 or 67 years of age. The likelihood is that he or she will retire at 68 years after the legislation has been changed. A contract of employment should reflect the reality as opposed to some long-standing practice of setting an age of 65 years, despite the change to 70. I am trying to get industry to change its practice which I hope will seep in and result in people actually wanting to work for longer. Possibly through the new pensions roadmap, I am proposing that we devise ideas on how to incentivise people, from a State pension perspective, to remain working for longer where they are in a position to do so. Nothing has been finalised, but we are considering the matter. It is not as simple as introducing a brand new law that no one can be made to retire at 65 years of age, as it is on a contract by contract basis.

If the Deputy does not mind, I will revert to him on the issue. I do not have with me the figures for the numbers of people who rely solely or mostly on their pension.