Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

There are different arrangements for different people depending on when they enter these Houses and there are severance arrangements as well. The point is taken. One gap is around long-term illness and invalidity. If somebody has to leave either of these Houses due to illness or loses their seat and subsequently becomes ill, which is a bit more common, they are quite badly exposed so I am not ruling out any changes in the future. I just thought putting them into this Bill alongside councillors would confuse things. The case for councillors is barn door fairness. Concessions to Oireachtas Members and judges would be more complicated and require a bit more convincing so I thought it best not to put the two in the one Bill.

There is an additional €5.7 million for school breakfasts, of which €1.5 million is being earmarked for non-DEIS schools for the first time in a long time precisely for the reasons Senator Humphreys mentioned, namely, that there are lots of disadvantaged children who do not attend DEIS schools. In fact, most disadvantaged children do not attend DEIS schools. They are in the school one town or one parish over. My intention over a period of possibly five or six years is to extend school breakfasts to all schools so that it is possible. I do not think all schools will necessarily want to do it but I want all schools to be able to do it and make it something that is universal. This would cost us about an extra €1.5 million every year for five years. I think it is one of the doable ones. We could give every school the option to participate in school breakfasts should they wish to do so.

Senator Ruane spoke very well about the impact of social class on people's outcomes and how outcomes for people are very much set by things that are not under their control. They are set by the social class into which they are born, their parents and their expectations, genetics and environment - all of those things. At the same time, we should recognise as people and politicians that there are other things that count as well. There is room for free will, people making their decisions and personal responsibility. All of us know many cases when two brothers who grew up in the same house or two people who grew up on the same street turned out very differently so I do not think we should take the view that people are entirely victims of their circumstances. People also have choices, free will and personal responsibility as well and we should not allow people to ever evade them.

Senator Gavan suggested that restoring the State transition pension would only cost about €5 million. That is not the case. I do not have the exact figure but it would cost much more than that to restore it. Senators will be aware that as recently as the 1970s, the State pension age was 70 and in the 1970s, people lived to 72 or 73 so a person got their pension at 70 and might live an extra two or three years. The State pension age is now 66 and people tend to live into their eighties. You would not need to be doing senior mathematics to understand why we have a problem with the sustainability of our pensions into the future. This is why the pension age is being increased. It has been increased to 66 and will go up to 67 in 2021 and 68 in 2028. On the question of whether it is ideological or not, it would seem to me to be just common sense because we need to make sure pensions remain sustainable and affordable.

There is a particular problem that I am very aware of and come across all the time. It involves people who because of their contracts of employment - it is not the law - are required to retire at 65 but cannot avail of the State pension until they are 66. They are then stuck in this limbo for a year when they are potentially on a very reduced pension or jobseeker's benefit. This is just not working. It is not working for them and it is definitely not working for my Department either so I am in discussions with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in particular as to what we can do around that. I met with Unite yesterday which, to give Members a positive story from Northern Ireland, told me that in Northern Ireland, the onus is on the employer to prove why a person should have to retire before the State retirement age. I am going to examine that and see if that is a move we should take in this jurisdiction as well so that if an employer is going to require someone to retire earlier than the State pension age, the onus should be on the employer to prove why that is necessary, not just the employee.

I think I have probably covered most things. One issue I did not cover was mentioned by Senator Higgins and concerned an EU directive on the PRSI status of those employed on family farms. My officials are not fully aware of that either but we would be happy to get the Senator an answer and come back to her. I thank Senators for their contributions and the broad welcome for the Bill and I look forward to engaging in more detail on Committee Stage.