Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

The Minister will learn over the next few years that Committee Stage debates in the Seanad are very interesting. We engage in all types of philosophical meandering and often go down culs-de-sac, especially when discussing social welfare policy. From my perspective, this debate on the State pension is interesting because several years ago, this House took the first step to remove the term "old age pension" from the Statue Book and I will give myself a pat on the back in that regard, if it is politically correct to do so.

The Minister who took the step to remove the term "old age pension" from the Statute Book and introduce the term "State pension" was the late Mr. Séamus Brennan and he did so as a result of a Second Stage contribution I made on a social welfare Bill perhaps six or seven years ago. I told him about a couple who had reached 66 years of age at the same time who came to my constituency office in Mallow on a Friday evening. As I was completing their old age pension application forms, they joked that they did not feel old at the age of 66 and that the term "old age pension" was no longer appropriate. The social welfare Bill happened to be passing through the House a week or two later so I made the point to the then Minister that 70 years or so after the old age pension was introduced, it was perhaps time we stopped calling people of 66 years old. He agreed with me and came back some weeks later and informed us that he would remove the term "old age pension" from social welfare terminology and introduce the term "State pension".

I appreciate from where the mover of the amendment is coming. He is concerned that people expecting a State pension on reaching the age of 66 or 67 will now have to wait. However, we must recognise that one of the biggest disappointments for many people reaching the age of 66 is that they must give up work. They want to continue to work for perhaps another 12 months or two years. A few weeks ago I believe Senator Crown spoke about a surgeon who was doing complicated important work - a heart bypass or something - on a Friday afternoon but the following Monday morning he was told he was retired. Society is changing greatly and we must reflect on the fact that employers who reach the age of 65 or 66 do not necessarily shut down their businesses and say they are pensioners. Many people reaching pension age would like the choice to work for another 12 months or two years and believe they have much to offer not only to their employer but, more importantly, to themselves.

As a first step, we should try to be more flexible. I know this is being foisted upon us as a result of our current economic plight but it might be a difficulty which we could turn into an opportunity. We should not see the extension of the working life as a negative as for many people, it will be a positive.

The Senator who moved the amendment referred to some of the free schemes and benefits which sometimes accrue to people on reaching the age of 66. We do not have to decide on it today, because the change in the pension age will happen further down the line, but perhaps benefits, such as free travel and free electricity, and flexibility with medical cards could remain for 66 year olds even if they are not entitled to draw down their pension until they reach the age of 67 or 68. Once a person reaches 66 years of age, free travel, for instance, could be made available along with the household benefits. The system could be change gradually.

As Senator Healy-Eames said, we must recognise that if the current trend in terms of the number of people at work as against the number of people on pensions continues, the system will be unaffordable. However, on the plus side, we must recognise that life expectancy has, thankfully, increased quite dramatically and will continue to increase.

I believe Lloyd George was Prime Minister when the Old Age Pensions Act was introduced here. I remember seeing an amateur production of a play which I believe was entitled "Spring" in which at the start a youngster rushed home from school with the great news that the pension was payable to old people in Ireland. It dates back that far and the world has moved on since 1910. Thankfully, life expectancy has increased dramatically. A big proportion of people reaching pension age would love a bit of flexibility, although we are talking about the process being mandatory down the line. We must recognise how life expectancy and lifestyles have changed and we must plan accordingly.

These sections face the brutal economic reality that by 2021 or 2028 we will not survive economically if for every pensioner there are only two or three workers. We must be realistic and face the positives also, as people are living longer and many older people would love to remain at work. We should consider introducing changes on a gradual basis to encourage people who are 65 or 66 to work two or three days a week rather than just retiring overnight. The message we now get from people in their 60s is that they do not see themselves as people with nothing to offer society or as facing the scrap heap. They still have much to offer.

Looking across the states of Europe and the world today we can see that senior citizens are on the march, although not in a negative fashion. They are contributing to society in all walks of life. There will be a presidential election here within months, for example, and people in their 60s want to be President. That is laudable and it may come about. We are not decreeing that the President or the Taoiseach must be under 65, or that a person older than 65 can no longer stand for Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann. We are not putting a political bar on people's aspirations because of age.

People of senior years have much to offer society and many wish to remain working for as long as possible. Many employers will have people aged 66 and 67 working for them. I am thankful that society is changing from a health and employment perspective. As the Minister plans for the future we can try to ensure that some benefits accruing to people when they reach 66 - what was considered retirement age - could still apply, although perhaps on a reduced scale if people are still working. Those incentives must be offered. New thinking must inform our politics and legislation over the course of the next decade. The world does not stand still and people are now growing older in a much more healthy and active fashion. They want to continue contributing to society, and we should see that as a positive as much as a negative.

This section deals with the pension age but there must be a much more holistic and inclusive debate about the role of the elderly. Just as we decided to change the term "old-age pension" to "State pension" we must reflect on the world "elderly." What constitutes elderly? People of 65, 66 or 70 are no longer the elderly as they are contributing to society. In many cases they are returning to college and heading up community associations and voluntary bodies. They are travelling because they were never able to do so before, informing themselves and others. We could have a debate on the concept of the elderly.

We require an urgent national debate on the pension industry and what we expect from pension funds. What are people's expectations of public and private sector pensions? The debate should tie into today's discussion. I welcome the amendment as it gives us cause to reflect on and debate what defines "old", "pension" and appropriate retirement ages. We are getting a message from more people that they want to work in a flexible fashion and when they hit the magic age of 66 they no longer automatically feel old, infirm or incapable of work. They wish to contribute to society in an ongoing fashion and that flexibility should be seen as part of this legislation. We are not just discussing penalties here as there is a question of flexibility and opportunity, which does not automatically end when a person reaches 66.