Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the amendment, was there no temptation to go to a clean €500? It would be much easier for everyone to remember. Cut-off, round figures are generally easier. We always seem to be very precise, even when a little generosity would do nobody any harm.

On a more serious point, even though that is a serious point, I welcome section 3, which has been referred to. We have to know whether we are going to stick to this retirement age of 66 years. That gives us some certainty about how we are going to fund it. I know the commission also recommended that, over time, Exchequer funding would be put into pensions, but that was equal on the various methodologies, whether a person went to age 68 or 66. In fact, the PRSI changes were quite modest to keep the age of 66. If this was not in place, the campaign would continue, that seems still to be ongoing in the media, that this whole thing is unaffordable. I am somebody who will never benefit from this because I have already passed 66, but I have always taken the view that the age was vital, particularly for people working in jobs in the areas of caring, construction and those in which a lot of physical labour is involved. The more you put back the pension age, the more they will be hanging around waiting for a pension and will not be in full employment. It is fine for people who have desk jobs and who are in good health to say they can continue to an indefinite age. Therefore, I welcome this. I know it means a slight increase in what everybody pays, but the consensus across society has been that people put a huge premium on the age of 66. In fact, it has been the younger cohorts that have been more in favour of that and, when the surveys have been done, younger people have been very in favour of retaining the age of 66 and not having it pushed back from them, even though they have a long way to go yet.