Ms Josephine Feehily:

First, I will address one or two of the Chair's questions to clarify. We made a deliberate decision in terms of the data to ignore the rip.ieblip, for want of a better word, because we are looking at trends over time. When we were settling our technical papers we had that conversation because our member, Seamus Coffey, was the first person to start on that particular analysis. One could not tell whether it will be a blip or be sustained or whether it will have impact. Now that we are in year two of a health emergency, some nations are starting to adjust downwards their life expectancy rates. Whether that will be a blip or a trend, we decided to ignore it.

We also had a conversation about the pension reserve fund early in our work and a number or members had a view that maybe that was another part of the funding solution. We came back after much analysis and decided that certainty was more important. That is why our funding proposals are around social insurance and the Exchequer, which is recurring. That is why we recommend the Exchequer contribution should be hardwired in. Relying on occasional payments is not a way to fund something that is recurring and growing. We discussed it but the Chair will not find it in the report because it was left out.

On Deputy Kerrane's questions, we will have to come back to her about page 132. The Department ran models for us. I do not know quite what the precise elements of the model it ran was. It is better, as Mr. Flynn said, that we get it right. There were some things included, I know that.

On the age 65 proposal, we decided that trying to define long hard-working lives was another complexity and debating point so we settled instead on years of contributions. What is arduous for one might be fun for another. I do not mean to be glib but some people like to go to work. There is interesting stuff in the report on the labour market from The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing, TILDA, which showed quite a number of people self-reporting that they want to remain at work. We talked about that but reckoned the definitions could be tricky.

On Deputy Ó Cathasaigh's question, we did not envision a different future. Our terms of reference, as we discussed at the beginning, were quite focused but we were clear in our own chats. It is not in the report but we were clear in talking to colleagues that this would not be the last word. It cannot be, because we are looking at sets of data and trends. While we are modelling the cost out to 2070 based on the status quo, our age recommendations top at age 68. We reckon another view would have to be taken of what the trend is then, what the world is like and what and the inputs are like on the funding side. There are issues of sustainability and climate. The impact of climate issues on the labour market is something we are only beginning to debate. While we have labour market evidence in here relating to health, education, female participation and age, we have not factored in what happens if people, having learned in the last year and a half that they can work differently, adopt a new model. The evidence was not there for us to do so.

A proposition was put to us by some submitters and in the previous work done on pensions that the pension age should be linked to life expectancy and we said we would not go that far because one would need to implement certain things, assess the new reality and form another set of proposals. Nothing is ever set in stone. We thought about whether to go beyond age 68 as an example and we decided going to 68 was enough and we would not link it to life expectancy. That is partly connected to the Deputy's question about the nature of work in the future. I do not know if that covers the various elements of the members' questions. Ms Burke wants to add something.