Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I welcome Senator Mary White's comments, which were interesting as always. Some politicians must retire well before 65 due to the whims of the public and as a first-time Senator I hope I am not subject to that law. I also welcome Senator White's comments on the marriage bar and I agree with her that a terrible injustice was done. It is terrible to think people will experience discrimination twice by being forced to retire when they would have liked to continue working.

We are making these comments against the background of this morning's report about the disparity in the work contributions of men and women. I heard that women work on average between 30 and 40 minutes more per day and this amounts to a month more work per annum. As I have said before, when we discuss the interaction of home life and work life the key determining issue is the choice of the individuals involved. People have different aspirations in life and I am wary of a one-size-fits-all approach or a gender war approach that would insist men and women have the same experiences.

Regarding work in the home, it is up to families to decide who will be the primary care giver and who will be the primary breadwinner. Anecdotal and statistical evidence suggests many women want flexibility in the workplace to allow them the option of working part-time, in addition to, in many cases, taking a preferred greater share of home duties. Men need to be educated about this and the area is a work in progress but things are better than they used to be in terms of the participation of men in home life.

We can draw a parallel between how people of working age balance home life and work life and the issue of retirement. There are demographic reasons the formal age of retirement may be pushed outwards but we must aspire to empower people in their individual decisions. Some people will want to continue working well after the age of 65 and politicians are frequently among that group, but there are also people who look forward to retirement. These people may have made a huge contribution to society and seek to retire for health or other reasons. It is important that we do not saddle an older generation with duties deriving from society's economic imperatives. We must always have regard for the contributions people have made over many years to the well-being of society in terms of raising families, the transmission of positive values and the economic development of the country.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and listened with interest to what she said. There is a great danger in society that we might view the growing number of older persons as a demographic time bomb. I may need to re-examine the statements of Dr. Brady of University College Dublin on an "age quake". I join Professor Des O'Neill and the Irish Gerontological Society in warning against an apocalyptic approach to demographics that presents the growth in the number of older persons in society as a problem. We must move from thinking in terms of a demographic time bomb to thinking in terms of a demographic dividend that allows for the huge contribution older people made in the past, are making and will make in the future. They contribute not only to the fabric of life but also to the economy.

As a symbolic example of what I speak of, two concerts were held in Dublin last weekend, by Leonard Cohen and Neil Diamond, and over 100,000 people attended. I was at the Neil Diamond concert, as was a retired Taoiseach who got a big cheer when the camera panned on to him. This is an example of older people being very active in society to the huge cultural benefit of us all. Many older people actively enjoyed and participated in those concerts and I do not mean that in a patronising sense but merely as an example of the great importance of the participation of older people in society.

I am very interested in the views of the Irish Gerontological Society because in a recent response to the Green Paper on pensions it expressed concern that the ten-year framework social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, failed to give as strong a prominence to intergenerational ties and solidarity as the United Nations did. The Green Paper on pensions refers to intergenerational fairness and equity but that is in the narrow context of raising the pension age and offers a limited, one-way perspective. There would need to be a two-way perspective on intergenerational solidarity. The report of the National Economic and Social Council comments on solidarity, I note, but not specifically in an intergenerational context. It is in that context that the Irish Gerontological Society goes on to critique apocalyptic demography, as well as the misapplication of the concept of dependency and oversimplified classifications of older people as dependent, rather in the way that children are classified as such. It describes this as a vexing tendency. It goes on to note the many hidden ways in which older people contribute to the economy, particularly the fact that private transfers — including education funding and bequests, among a range of others — substantially offset public funds that are directed towards older people. It mentions the fact, rightly, that older people contribute to their own care financially over and above their entitlements and talks about the number of older people who are actively involved as care givers. It is therefore important that in all our debates about practical economic issues — there is nothing more practical and economic than a debate on pensions — that we pursue a vision of society that prioritises intergenerational solidarity and an awareness and respect for the cultural and practical contribution being made by older people in society, as opposed to focusing on older people as being in various states of dependency.

There are many older people who have particular needs. I would like to mention to the Minister of State, who might have a word with her colleagues in Government, an amendment I tabled to the Broadcasting Bill on Committee State with regard to the establishment of a heritage television channel. The focus in Towards 2016 is on life cycle. If we are to have provision for niche but worthwhile areas such as an Irish film channel or a Houses of the Oireachtas channel, why should we not have a television channel that would focus on the life cycle or life span and particularly on the needs of older persons? I will continue to advocate this. I suggested that such a channel would provide programming that at the moment we have only in spots. It should be possible to have one channel which, throughout the day, would show documentaries and programmes drawing on our considerable archival material or showcasing Irish tradition and culture. It would have programmes focused on the interests, needs and tastes of older people. I would be careful of confining it to older people because such a channel would be also of interest to the Irish abroad, tourists and others interested in heritage and culture. I am aware of the fact that there are more than 25,000 people in nursing homes. I have experience of visiting nursing homes and I wondered why those living there must watch "Judge Judy" or "The Bill".