The bitter and lasting fruits of the savage austerity that was imposed on working people first by Fianna Fáil and the Green Party and then by Fine Gael and Labour are very plain to see with the brutal housing crisis we face and the shocking situation in the health service but events in France over the past five days where massive demonstrations and strikes are taking place remind us of another bitter and long-lasting consequence of the unjust austerity imposed in this country on working people, namely, the attack on pension rights. It might be of interest to workers in this country that French workers are fighting to protect a pension entitlement age of 62. Some workers in hard physical jobs get their pension at the age of 55. People are on the streets in their millions striking to prevent the pension entitlement age going up to 64.

In this country, we are in a far worse position. In March 2010, the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government made a decision to commence three phases of attacks on pension entitlements. They loaded the gun to attack pension rights and then Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the former Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, pulled the trigger in 2014 to provide that people would not get their pension until the age of 66. As of 2021, workers born after 1955 will not get it until they are aged 67 and, as of 2028, workers will not get it until they are 68. This will mean that workers in this country will be in the worst situation in the OECD in respect of their pension rights and entitlements. They will have to work longer than anybody else to get pensions that, in many cases, have been significantly reduced. Comparisons are, again, worthwhile. In Norway, a person gets a pension at the age of 61; in Sweden, at 62; and in Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland and the UK, at 65. However, workers in this country will get it at either 67 or 68. The age is currently 66. Irish workers are the most productive anywhere in the western world, even when one strips out the impact of transfer pricing.

This was all justified in the name of austerity. Austerity is over. We are now one of the richest countries in the world with the fastest growing economy in western Europe. Does the Taoiseach think it is fair that workers in this country should work longer and harder for less or does he think we should take a lead from what French workers are doing and fight to reverse those attacks on the pension rights and entitlements of working people in this country who paid and worked hard for their pensions?

This is nothing to do with austerity. Thankfully, in Ireland, austerity has been over for more than three years. As a result of that, unemployment is a third of what it was not too long ago in 2012, incomes are rising, poverty and deprivation are falling and, as we know from the figures from the CSO survey on income and living conditions released the other day, income inequality is at its second lowest since records began. We have delivered on all of those in the past couple of years and secured a position where we are one of the fastest-growing economies in Europe, which I thank the Deputy for acknowledging. I accept the back-handed compliment that our policies have been successful but this is not about austerity. The objective of this policy is to make sure the State pension continues to be adequate and sustainable in the long term. We have one of the highest State pensions in the EU and we want to keep it that way and to keep increasing it over the next couple of years in line with inflation if not with wages. That is what we should aim to do.

We also want to make sure that we will still have a State pension system when people who are now in their forties and fifties retire. The way it works is that people and employers pay PRSI and it all goes into the Social Insurance Fund, out of which comes the State contributory pension. Because the economy is now very strong, the fund is in surplus. However, it is projected to go into deficit because of our ageing population and changes in demographics. If the economy was to slow down or another downturn occurred, it would go into deficit very quickly so we need to act now. When this system was set up in the 1970s, circumstances were very different. The average man lived to approximately 68 years of age while the average woman lived to approximately 72.

People paid a relatively small amount of PRSI every year but were only retired for a short amount of time.

The change since then has been wonderful, in that life expectancy has improved. Most people now live into their 80s, which is brilliant, but comes with the consequence that the cost of pensions is rising all the time, and will rise faster than the rate at which PRSI is paid into the Social Insurance Fund. We have to act by either significantly increasing PRSI or increasing the retirement age. We think the prudent thing to do is to increase the retirement age in line with life expectancy. It still means that people get ten or 20 years of retirement, but the retirement age is increased in line with life expectancy. That makes sense because, if we do not do that, the Social Insurance Fund will go into deficit and we will face a pension crisis. We would then be in a position where pensions would have to be reduced. We never want to do that, we want to keep increasing pensions in line with inflation and earnings.

The Taoiseach should tell pensioners who have to struggle with high rents, property taxes and a high cost of living that their pension is wonderful. It is a fact that the countries with the highest age at which one can receive one's pension entitlements are those that were affected by austerity, including Greece, Ireland and Italy. In other countries in Europe, which are not as fast-growing or wealthy, people can retire and get their pension earlier. Why is that?

They are getting smaller pensions.

I am glad the Taoiseach mentioned employer's PRSI because the reason is that employers do not pay their fair share of PRSI in Ireland If they did, we would not be forcing people to wait until the age of 68 in order to get their pension.

Workers in this country pay the same average amount of PRSI as their European counterparts but employers pay about half of that and that is the problem. Instead of forcing people to wait until they are 67 or 68 to get their pension, why does the Government not make employers pay the average level of PRSI contribution in order that people can enjoy their latter years and not have to wait until they are 68 to receive their pensions? Many of these people are going through the indignity of having to sign on for jobseeker's allowance when they get to 65.

The Taoiseach will respond.

Why does the Government not reverse that unjust attack on people's pension rights?

One of the other factors that the Deputy neglected to mention is that pretty much every country in Europe is increasing the retirement age.

They are trying to, but they might be stopped.

They are increasing it at different rates and at different times but every country is increasing their retirement age because every country knows that is how one must respond to the fact that life expectancy is rising. It is a reasonable response to the good thing that is rising life expectancy.

In that case, people should be allowed to retire for longer.

The Deputy has once again demonstrated the fact that he does not understand how the social market economy works. His solution to the emerging pension crisis is to tax employers more, tax jobs and increase employer's PRSI. Has it ever occurred to the Deputy why unemployment is down to one third of what it was when my party came into office? Has it ever occurred to him why we have the fastest growing economy in Europe, or why we are able to generate so many tax revenues to fund the public services that we need?

Workers pay for it.

It is partly because we have kept taxes on businesses and employers low. The other countries the Deputy spoke about have unemployment rates of 10%, 15%, or 20%. Those countries tax their employers twice as much but did it ever occur to the Deputy that might be why they have high unemployment? The Deputy should join the dots.