Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This is an important debate. When people start talking about pensions, the eyes, especially of young people, tend to glaze over. They do not think about the future until they get nearer to that age, as some of us have. Some of us have passed it. I am ten years past 65 at this stage but I am lucky because I have my health and a good job and I am happy with that, but many people do not have that. The number of people aged over 65 at the last census was more than 800,000 people. While, thankfully, people are living longer, a significant portion of them have chronic illnesses and the lower people's income is, the more likely they are to have comorbidity or a series of illnesses that can lead to disability and poor health.

We really need to talk about this. I heard Deputy Gannon's contribution and I welcome this debate. It is hugely important. I hope on Committee Stage we will have an even longer discussion of all these issues. They cannot be taken in isolation because they are tied into longevity, which is what we are talking about, that is people living longer. When the age of 65 was set - I think by the Germans, I will give it to them because I forget which nation it was - most people had passed away by the time they reached 65. That is not the case now. We are living longer and because of that, we have more people retiring. We also will have fewer people in the workforce as we move forward and the burden on the people who are working will increase to support the number of dependents they have.

While I agree absolutely that the State pension is a hugely important funding mechanism for many people, the fact is that it will never be enough. I know many pensioners on the State pension and while it is welcomed by those who have it, they have significant other costs. This debate focuses in particular on those people in employment aged 23 to 60, who do not have a pension scheme. It is absolutely vital with the income they have, which would otherwise be either the State pension, either contributory or non-contributory, that they are in a position to opt into increased savings if they so wish, that is, if they earn less than €20,000. It is mandatory if they earn more than €20,000, but it is not absolutely mandatory. In other words, they can opt in and out depending on the situation. That allows choice and that is wise.

There are a lot of good things in this. We cannot and should not shoot it all down on a narrow base. What can we do to improve the situation? The biggest worry people have as they get older, apart from the cost of living, is that there is probably an increasing number of people who are renting as they get older. Twenty years ago, people aged over 65 - the vast majority of retirees - either owned their house or had bought it from the local authority. That is no longer the case. There will be increasing demands on the reducing income of older people, especially those on lower incomes, to be able to survive. One of the weaknesses in our society is that we do not have adequate or appropriate home care for older people. While the funding might be available with the HSE for the number of people who need home care because of the income they have at the moment, they cannot get it and they end up in inappropriate care, in many cases in nursing homes. We have to have a comprehensive look at all the services for older people and how we pay for them.

I presume that at the end of all of this, 20, 30 or 40 years hence, people will have a greater choice and more income and hopefully be able to survive better than they can now. At the same time, however, we must look at how greater support services will be funded. In this case, we might look at a country like Denmark, which has made radical changes in healthcare for all its citizens. They have free home care for people who stay at home. They have actually closed an awful lot of their nursing homes. They have reduced the number of acute hospitals, but they have specialists depending on geography. They have specialist hospitals that look after acute health. If we are not in a position to provide funding for the care of older people as they age, that is a huge downside of our present system. I believe that the principle of what the Minister is doing is right and I support it. Deputy Gannon raised many very important points in his contribution that need to be thought out and maybe debated more fully here.

If people do not have a pension scheme, what are they supposed to do? They are almost always going to be people in temporary and part-time employment. They are people who work in very physically demanding jobs. It is hugely important that we give them an opportunity to have more income as they get older. One of the big debates in the previous general election, as we here all know, was the fundamental question of increasing the pension age. Therefore, if we increase the pension age, there will be more income for the State to provide services. That is not the case, and I understand that is what people want. Therefore, we have to find further and other means of raising funds.

When the Minister is sitting at Cabinet will she ask her colleagues - I am asking them anyway - to look again at the long-term needs of our population and address them? While this would put more money in Pat's and Mary's pockets, there will still be significant demands on the State, which we will be unable to meet if we have not got the tax base. That is a hugely important issue. To raise people's social contribution in the long run over a lifetime as a proportion of their income would mean that as people get older, they would have the support services in place. That is what is happening in Denmark. It is worth looking at. Denmark to me is an ideal society in that respect, but it is more expensive and there are obviously more demands on the taxpayer to meet that. It is a very welcome debate, however. I am not part of the committee, as such, but it would be important to articulate many of these ideas there.

See this speech in context