Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I thank Sinn Féin for bringing forward the motion, which we in the Social Democrats will support. Ireland's State pension age was 65 years from the 1970s until 2014. Reforms motivated by pressure from the troika led to legislation which increased this to 66 years in 2014, 67 in 2021, and 68 in 2028. If these increases come to pass, it will leave us with the highest State pension age in the EU 27 by 2028, despite having one of the youngest populations in the European Union.

Changes to the State pension age are happening faster in Ireland than anywhere else in Europe. The changes here have been blunt, brought in quickly with no consultation with unions or civil society and with little consideration for the knock-on effects, most obviously the current situation where normal retirement ages for workplace pension schemes are out of sync with the State pension age, and it could get worse.

Increases to the State pension age have a disproportionately negative impact on the least well-off. Poorer people usually depend entirely, or almost entirely, on the State pension as their main income source in retirement. They are less likely to have the resources to retire early and tend to have shorter life expectancies, so each one-year increase to the State pension age disproportionately affects them compared to people who are better off.

I welcome the motion because it provides an opportunity to reflect on just how important the State pension is to ordinary people. Older people in Ireland have the lowest rates of poverty of any age group. The State pension is solely responsible for this. Poverty among those over 65 years fell from 27.1% in 2004 to 10.5% in 2019. This was driven by sustained and substantial increases in the amount of the State pension during the mid-2000s and underlines the importance of a robust state pension system in keeping older people out of poverty. At any one time, approximately 85% of older people in Ireland would live below the poverty line were it not for the State pension. Instead, that number is generally between 9% and 11% and has been for the past decade. That is not to say that these are acceptable numbers, and the Social Democrats wish to see the gaps in coverage closed, especially for carers and other vulnerable groups that fall between the cracks. However, it is important to emphasise that the State pension is the main source of income in retirement for all but the most well-off retirees. Even for people with decent levels of pension from their previous employers, the State pension still provides the majority of income. The Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice calculates the minimum essential standard of living, MESL, amount for a pensioner living alone was €250 and €312 in urban and rural settings, respectively, in 2019, and €315 and €386, respectively, for a couple. I mention this because the core social welfare payment for older people is in most cases much closer to, or greater than, the MESL for older people, which helps explain why older people experience a far lower rate of poverty than adults of working age and children.

Maintaining the State pension close to the MESL is vital to maintain a decent living standard for senior citizens. The Social Democrats would like to see the politics taken out of the State pension, by having the amount linked to 35% of the average wage.

More must also be done to improve pension outcomes for women. Women are more likely to have to rely on the lower means-tested social welfare pension. When they do qualify for a pension from the State based on their social insurance contributions, they are more likely to qualify for lower amounts than their male counterparts. As a society we systematically undervalue what has traditionally been considered women's work and the role that this vital work plays in our economy and society. Workers in low-income jobs and precarious employment are most likely to be women. While I welcome the gender balance of the newly established Commission on Pensions, gender balance does not equate to gender expertise. Once again we see an unwillingness to engage with civil and social organisations and their knowledge. It will be important that the commission consults as widely as possible, both with pensioners and their representative groups. Any data that are gathered and all submissions should be made public for transparency.

The pension system must allow for great flexibility for those who may not wish to retire, either fully or partially, at the State pension age, in order that they may keep working, defer their pension benefits, continue to make social insurance contributions and build up pension benefits if they wish. The adequacy and sustainability of the State pension must be prioritised over all else. All statistics point to its primacy in keeping our elderly out of poverty. Research by the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing, TILDA, indicates that it is actual income in retirement, rather than the percentage of pre-retirement income that most dictates quality of life after retirement. It found that all aspects of quality of life, including control, autonomy, self-realisation and pleasure increase consistently with household income. This suggests that policies aimed at achieving a certain rate of replacement to pre-retirement income should not be given as much priority as providing a minimum income floor for retirees, something that the State pension is best positioned to provide.

I acknowledge the incredible work by the Stop67 coalition of SIPTU, the National Women's Council of Ireland, Age Action Ireland and Active Retirement Ireland, which made this such an important issue during the general election in February.

See this speech in context