Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I commend the work of Ms Feehily, the entire commission and Ms Burke. A large volume of work has been done. It is just a pity that it was not done before any mention was made of pension age increases in the first place. It would have been a huge help. The report contains a great deal of knowledge, and a great deal of work went into it, and I thank the witnesses for that.

I agree with much of what is in the report, especially regarding the need for a pension for carers. That has been an issue for a long time and it is something that must be sorted out as quickly as possible as well as the need to allow for PRSI to be accrued by those who remain working beyond the age of 65, to examine retirement ages in contracts and to establish a body that will recommend increases in respect of the State pension, similar to the Low Pay Commission, as has been suggested. The remit of that body should go beyond the State pension and we should require a body to recommend increases across the board for social protection payments overall every year before budget time because we have this issue, as has been said, where people receiving the State pension or other social protection payments experience great uncertainty regarding those payments. They have no idea what they are going to get, and we have the annual football being kicked around in this regard concerning the debate on an extra fiver every year. Therefore, I agree with a great deal of what is contained in this report.

What was suggested concerning the Exchequer making annual contributions to the Social Insurance Fund was interesting. I wonder if consideration was given to a situation where the State would make that contribution and then we are also asking the State to make a contribution regarding auto-enrolment. I ask the witnesses to elaborate on their comments on the Exchequer contributing in this regard. I think it is something that is worthwhile and something to look at.

Flexibility is really important.

In the commission's report, Ms Feehily puts forward the idea of providing a State pension to those retiring at 65 and, of course, she has added to that where they have a long contribution history and she has put in a figure of 45 years. Can she expand on why it is 45 years and whether she considered it being less? What was the rationale for suggesting that? Obviously, we have an issue with people who are engaged in manual labour. They may have started work in their late teens and by the age of 65, in some cases, they have worked for 40 or 50 years. It is an issue if we are going to ask those workers to remain on until they are 67 or 68, when they physically cannot do so. There is also going to be an impact on their health, if that is the way we are going. Will Ms Feehily comment in that regard? Will it be a transition State pension being provided at 65 or a full contributory State pension, and how would that work?

Ms Feehily speaks a lot in the report about State pensions and how they protect people from poverty. With the recent increase, the State pension will now reach the minimum standard of living, which was listed as €252 by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice. That is welcome. In the context of those pensioners who are qualified adults or who are on reduced pensions, is there a protection from poverty for them, and was that looked at? In regard to what is now the benefit payment of €203 at 65, did Ms Feehily look at poverty protection for such recipients in view of the fact that they are locked out of secondary benefits like the fuel allowance? There is an impact at 65 of going onto this benefit payment, which is set at the jobseeker’s rate rather than the rate of the transition State pension, which was there previously. Again, that is set well below the poverty line.

On the legislation, there are employment contracts that stipulate a retirement age of 65. Ms Feehily said the legislation that is needed would apply to existing and new employment contracts. She will probably know that legislation was unanimously passed twice in the Oireachtas in the past six or seven years with regard to banning mandatory retirement. The issue that came up the last time was that the Department of Justice said it could not be done and that we could not look retrospectively at employment contracts. Does Ms Feehily think that is feasible? I agree it is something that needs to be sorted out because people are being forced to retire at 65 due to their contracts even though they do not want to retire. Frankly, if they just had to wait a year to get the State pension, many would probably remain on at work for that year.

Page 132 of the report contains a table that relates to the expenditure projections from 2019 to 2070 in the context of keeping the State pension age at 66. On a similar question to that asked by Deputy Ó Cathasaigh, do those projections include an indexation link to 34% of earnings?

The submission that we made recommended 30 years. Ms Feehily has opted for 40 years. She might speak a little about why she believes that 40 years is agreeable or even reachable. For many people who are immigrating or coming home, there could be difficulties in that regard. We have put forward 30 years.

There are a number of references to the widow’s pension in the report. We had put forward a recommendation regarding an issue that has arisen whereby a person has to be married in order to get the widow’s pension. While I appreciate that is outside the remit here, I ask whether there was any discussion around that requirement for the widow's pension.

Mr. Duggan referenced the increases in costs and what it costs to defer the pension age increase to 67. If we did not have a mandatory retirement age as stipulated in contracts and if we allowed people to work on from 65 and accrue PRSI contributions, what would the cost be? Do we know the figure in respect of what we will save by not paying out the contributory State pension at 66 and instead paying out a benefit payment for 65-year-olds? In the context of the pension age increases that Ms Feehily has put forward, how does she see that working if we go to 67? Will there be a benefit payment in the middle for those people who still have 65 in their contract? How will that work for people in manual labour who will be expected to work up to 67?