Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)

People will not mind if we reminisce in this House. I grew up in an era of relative deprivation. I remember that in my home money was placed near the Child of Prague for the milkman and for insurance and other bills. A sense of thrift existed and a small sum was always left over. Everybody likes to discuss his or her first job and the wages that it brought. In my first job as a law clerk, I received 35 shillings per week. I managed to put savings into the post office and to pay instalments on my auto-cycle. When we were less well off a greater culture of saving existed because we remembered the bad old days and the challenges which arose when least expected. We saw these challenges in our homes and communities. Senator Ross made a valid comment on invincibility. We seem to believe that, because we are well off, difficult times will not lie ahead. We should have used the money released from the saving scheme as a kick start in some way.

A great difficulty exists in discerning between employee and employer. I have outlined the situation as it pertains to employees. Senator Mansergh was correct to point out that good tax incentives are available for pension schemes. That in itself will not persuade people to action. On the other hand, an employer who scrutinises every outlay is not prepared to spend more and will look to the State to make provisions. Unsustainable economic pressures will result from the State providing extensive support. I do not know how to make people interact. The solution does not rest with employer, employee or State alone. A partnership approach must be involved.

Since I was young, I have believed that mandatory retirement at 65 is wrong. It represents a death sentence for many people, not only at retirement but also during preceding years. Anecdotes are often told of people going downhill after retiring at 65 because they were unprepared for the end of a routine and structured lifestyle. This is not a humane situation. Early retirement was introduced for economic reasons. There were high levels of unemployment and people wanted jobs.

We are now in the position of being unable to fill certain jobs. The economy needs people with expertise. While I concur with Senator Ryan that it should not be a matter of forcing somebody to work until he or she is 70, I have no doubt the majority of people would continue working, albeit not necessarily in the same manner. Flexible options, such as part-time hours, should be available. One of the reasons we balk at this is because we see the difficulties of administering it, but we should tackle the issue. If it is necessary to look at the different requirements of people throughout their lives, then we must be prepared to do that.

To some extent, I am in favour of the mandatory approach to pension schemes. The average young person is not willing to switch his or her projected disposable income from its current direction. I do not blame young people because house prices represent a considerable burden. There must be some mandatory element to provisions for pensions but we need both a carrot and stick approach. The incentive and the compulsion must be combined. Perhaps "compulsion" is not the best term. We must be careful with language and use words that are more appealing to people. We need an element of requirement as well as incentive. If we do not adopt this approach, the possibility of making any progress on a national level will be limited.

We have no choice on these matters. There is no point in running away from the time bomb — we must tackle it. We must engage with people on the issue of adequate pension provision. However, the culture and mindset must change if we are to have any success.