Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I suspect the dependency ratio, from the point of view of the State to society, will be a lot more favourable. It would not surprise me if we had a much higher population then than we think we will have. It is always in the back of my mind that 150 or 160 years ago we had a population of 8 million. When we debate issues such as one-off housing and the beauty of barren peninsulas now, we forget they were not barren then. However, that is beside the point.

This Bill is a useful reforming measure. The precedent for this type of reform was in the mid-1990s when it was decided to extend full PRSI to public servants. Such reforms can only be introduced for new entrants, which means they take a long time to filter through and have an impact. Anything which would reduce people's current entitlements is difficult to introduce. It could be argued that the reform is a blow against ageism. It may well be the case that between now and 40 years time we will become more flexible about retirement ages, which could be good.

We should all approve retirement being on the basis of health rather than age. People should not be under pressure to retire on the basis of age although they should be entitled to retire if they want to. Equally, those who want to and who are able to work beyond the age of 65 should be able to do so. That would be better for them than doing nothing.

We will have to develop, particularly in the public service, a new kind of career pattern. It already exists in embryonic form in places such as the Department of Foreign Affairs. People there reach the peak of their career, in terms of the importance of the posts they occupy, sometime in their 50s. Their last posting is often not as onerous as previous ones. We can think of other situations where the pattern is changing. In some cases senior civil servants work on a consultancy basis and they are brought in to do specific tasks or to help with a particular negotiation. The public service will have to develop to provide for this.

The provisions of this Bill will not affect any current Oireachtas Members. Nonetheless, by a process of empathy, many Members would have mixed feelings about the situation. Given that I have been a public servant for over 25 years, I am delighted to see for the first time in legislation that Oireachtas Members are defined as public servants. This gives one a great feeling of continuity. On the other hand, as pointed out by the Minister, there is a sharp contrast in the security attaching to the career of most public servants and the lack of security applying where one cannot see from one Oireachtas to the next.

If one had an eye for satire, one could allow oneself a smile regarding the bodies to which the definition of public service bodies does not apply. If one had a sort of Evening Herald cartoon attitude to CIE, the ESB or An Post one might smile. However, I admire all the people who work in those bodies.

There is something objectionable about able-bodied parliamentarians who have moved on to better paid roles than they had in either House collecting a pension unconditionally. Equally, there are people, who through failing to get elected, are in danger of falling on hard times because they have nothing else to which they can immediately turn their hands. I am aware that a severance payment applies once Members have been here for three years. Perhaps there should be a type of safety net arrangement a little like the cnuas in the sphere of the arts to which the 150 members of Aosdána are entitled if they are not earning sufficient income from their artistic endeavours.