Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I pleaded with her not to take the word of her demographers who told her what would happen in education in the following ten years. Everything I said on that is on the record and has proven to be correct. Senator Mansergh is absolutely right. The idea that in 2056 the dependency ratio will be 2:1 is absolutely inconceivable. Are we to run the country by computer? It is impossible to consider that taking place. We now have a population which is touching 4 million, approximately 3.96 million the last time official figures were altered, and it has gone up significantly since then. I think we have probably reached 4 million at this stage, the highest population for well over 150 years. It is important to remember that point.

I disagree with Senator Mansergh about pensions in Europe. I have looked closely at this issue and it is right that the exposure and liability to future pensions in certain European countries is far in excess of ours, but it tends to be far in excess for reasons other than what we discuss. In the main it is outside the public service and vocational areas and is mainly due to people in the private sector who generally have no pension cover of their own in their jobs. I do not say this in an absolutist fashion, but that is a major part of the problem in those countries.

What is wrong with the legislation is that two groups have been hit hardest by it, the professions of politics and teaching, and that is unfair. I wish to put a few points on the record that were not mentioned by the commission on pensions, the Department or the Minister either now or in the Budget Statement. Some significant changes have been adverted to in the Minister's speech which are welcome, such as the one about taoisigh. It is not that long ago since a Taoiseach retired and invested his future in a high profile manner that went up in a bottle of smoke two years later. We all remember that he had to scramble. I do not like the idea of Taoisigh having to be at the grace and favour of big industry or somebody else to give them positions as directors of boards if they do not have income of their own. The issue of their own income is what has wrecked politics in the past. We need people who can see it as a career.

In the past ten years we have looked at pensions for both teachers and politicians. The Bill refers to the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act 1992. This Bill put in place a minimum retirement age for politicians and brought it up to 50. This happened after much discussion and consideration. No Member has mentioned this aspect. Politicians are the most disorganised group of workers and would not have the courage to take this on publicly because they are afraid of the reaction of the media. The pension age of teachers was looked at under the PCW in 1996. Meetings were held at the Department of the Taoiseach late into the night. I am sure Senator Mansergh was aware of them. Conclusions were reached at that stage about retirement at 55 when teachers could then draw down a reduced pension.

Under this Bill, having five years added to the accrual period has disadvantaged everyone. However two groups are excluded from this, namely, politicians and teachers. The earliest age at which politicians can draw their pension has been increased by 15 years, from 50 to 65, and by ten years for teachers, from 55 to 65. The ages we are building on have came from years and years of consideration and experience.

The Leader was the Minister for Education in the late 1980s. A lump sum was offered to teachers during her time as Minister and she made a case for people whom she felt needed to get out of the profession. While I disapproved of the offer that was made, she said the issue should be looked at in such a way that teachers might be able to leave the profession. We were not able to achieve it.

This Bill contains good elements. Under it, people will not have to retire at a certain age. Many healthy people want to continue working and we should support them. Under this Bill, every 64 year old teacher should be able to take a class of 35 lively four year olds in junior infants, or challenge 17 year olds in a leaving certificate class. A physical education teacher of 64 years of age would have to do all that is required at a time when most people of this age worry about prostate problems and arthritis. This will not work and is wrong for teachers.

It is also completely wrong for politicians. While I do not like naming names, I have spoken about this to the people concerned and I am sure they will not mind me saying what I am about to say. Let us consider the current Progressive Democrats leader who has given her whole life to politics. While I might disagree with her politics, this is not the issue. She is the senior Minister in the Minister of State's Department. Were she to fail to be elected in the next election, she would have no source of income for the next 12 or 13 years. Surely this could not be right. The former deputy leader of the Fine Gael Party was not re-elected in the last election. As these individuals are in this system, this measure does not affect them. However, this could happen to new entrants in similar circumstances.

I have spoken to many people from most parties and know there is no support for these measures. The public sector unions and my colleagues in the INTO have often said that the issue of pensions needs to be examined. It may be the case that we need to pay more for pensions. In the interests of equity, everyone should have had their minimum age increased by five years, and not ten years for teachers and 15 years for politicians. I am not going back to my trade union background of simply holding differentials. These ages were established for good reasons. These measures are fundamentally wrong. We will return politics to people who have incomes of their own and will not make a career of it. I appeal to the Minister of State to bring forward changes on Report Stage.

