Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Many points have been made on this topic. It is a small social welfare Bill and we are debating pensions, which I welcome. No political party has the answer on this and it will take some time to consider what is best for the State. We should certainly be building up a reserve. I sat on a finance committee on Dublin City Council and we met with the Department of Finance. At the time, Dublin City Council was doing reasonably well and we wanted to make provision for pensions within the city council so that it would not come out of current revenue but we were barred from doing it. I am not political point-scoring as this is an issue that will hit this country like a tsunami and we have to start planning for it now.

Senator Brennan asked about compulsory enrolment. In England, one has to actually opt out of a pension to avoid automatic enrolment. Many of these issues have to be debated. A young couple in their late 20s or early 30s have a different set of priorities, such as buying a home, and this is something that will impact on them in 30 or 35 years' time. They say they want to buy the house now and will worry about their pension in 35 years' time. The State will have significant financial challenges and I agree with Senator Mooney that one of the good things Charlie McCreevy did was to set up the reserve fund. It was a good example of forward planning. As things are slowly getting better and the recovery is kicking in, now is the time to have the discussion but we should not be putting up party flags and having major disagreements over the issues. We want a good pension scheme that will provide for the citizens of this country for the next 30, 40 or 50 years and we need to plan for it now. Having a discussion on it now is healthy but it needs to be discussed as a full pension debate, rather than under a social welfare Bill. I would be interested in listening to the contributions to that debate. Much work has been done by the Department of Social Protection to prepare us for the discussion. I believe automatic enrolment in a pension scheme for people joining a workforce will play a key role and we will have to look at how we provide for the pensions, in 30 or 40 years' time, of new recruits into the public sector. Senator Hayden raised some points regarding age discrimination and enforced retirement at particular ages. All that needs to be considered. Previously, regulations were made for gardaí, fire-fighters, airline pilots and so on - we can go through the list - to retire at certain ages. At that stage life expectancy was far shorter. I remember when my father retired. At that time, life expectancy was in the early 70s for men and was only tipping towards the late 70s for women. Now, men are expected to live well into their 80s and, as time passes, they will be living into their 90s. If current expectation for retirement continues, the likelihood is that we will spend longer retired than contributing to the workforce. All that needs to be addressed.

There is a great role for that debate to take place in this House or in committee in a non-party fashion. Everyone is interested in getting the best solution. When we talk about pensions, we are talking about is long-term planning. Part of the discussion relates to building up the pensions reserve fund again and discussing where it should be invested. It should be invested in Ireland in the State sector but there are regulations relating to pension funds and where they can be invested. I am keen to see a wide debate on pensions.

I thank Senators for raising this important issue in the context of the section. However, discussing it in the context of the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill is probably somewhat disingenuous on the issue. I am not referring to anyone in the House when I say that. The question really needs extensive discussion and considerable expert input.