Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)

This proposal on the part of the Government to raise the pension age initially to 66 and then on to 67 and 68 is reactionary, regressive, crude, cruel and heartless. It flies in the face of 150 years of history of the working class and the labour and trade union movements. In times much harsher than those we are currently experiencing, brave men and women made enormous sacrifices in respect of combating the length of the working day, the working week, the working year and the working life. The sacrifices these people made ensured that we would enjoy more civilised norms than those which applied to the eras in which they lived.

According to the Government proposal contained in section 6, in a mere 30 months time - namely, January 2014 - approximately 11,000 people who are looking forward to transition retirement payments on the basis of having made their contributions and worked all their lives will not be able to retire at 65 and will instead be obliged to remain in work for another full year until they reach the age of 66. Further provision is made to increase the age to 67 and 68 and this could affect up to 50,000 people in the future.

We must ask who will be affected by these measures. Primarily, it will be low-paid workers. Those who are on private pensions will not be in the same position. Naturally, the bankers and other very wealthy individuals who have massive pension funds will not be affected at all. Those in the national media state that their role is to inform. In that context, I do not know why they have not informed the people with regard to these changes. In my view, those changes represent the thin end of the wedge and constitute an extremely serious development.

What is proposed would be a massive imposition and hardship on workers in difficult employments. Will construction workers, for example, be expected to remain on building sites until they reach the age of 68? What will be the position with regard to women who clean industrial and other facilities in order to make ends meet? What is the Government's stance in respect of such people?

Until recently and for a number of good reasons the trend was to move in the opposite direction and try to reduce the retirement age for those who wished to retire. I am very strongly in favour of any worker who wants to remain in employment past retirement age being allowed to do so. However, I have no difficulty with those who might wish to leave paid employment and lead a different type of life where they might pursue leisure or other unpaid interests. I am of the view that provision should be made for such people.

Young people are intimately affected by what is proposed here. There has been a massive reaction to similar proposals throughout Europe. In France, Spain and other countries there have been huge mobilisations of workers both young and old. Young people understand that if their older counterparts do not vacate their jobs, then there will be fewer jobs for them. This is particularly relevant in the context of the current and disastrous economic circumstances that obtain.

The proposal before the House is regressive and reactionary in nature. In addition, people are unaware of what is involved and it would not, therefore, be democratic to pursue this proposal. People in Blanchardstown, Clonmel, Blackpool, etc., are not aware of what is intended. They should be made so aware and this matter should be debated. In such circumstances, I ask the Minister to withdraw the proposal.

See this speech in context