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

I thank the witnesses who have come in for their contributions. I apologise for my late arrival. I had another meeting which clashed with this one. Everything comes on one day. I apologise in advance if I ask a question that has already been addressed. If I do, I ask the witnesses to let me know and I can watch the discussion later.

SIPTU especially, but also ICTU, raised the cost and the savings. This is an issue we must address once and for all because it seems there is no real clarity and different people are saying different things about savings. Do we know what has been saved due to the gap from 65 to 66 since the State pension transition payment was abolished? What has been paid out in either jobseeker's payment or benefit for 65-year-olds versus what would have been paid out if they had received the State pension transition payment? This is an important issue. We must all be clear on precisely what the savings are, and potentially how much, if anything, we are looking to save by increasing the State pension age. That is something we must examine very closely.

I was somewhat surprised by the recommendation made by the Commission on Pensions, which has at least recognised the need for a State pension at 65 in some cases. Unfortunately, it has coupled that with the caveat of where the pension age is increased. It is important that the commission at least recognised that, at 65, some people will need to access the State pension. ICTU and SIPTU referred to that specifically. Will the witnesses speak a little about that? Perhaps Mr. Taft could speak specifically to employer PRSI and where we are at in that regard compared with the rest of the European Union. The commission has put forward various potential increases in regard to PRSI across the board.

Both ICTU and SIPTU mentioned the abolition of mandatory retirement and the fact that we do and should allow people who are willing and able to continue to work to do so and accrue PRSI contributions. In some cases, they may not have the necessary PRSI contributions to get a full State pension. That is important.

The next issue I raise is directed specifically to SIPTU and Ms Ryan. There seem to be a lot of blockages when it comes to banning mandatory retirement ages in contracts. Twice, the Dáil has unanimously passed legislation to make provision for this but it has not gone any further. As regards ensuring we get this done, are there issues with these contracts being private and with the retrospective nature of the legislation? I presume Ms Ryan plays a role, if not the main role, in bringing cases to the Workplace Relations Commission involving people who are forced to retire at 65. How much of an issue is that for workers?

We all welcome that the commission has been clear on the need for a State pension for long-term or lifetime carers, as Ms Duffy calls them. The Minister seems to be fairly adamant that she wants to get this introduced. The last time she spoke in the Dáil on this, which was around budget time, she said it would be done within the next two years. I will look at that again. It is clear that this matter needs to be addressed. Does Ms Duffy know if the total contributions approach is having a positive impact on carers? That measure was introduced to get rid of averaging and especially for people who have gaps in their contributions. What we need to look at before it is fully rolled out is whether the total contributions approach is working for carers. If not, we need a State pension for lifetime carers as quickly as possible. How quickly could it be introduced? Has there been engagement between Family Carers Ireland and the Department or the Minister specifically on the need for this State pension? That would be important.