Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I would like to reiterate some of the points already made. I take the Minister's point about people living longer, being healthier and wanting to work beyond the current pension age. We all agree that someone who wants to work, is able to work and has a contribution to make should be free to do so. However, there are worlds of difference between types of employment. I saw my late father continuing as a construction worker in his early 60s when it was not viable for him. However, he was neither sick nor entitled to draw a pension. I saw the impact of a lifetime of manual work and the toll it takes on someone's body. There is a clear distinction between different kinds of work.

Has the Minister looked at this issue in a holistic way? A large number of people are unemployed. Younger people usually have greater commitments, such as mortgages, which tend to be almost paid off when one reaches retirement age. Retraining initiatives designed to keep people from becoming long-term unemployed cost money. Job seekers benefits for a people aged 66 will cost money. It would be far better to have people retiring from jobs at 65 and to have those jobs coming back to people who are at an earlier stage in their work life where financial commitments are higher. The obligations on the State, in terms of supports for mortgage or retraining would be lower. A holistic approach is needed for this.

This is a wrong decision. It is a blunt instrument, in that it places an obligation. I support people who want to work beyond 65 years. I would be bored silly if I did not work and would not want someone to tell me I had to finish work at 65. Many people are like me. However, this is a very retrograde decision. It is blunt and places an obligation. It does not look at working life as a whole and may end up costing the State money.

See this speech in context