Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome those in the Gallery this evening, many of whom played a key role in what has become a major debate on pension age. The Minister of State will know that during the most recent general election, the people sent a very clear message to Government on pension age. While many of us might run a mile on hearing the word "pension", the pension age clearly matters to the public and particularly to workers. The pressure in the general election forced the Government into a significant U-turn. If the Government had its way, we would today have a pension age of 67. We would have people who spent almost every day on their feet or engaged in heavy manual labour unable to receive their State pension until the age of 67 either because they were forced out of their job due to their employment contract and onto a jobseeker's payment or because they could not remain on beyond that age.

There is an issue here. Despite the recent name change, people are being forced to retire at 65 and have to go on effectively jobseeker's payment. Earlier the Minister of State mentioned the importance of income adequacy in our social protection system and for our State pension. Once those workers move on to what is a jobseeker's payment, they lose more than €3,200 a year on what should be their State pension.

The commission's report also refers to poverty-proofing. As those 65-year-olds move on to a jobseeker's payment of €208 a week, they are on a payment that is well below the poverty line. Following the general election, the Government set up the commission which was seen at the time as avenue to make the hard decision for the Government. The commission has now done its work on which I commend it. However, it has left the Government with a decision. The Government must engage with those people who will be impacted by the decision it will make on pension age, including the trade unions. We pointed out at the time that the make-up of the pensions commission did not include a representative for older people or a representative for women. That was a mistake which is why that engagement now is important.

The commission made two important points in its report. While I appreciate the commission indicated a preference, it proposed four packages for the Government to consider, two of which do not include a State pension age increase whatsoever. The commission also recognised that some workers need to be able to access a State pension at 65, something we have said repeatedly and consistently.

Many of the proposed changes to the State pension have been about savings and also this imaginary pensions timebomb. However, nobody who appeared before the committee during its deliberations, including representatives of the ESRI, could tell us what savings would be made by increasing the State pension age. The ESRI representatives told us that because, as they put it, a de factopension is being paid at 65, it is impossible to say what savings are being made. The Government should stop peddling the argument about savings unless it actually has the figures in the first instance, which up to now it has not.

I welcome the commitment in the programme for Government for a solution for family carers. In many cases they are working extremely hard 24-7 for a basic social welfare payment and not much else. In many cases, they are denied a State pension on retirement or they are left on a reduced State pension. It is not good enough and they deserve better. I hope that matter will be resolved.

We have considerable work to do on pensions. We need to ensure that the total contributions approach works for carers and for the self-employed before it is fully rolled out. Auto-enrolment is an important add-on for workers. In many cases they depend on the State pension alone, which is not as generous as the Government likes to make out. It is it is important that we get auto-enrolment right. We need to ensure we are careful about who manages it in particular. We introduced legislation on the abolition of mandatory retirement in the previous Dáil that was passed unanimously but has not been progressed. The Government needs to stop talking about it and actually make it happen.

See this speech in context