Mr. Liam Berney:

There is another aspect to this. I preface my remarks by saying that, unlike Mr. Taft, I am not an economist. There is a social aspect to this that we need to consider too. The Chair referred to it in his opening comments to the committee. It relates to those people who literally cannot work beyond 65 because of the nature of their occupations. They might have to retire before 65. That includes people who work in construction, possibly from the early age of 16 or 17, until they are 61 or 62, where because of the arduous nature of their employment, they simply cannot work beyond that age. It does not only apply to construction. There are occupations in the health service where the same thing would apply. It is important to consider the economics of all of this but there are crucially important social aspects too. Asking a bricklayer, a nurse or somebody who works in an arduous occupation to work beyond 65 years of age, or even past a younger age than that, needs to be considered by the committee with regard to the impact it would have on those people. Getting the financial and economic side of this correct is important. It is important that whatever decisions the Government and legislators make are based on sound economics. There are also social considerations at play that need to be factored in.