Senator Mansergh spoke about €300 million. If teachers are required to work an additional five years, I estimate the additional contribution from them would be €25 million per year. This does not take into account savings on pension. The figures have not been worked out at all.

I submitted 20 proposals to the commission on pensions. I pleaded with it and said that it was madness to have people in full-time employment until a certain day and in full-time retirement from the following day. I travelled to Boston College at my own expense and met with experts in this area. My union, the INTO, invited an expert from Boston College to speak to people here. We looked at the different approaches to pensions. It has been repeatedly proven that persuasion is the best way to deal with the pension issue. The carrot should be used rather than the stick.

A federal law has been enacted in the United States. While this has not been applied in each state, it has been applied in most of them. It provides for something that would be seen as heresy in the area of Irish pensions and to the Department of Finance. In the United States, a person can decide, in consultation with his or her employers, to work half-time after the age of 65. During the course of the year, this person will draw half a pension entitlement and half a salary entitlement. The person will continue to contribute to the pension fund from the salary entitlement. There is no reason that the law could not be changed so that this could be done here. I believe the Minister is amenable to this move.

Coming up to the last election, Members continually raised issues on the Adjournment looking for remedial or support structures for teachers. Retail distribution of the education service at primary level is almost impossible as there are schools everywhere. It is hard to give less than a full teacher type of service. However, teachers who wanted to go on partial retirement and work half-time could do it. I might as well have been talking to the wall as to those uncreative people in the pensions commission; I got no hearing on these issues.

A huge amount can be done. I assume that section 2(6)(a), which refers to people returning on the same contract, will cover those who leave service on career breaks. I also assume that someone has thought of the equality implications for people who take off for a year or two, not on a career break but for domestic or family reasons, and return in a disadvantaged position. One can certainly line up the cases on that one.

We should also consider a point made by Senator Mansergh which comes very close to what I said about adding five years to everyone's retirement age. When I started teaching, I was 19 years old. That does not happen any more, since the post-primary course is a year longer, as is the teacher education course. Nowadays, people typically begin primary teaching at between 21 and 23 years of age. If one adds 40 years to that to get the full pension, one reaches the age of 61, 62 or 63. That is the appropriate figure. The case has been made by the Government to increase the age on the basis of life expectancy and a variety of other matters. It should be no more than the five years. One should certainly increase the point at which one may take pension benefits from 55 to 60. Full retirement would be somewhere further on from there.

That is a very simple method, and I intend tabling an amendment to include teachers. As no one else will have the courage to do so, I also intend to table one for politicians. That is the fairest thing one can do and reflects reality. I will defend those amendments anywhere. No one wants a situation where teachers are forced to stay in the job beyond the point at which they are comfortably able to do it with their natural energy. We have a job to do. It is interesting that teachers always feel put down. The Senator makes a point about their representatives, but it is strange that the Bill will say that people in Garda college who wish to become guards are not considered new entrants. I will certainly table an amendment in order that those in teacher education colleges are treated the same way. There is only one field in which they can be employed when they graduate, namely, as teachers. Surely the same thing should apply there. Teachers are not popular in the Department of Finance, and such things never come easily in that kind of situation. It is unjust, unfair and iniquitous, and I believe very strongly that we should examine it.

I have gone over my time, and I have much more to say. Two professions, teaching and politics, have been unfairly hit — harder than any other group — and we should at least try to inject some fairness and balance into matters at this stage. The issue of the additional contributions must also be examined. Someone must say something about it. There are people in these Houses who say to me every year that they have reached their full pension age and wonder why they must still make contributions. When I was INTO general secretary, I heard the same. They have changed it here, but will they change it on this one? I see no sign of that. Will people continue to pay pension contributions after they have reached the end of their approval period? I ask the Department and the Minister to re-examine this and be open to the reasonable amendments which I will helpfully table on Thursday afternoon. I hope that people in parliamentary parties will at least take a strong stand on those issues to inject some kind of balance into this legislation or allow a space for that balance to be created in future.