Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Section 6, dealing with the State pension transition, is the first of the sections dealing with the raising of the State pension age. The Minister claims the logic to such a move is because people are living longer. However, in the case of the State pension transition I question this logic. The timeframe for the changes to the age also leave much to be desired.

Over the next several years that this measure will be introduced, many people will finish employment when they reach 65 years of age. As they will not be able to apply for the State pension until reaching 66 years, does the Minister believe they will have to go on jobseeker's benefit for a year? Is there any move to assist employees and employers to renegotiate their employment contracts to reflect the new age for this pension?

No account seems to have been taken of the problems that could arise with the introduction of this measure between 2014 and 2021. When a person qualifies for the State pension transition, he or she can also apply for the fuel allowance. From 2014, this will not be possible. A person could be retired at 65 years of age but on jobseeker's benefit to make up the year until he or she qualified for the State pension. This will exempt him or her from qualifying for the fuel allowance. Losing an allowance of €640 will have serious effects on older people's incomes.

These measures rob people of their entitlements. When they started work, they were told they were entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labour when they reached 65 years of age. That includes the fruits of their contributions to the PRSI system.

This is a retrograde step. In other jurisdictions, there was a much longer lead-in time for such pension provision changes. Our nearest neighbour introduced a similar change to the pension age at 66 years but it had a 17-year lead-in time.

Many groups have been surprised at how fast these changes to State pension provisions are being made and how the Government, particularly the Labour Party, has capitulated on them. Last year, when raising the age was first proposed, the Minister's party colleague, Deputy Róisín , then Labour Party spokesperson on social welfare, said it should be abandoned because it was entirely unreasonable. SIPTU's leader, Mr. Jack O'Connor, described it as an assault on State pension provision. The Irish Senior Citizens Parliament opposes this measure, insisting any increase should be voluntary and promising to fight the Government's plans. The Older and Bolder campaign favours flexibility with individual choice of staying on in employment being allowed.

Many groups have been surprised at how fast these changes to State pension provisions are being made and how the Government, particularly the Labour Party, has capitulated on them. Last year, when raising the age was first proposed, the Minister's party colleague, Deputy Róisín , then Labour Party spokesperson on social welfare, said it should be abandoned because it was entirely unreasonable. SIPTU's leader, Mr. Jack O'Connor, described it as an assault on State pension provision. The Irish Senior Citizens Parliament opposes this measure, insisting any increase should be voluntary and promising to fight the Government's plans. The Older and Bolder campaign favours flexibility with individual choice of staying on in employment being allowed.

Age Action has warned of the potential poverty traps that may be created by these measures. For example, losing the fuel allowance will mean a reduction of €640 a year in an older person's income. The Minister referred to the benefits of retrofitting houses to assist in tackling fuel poverty. While such a programme may have some benefits, it does not address the shortfall that will be experienced by many older people. Will all houses be retrofitted by 2014 when this measure comes into effect?

Another benefit that will be affected by this measure is the household benefits package. Again, this is a more substantial benefit, which is based on the contributions people in employment make during their working lives, and it would also be lost. There would be no hope of those to whom I refer benefiting from either of these two benefits.

I urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to reconsider what she is doing. In particular, she should re-examine the position with regard to the date of 2014 which has been selected in respect of the discontinuation of the transition relating to the State pension.

See this speech in context