Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

It is a pity those amendments were ruled out of order. I understand some of the logic behind the action but as I indicated earlier in the debate, it is difficult for Members of the Opposition in that we cannot make changes, even if progressive amendments are involved, because there would be a charge to the Exchequer. Any change to a Bill dealing with social welfare or finance in general would incur a charge to the Exchequer. Committee Stage exists in order to raise issues outside a specific amendment. We can usually submit the amendment again on Report Stage and have it ruled out of order but on Committee Stage we can tease out some of the issues.

One of the amendments deals with fuel allowance and the need to address the issue. Amendment No. 7 sought to ensure that those people of pensionable age, even given the changes suggested, should enjoy fuel allowance. In this case the relevant part of the Bill is section 6 but the amendments were stuck into section 7 for some reason. We are debating the issue out of context as a result.

I will deal with section 7, which includes the substantial change to pension age. It deviates from the current regime enjoyed by most people whereupon reaching 66, they receive a contributory or non-contributory pension, depending on contributions. I mentioned earlier the change which will affect a number of people relating to contributions and I will return to that. The Minister proposes to move the age at which people would be entitled to a non-contributory or contributory pension to 67 from 66 in 2021. From 2028 the applicable age would be 68.

Without going through all the points raised when we discussed the ending of the State transition pension, I remind the House that when the proposals were first made in this House in March 2010, the Minister's party colleague, Deputy Shortall, while accepting the principle of raising the age, condemned the timeframe imposed. She called the timeframe unreasonable. I have mentioned the positions of SIPTU, Older and Bolder, Age Action Ireland and others. We must be very careful because people will be caught in a poverty trap and there is nothing in the legislation to deal with the problem. If there is a contract that people finish work at 65 and are unemployed for a year or two, they will be able to enjoy some other type of social welfare allowance. I mentioned people who would be entitled to jobseeker's benefit, if they had enough contributions, jobseeker's allowance or supplementary welfare allowances.

I also mentioned that there is a substantial drop in comparison to previous allowances. With people forced to go on jobseeker's payments instead of a contributory pension, there is currently a difference of €42 per week. I also mentioned the entitlement to fuel allowance, and this is where the change happens. The household benefits package gives €160 for a television licence, €26 per month for a telephone allowance and other amounts for electricity, for example. The package amounts to between €800 and €900 per year, which means that anybody who becomes unemployed at the age of 65 or 66 years will not receive these benefits. If the Minister is intent on proceeding with these changes, she will need to provide a safety net for those who would otherwise have benefited for the remaining one or two years. People who are older than 65 and living alone or with somebody who is dependent on social welfare should be entitled to fuel allowance. We do not know whether these proposals will have been implemented by 2021 but we can give further consideration to fuel allowances at that stage. As it stands, the fuel allowance is vital given our climate and the likelihood of continued increases in the price of fuels.

There has been a substantial increase in complaints about age discrimination against people in their 50s and 60s who seek employment. Deputy Higgins noted that last year 11,000 people qualified for the State transition pension and that number is likely to increase. Under the rules that apply to jobseeker's allowance and benefit, recipients must be actively seeking work but what incentives are on offer for employers to hire those aged 50 or older? A significant proportion of the people on the live register are those who have worked for 20 or 30 years and are now faced with the prospect of being unemployed for the remainder of their lives. They will certainly find it difficult to compete against younger people who may have better computer skills.

There are consequences when our social welfare code is changed, particularly when it involves the pension age, and we need to ensure nobody suffers unduly. I am opposed to the change in the pension age in any event because it should not be mandatory to retire at the age of 66 and if an individual wishes to continue working, he or she should be allowed to work a decreasing number of hours. At present, young people entering the workforce can only work a certain number of hours per week. The same could apply at the tail end of an individual's working life to ensure employers do not force him or her to work a 70 or 80 hour week. There is nothing to prevent that at present, other than the retirement age cut-off. A considerable number of people would love to continue contributing to the State through some type of paid employment.

By increasing the pension age to 66, the Minister is removing the element of choice which would have made the Bill more palatable to many of the people who have written to me. One of the e-mails I received was from a public servant who was concerned about the increase for pension entitlement, which he regarded as age discrimination. He did not see why people have to work until the age of 65 when the retirement age in France and elsewhere is much lower. As a public sector worker, he felt he had a contractual expectation regarding his retirement age and entitlements from his employer and the State. Being forced to retire at the age of 65 appeared to him to contradict the rule preventing him from retiring until he turns 66. He did not want to be forced out of his job at the age of 65, especially if he will also be denied his old age pension entitlements, and he found it insulting and demeaning to be faced with the prospect of relying on the jobseeker's allowance for a manufactured interim period between leaving work and reaching retirement age.

This frustration might not be expressed as clearly as that of the pensioners who took to our streets but that may change once people realise the full impact, which equates to a 16% cut in pension entitlements. It is a retrograde step because people of that age should be encouraged to enjoy themselves as much as possible. They have contributed hugely and it is not as if they are getting a pension out of the goodness of the Government's heart. A pension is essentially a pot that has been built up over the years by the worker's contributions. If one gives a shopkeeper a sum of money, one is entitled to receive what one purchases. In this case, pensioners are entitled to receive what they contributed over their working lives. I urge the Minister to reconsider this section given that the poverty traps created elsewhere in this Bill are not being addressed. The measure is also contrary to the promises made to those who have worked all their lives.

See this speech in context