John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy O'Callaghan and acknowledge and welcome his comments about the Bill. The sole purpose of the Bill is to give workers choice because up to now, the choice has been in the hands of the employer. There are many people who feel they have many more years of work in them. Their decision is based on a number of grounds, be they financial, personal or to prevent isolation. It is about putting choice in employees' hands. We know that with increased health benefits for people, people are living far longer. This was acknowledged in the changes that were made in 2012 when the State pension age was increased to 66. The fact that mandatory retirement was not abolished in line with that is a serious anomaly. People who are forced to retire, against their will in many cases, are forced on to a jobseeker's payment. We know that the State transition pension was in place for a number of years but has subsequently been abolished so there is a serious issue. The Bill gives the employee the choice to decide whether or not to retire. David Davin-Power was mentioned. To use RTE as an example, I have spoken to other employees in RTE. This is an example of the broader problem in the State. They tell me that this year, 21 people in RTE are being forced to retire due to mandatory retirement rules. RTE has systems all those employees must tie into. Of those 21 employees, two want to work longer. The other 19 want to take their pensions and retire and that is brilliant. This is what this Bill essentially does. It gives those 19 people who want to retire from RTE the choice to do so but it also gives the other two people who do not want to retire at this point the option to remain in the workforce for longer.

A point was raised about the fact that we want to apply the test of clear actuarial and other evidence. A point was made about an increased cost for the State. I do not get that point. If an employer could prove that it had been told by an insurance provider that it would cost an additional €20,000 to retain an older manual worker in the workforce and the employer could prove that because its workforce comprised three people, this additional load would make the business completely unviable, discrimination would be allowed on that ground. However, solid evidence would be needed to show that it was justified on those grounds.