Ms Máiréad Hayes:

My colleagues include Ms Imelda Brown, who is on our executive committee, and Mr. John Walsh, who is the president. I am the chief executive officer. The Irish Senior Citizens Parliament welcomes the opportunity to address the committee on this issue, a critical issue for older people. We thank Deputy Ferris for tabling the Bill. We urge the committee to take action in the term of this, Dáil, the 31st Dáil. I thank Senator White, Deputy McFadden and Deputy Seán Kenny for attending the hearing.

As the Age Action Ireland representatives have said, the Irish demographic patterns continue to be favourable despite predictions of changes in future. We reckon that the 2016 census will produce an opportunity to validate these predictions.

The Bill is brief but cleverly worded and simple in its construct. In September, Senator John Crown introduced the Longer Healthy Living Bill 2015 in the Seanad. The main focus of the Bill was to allow health professionals to continue to work after normal contract. Both Bills focus on capability and people being capable. One of our submissions has said that perhaps all the Bills could be brought together and we could see them in that context.

We welcome the desired intention of the Bill to abolish mandatory retirement ages for people who are able and willing to continue in the role for which they have been employed, as outlined by Deputy Ferris in introducing the Bill.

The element of choice is critical in respect of how long people wish to continue to work. The choice for the individual is made on the basis of whether he or she will have sufficient income in retirement. Some countries allow access to state pensions at an earlier age and also allow people who so desire to continue to contribute for a longer period. Uncle Sam in the US sometimes is not so good, but workers can get their pensions at 62 there and can continue to work. That is important.

At least 50% of people are dependent on a State payment in retirement. Many of them are working on contracts which require them to retire at 65. I bow to the Law Society in some of these matters. Since 2014 the effective age for receipt of the State pension has moved to 66 years. There are people who are retiring at 65 but will not get a State pension until they are 66. Effective from 2021, which is not that far away, it will be age 67 and from 2028 it will be age 68. A mechanism must be found which will ensure that if these workers wish to continue to work they are enabled to do so. Ideally we would seek that on the enactment of the Bill, a new contractwould be given to each employee which would substitute the word “voluntary” for ” 65 years”. To be effective, the Bill must ensure that it is applicable and monitored in both the public and private sectors. We recognise that there may be some cost involved but it is important this should happen in the beginning.

Many in the private sector do not have occupational pension schemes and are solely dependent on the State pension. Late joiners to pension schemes and those with interrupted service due to caring or other duties, in both the public and private sectors, will have access only to small occupational pensions and many in this category are women. We are aware of people who are being forced by their employer to retire at age 65. They are then offered re-employment at a lower rate and on a new contract. These women - we have mainly had contact with women - are clearly capable of doing the job but their employers are getting the benefit of their experience at a lower rate. Their capability is beyond doubt as they are being offered re-employment.

Section 1 as drafted proposes the amendment of section 34 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 by the substitution of subsection (3) and the insertion of new subsection (3). We have a concern that the proposed amendment to the Act in subsection (3)(a) may not be robust enough to secure and achieve the intent of the Bill in its wording of "an employee who is doing a job for which he or she is employed". Our concern is that this qualification may not reflect the evolving nature of some jobs and we would welcome a comment from the drafters in respect of this matter. The wording presupposes regular engagement with employees in respect of the job for which they are employed. Our evidence is that this does not happen all the time in a lot of cases. We would also have a concern that manual workers in particular may be forced to retire early in such circumstances. Ideally we would wish to allow for a position where provision could be made for those with an acquired disability to be accommodated within the same employment but perhaps on a job for which they were not originallyemployed. That is one of the areas on which we would like some comment.

Where an occupational pension is part of a package for an employee, there can be conflicting dates with regard to the contract of employment and the so-called contract or promise to pay them a pension. We have been told on many occasions of difficulties encountered when the deed establishing a trust from which pensions are paid may have a pension payment date which differs from the retirement date. In some cases it is a requirement that access to a pension can only occur when the person leaves that employment. If they continue to work they will continue to pay superannuation costs but will accrue no additional benefit. It is vital that the possible conflicts between trust law and this Bill are fully investigated.

There are three important dates as people approach retirement: the date of the contract between themselves and their employer; the date at which the State pension will be paid; and, if they are in an occupational pension scheme, the matter of whether there is any impact resulting from changes to State pension payments on the amount they will receive from the occupational pension provider.

In conclusion, the Government has published a national positive ageing strategy and we know that, with some amendments, the enactment of this Bill will be seen as a move towards the achievement of positive ageing for all citizens.