Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I have not heard anything to dissuade my opposition to the changes proposed in the section. People who normally at 65 would receive the State transition pension will now be forced to receive jobseeker's allowance, jobseeker's benefit or a supplementary welfare allowance depending on their circumstances.

The difference between what they would receive weekly if in receipt of a State transition pension and what they would receive weekly if in receipt of the jobseeker's allowance is €42. That is a substantial weekly drop. The State transition pension is €230 and the jobseeker's allowance is €188. In addition, there is a fuel allowance of €20 for 32 weeks. Only a small number of people aged 65 would be entitled to the household benefits package, which amounts to another €20 approximately. This is a substantial amount of money taken from the pocket of people who have planned their lives based on a retirement age of 65 or those bound by a contract that precludes them from working beyond the age of 65. There is quite a number in the latter category. People whose contracts are to expire at the age of 65 will be thrown onto the dole queues.

To avail of the jobseeker's benefit or allowance, one must be seeking work actively. Therefore, 65 year olds must seek work actively for a year. Anyone who is 56 at present and who is bound by a contract stipulating he must finish work at 65 will end up on the dole for two years but still will not qualify for the fuel allowance. Pensioners are being affected substantially.

It is not a question of the age profile because it is virtually impossible to make 50-year predictions on the pensioner-worker ratio and the State's ability to afford pensions. There are too many volatile factors to be considered in that regard, including the levels of employment and migration, birth trends and economic growth. The Minister and others have thrown out predictions based on these. Having said that, it is important to be prudent. If the State cannot afford to pay pensions it promised to pay, it should deal with this through the taxation system rather than by continually expanding the age of retirement. If in a number of years a study concludes women are living until 89 or 90 years on average, must we continually extend the working age? One must consider the effect on people in particular types of employment, especially more manual employment. Irrespective of life expectancy, it must be borne in mind that people become more fragile as they get older. Therefore, their ability to carry out quite demanding manual tasks reduces. While people are managing to live longer, this does not necessarily mean they are living longer in good health. I am thankful that medical developments worldwide are allowing people to live longer, but sometimes they are living longer in illness. This needs to be borne in mind.

There has been a debate on the pension framework. It is sometimes very difficult to get those who will be directly affected to take a proper interest. We noticed this when trying to encourage people to take greater heed of their future pension requirements. We have not had a proper debate on how to change the system to allow people to work beyond the compulsory retirement age, if they choose to do so. Most of the commentary I have read suggests people want to work longer if they feel well enough at the time in question. Many others want to enjoy the fruits of their labour and have time to enjoy their time left. If we start to change the age at which people will be entitled to the pension, they will be forced into fuel poverty, as I mentioned. More people will be put into positions that we noted when canvassing in February. I presume the Minister, as did I, saw quite a number of elderly people sitting in the dark, afraid to switch on the light because they could not afford their bills. There are many people living in extreme poverty and many of those are older people.

I welcome the proposals on insulation and the fact the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, is to examine local authorities. It is a living disgrace that the State, through local authorities, is providing people with substandard accommodation. It has always been doing so. Many senior citizens' complexes that were due for demolition have not been demolished. People are living in damp bedsits that are virtually impossible to heat because they have single-glazed windows. The one call I got during a recent break was from a constituent inquiring about a Dublin City Council grant to upgrade his single-glazed windows. The grant is not available. Although people are trying to improve the stock of the local authority, rather than their own houses, they cannot avail of any grants. This is ridiculous. We need to fix the problems that exist without creating more.

What is being proposed is a retrograde step; other mechanisms could have been considered. We must remember that the jobseeker's payments are below the poverty line. Therefore, anybody voting for this Bill is voting to condemn swathes of older people to poverty from the age of 65, and from the age of 66 in future.

There are a number of related issues that must be considered. Again, a short period applies. From 2012, the number of contributions required to qualify for the contributory pension is to double. Many are aware of this. Some people have not been able to make the necessary contributions and will not be able to do so because they are to finish work at 65. They will not receive a contributory pension but a non-contributory pension. This is an added kick to them.

I have tried my best to highlight to various interest groups the issues that arise. As soon as I got a copy of this Bill and the explanatory memorandum, I circulated them to various groups who raised with me the issue of pensions. The media have been very quiet on pensions, which is regrettable. If they had not been, we might have had a more informed public debate and there might have been a better debate in the House. Saying so is not a slight on the Members present but I find it very strange that, of the 166 Members, only a handful are discussing the fact that, through the raising of the pension eligibility age, pensions are to be cut by the equivalent of 16%. That, in itself, is scandalous.

Members stated during Question Time that there were different responses in other countries. In France there was absolute mayhem and in Slovenia and other countries there were referenda. When a substantial change was being made, there was a public debate in that the public as a whole was involved rather than just key interested parties.

It is a pity we have not had that debate or the opportunity to invite representatives of pensioners, the trade union movement and others to come before a committee to make presentations.

Another issue we have not mentioned to date is the fact that if we extend the pension age to 66, 67 and then 68 we are keeping people in employment for an additional three years. That means there will be fewer jobs at the other end of the age scale because people will remain in jobs that would otherwise become available for young and perhaps not so young unemployed people. That has not been a factor in the debate to date. This is a step towards preventing employment opportunities for young people who could then pay their contributions to the pensions of those people who would retire at age 65 in this instance but 66 and 67 thereafter.

See this speech in context