Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

With regard to Ms Feehily, the commission and all the staff who supported the commission's work, a substantial body of evidence has been produced. Regardless of what decision is taken down the road, this is significant and useful and it clearly sets out the challenges, issues and options. It starts the conversation we need to have in this country on how we address this challenge into the future. A lot of the tools are here and members have raised questions on the figures and modelling behind that. I want to publicly acknowledge that because it is significant work and I want to commend everyone who has been involved in that.

I have a number of questions. Ms Feehily's presentation mentioned the issue of class K stamps for additional income being paid by people beyond the age of 65. Within the commission report it is also acknowledged that some people beyond the age of 65 or 66 can no longer pay PRSI contributions to build up an entitlement. How does one square the circle of paying two types of contributions beyond someone's 66th birthday? Some people will pay class K contributions and others might pay class S or other stamps. Should it not be the case that if someone pays PRSI, he or she should make a contribution to his or her pension up to the threshold of 30:1, 40:1 or 45:1? People will continue to pay beyond that if the commission's report is implemented. Why is there a need to pay some stamps that do not have an entitlement built into them? Should that system be streamlined?

I want to follow up on Ms Burke's final comment on modelling and emigration and I want to come back to the other issue. The ESRI was not able to answer the question of childcare and the indigenous working population for us last week.

If we look at what is happening here at the moment in childcare, which is replication of problems we have seen right across Europe over previous generations, the cost of rearing a family and particularly the cost of childcare has a double-edged impact. One, it reduces the fertility rate in a country and is part of the contributing factor to that. The other is that it also reduces participation in the workforce, PRSI contributions and taxation. This is a double-edged effect with both a short-term and longer-term impact. What would be the benefit of actively supporting childcare and greater participation of women in the workforce and what would that impact be on the long-term prognosis as to the cost of pensions? Our witnesses may or may not be able to provide some information today and, if not, perhaps they might try to come back to us and grapple with this particular challenge because it was one that the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, could not answer for us here last week.

Turning to Mr. Duggan, in his evidence he referred to the projected modelling costs of the pension and the actual cost of the pension. The projection was that not increasing the age from 66 to 67 would cost €221 million. He is now projecting that that figure will be €275 million by year-end and over €500 million in a full year. What is the jobseeker's benefit impact on that? If people retire at 66 years of age but cannot claim their State pension until they are 67 years of age, they would have an entitlement to jobseekers’ benefit which, to me, would negate much of the potential savings that are there. Can Mr. Duggan give the committee the projected cost of the jobseeker's benefit if one increases the age from 66 to 67?

It sounds strange to me that the projections are actually going up when, if one looks at the CSO analysis of the data from RIP.ie, this shows that there are 2,300 additional deaths as a direct result of Covid-19, or this is the indication that has been given. A number of people, disproportionately and sadly in respect of many older people, have died as a result of Covid-19. As a result of Covid-19, we have fewer people claiming a State pension yet Mr. Duggan’s projections are €54 million out from where it would be. How has that happened when, sadly, there are fewer people claiming the pension as a result of Covid-19? The cost projections have gone up by close to a quarter; that seems to me to be a significant error in respect of those particular calculations by the Department.

On the famous Telecom Éireann shares that were lodged in the National Pensions Reserve Fund, NPRF we all know that that fund has been raided to bail out the banks and has also been used to invest in stimulating the economy. There will be a return, however, from those investments at some stage. The Minister for Finance is telling us that the investments that were put into the banks are turning into a profit and the reality is that the National Treasury Management Agency. NTMA, will get a return on the investments that are now being put in to indigenous businesses, and so forth. Has that been modelled into this?

Has any consideration been given to the fact that the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, IFAC, has stated that the windfalls we are gaining at the moment in corporate tax should not be put into day-to-day spending? Is there merit in ring-fencing some of that corporate tax windfall and putting it into something like the NPRF which was there to plan for the cliff edge down the road by way of costs? Our witnesses might answer some of those specific questions, and Ms Feehily might start, please.