Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)

I also request that the Minister remove section 6, which will end, from 2014, the transition year between the ages of 65 and 66 during which the State pension becomes available and enters into effect. This is an extremely regressive step and it is one of the meanest cuts contained in the legislation. As I recall, it was first recommended in Colm McCarthy's an bord snip nua report. I quoted Mr. McCarthy earlier in the debate but the Minister may have misheard what I said. In the Irish Examiner of 7 July 2009, Mr. McCarthy stated: "If people used to snuff it at 70 and they've now decided to snuff it at 80, or 85 or 90, then something's got to give." In my view, this approach informed Mr. McCarthy's intervention via an bord snip nua. As far as he is concerned, as people grow older they should be obliged to work for longer.

Does the Minister agree with or share Mr. McCarthy's views? If she does not share them, why is she proceeding with the proposals contained in section 6? The Study of Health and Retirement in Europe, SHARE, does a great deal of research in respect of OECD statistics, benefits, etc. In 2008 it made the point that, as a percentage of GDP, old age benefits in Ireland are only 2.5%. The figure for the US is double that and for Australia it is five times greater. We are way behind in the context of old age benefits expressed as a percentage of GDP.

The average age of retirement among OECD countries is 65 to 66 years. As Deputy Higgins stated, the recent trend was to try to reduce this. As we move towards the 2050s, people who are employed in sectors where back-breaking or labour intensive work is involved will be obliged to work for longer. I refer to those who load materials onto trucks, nurses and nurses aides who work in hospitals and so on. People want an end to such work rather than seeing those who engage in it being obliged to remain in employment for an additional two to three years as they approach retirement. Anybody who reaches the age of 49 this year faces the prospect of working for an additional three years from 2028 onwards.

As already stated, what is proposed is extremely regressive. It is unbelievable that a Labour Minister is sponsoring this proposal. I ask the Minister to withdraw the section because there is no basis for it. As Deputy Higgins and other speakers stated, people across the world are fighting to retain current retirement ages and to improve their conditions rather than extending the period during which they will be expected to work.

See this speech in context