Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I question Mr. Taft's use of the statistic of 0.7%. It sounds like a small figure, but 0.7% of GNI* is a very significant proportion of the national income. If we could get towards that percentage for our overseas development aid, we would be very excited. If we could get to that level of expenditure on our childcare services, we would be very excited. It is a significant amount of money. A lot of what Josephine Feehily spoke about when she was before the committee related to the solidarity principle. What if the proportion of savings that would arise from the proposed increase in the pension age were removed? Much of this discussion puts me in mind of the emissions targets and the emissions ceilings. The fact is that if one sector takes on less of the burden, other sectors have to bear that burden. I worry that the pension age is another case in point in that regard. If we look at the projections set out on page 13 of the report - and this is why I asked whether in Mr. Taft's opinion we can trust the modelling that lies underneath the report - we can see that packages 2 and 4 in particular try to share the pain. I think I have said previously at this committee that no easy choices are presented by the pensions commission; it presents a range of difficult choices. By not making a choice on the pension age and removing that aspect, are we asking people paying PRSI - and I think of PRSI on the incomes of the self-employed in particular - to take a disproportionate burden?