Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

This is a really interesting discussion and some really important points have been brought up. For me, the point about the 65-66 trap, where at the moment you have to go onto the dole, is something that needs to be spoken about a lot more and needs to be fixed by having access to the pension at 65. Very interesting points have also been brought up about the four-day week, and there needs to be a lot more discussion on that.

I want to tease some points out. I am sympathetic to the arguments but I also have some concerns around how this plays out. The starting point is there is a drive internationally by capitalism and governments worldwide to increase the pension age. Japan is after going up to 70, I understand. We witnessed street battles in France over this issue. Basically, people are living longer and capitalism does not want to increase the social wage, which would probably mean increasing taxes on wealth to provide people with pensions for longer. With the pension age, there is a campaign on - and we had it in this country as well - to increase the age at which people have access to a state pension. My concern is that the genuine issues being raised by the groups will be abused by people in power, so that under the banner of choice, people will have the choice to work longer but, in reality, they have no choice because they do not have their mortgage paid. In fact, they do not even own their own home anymore. They are renting, the landlord is increasing the rent, and their social welfare payment is not going to be able to sustain them with any kind of decent life. They will be in poverty.

I do not think this is in conflict with any of the points the groups have raised but I do want to get a comment on it. The idea of choice and ending mandatory has to be linked to the idea of a decent life if people choose not to go on in the workplace. They should have decent pension entitlements at 60, and no concerns around their housing situation. They should be in secure housing. If that was their base, with regard to the idea of it being their choice, then it would be a genuine choice. However, in the absence of that, it can turn into the opposite. That is the concern that I have, and I would like to hear the comments of the groups on that point.