Mr. Martin Shanagher:

Dr. Quinn has dealt with most of the issues raised, but there are a few that cross over. In respect of defined benefit and defined contribution schemes, the Department, the Labour Court, the Labour Relations Commission on the industrial relations side and others are engaged in that dispute. Therefore, we will not go into the detail of it, but it is an extremely complex issue of which everybody is aware and which is being worked on in ensuring there is a positive outcome.

Deputy Joan Collins spoke about people not being forced out of a job and mentioned that it should be voluntary. It raises the issue of whether one can legislate and simply deal with this problem by requiring employers to keep everybody in place until they are 66 years, 67 or 68. It might seem to be a straightforward option, but it turns out to be very complicated for a number of reasons, one of which is that the Court of Justice of the European Union has accepted that it is legitimate for an employer to have a mandatory retirement age if there is justification for it. It must have regard to public policy aims. The United Kingdom had something approaching it where it had a default retirement age which it only introduced in 2006 and removed in 2011. If one was to try to do this, some of the arguments would concern the expectations of other employees in terms of their length of service, the structure that was in place and when they might expect advancement or promotion which would constitute a legitimate reason for an employer to have a retirement age in order that those coming behind would be motivated to stay with the company, particularly if they had received a huge level of training and the company had invested a huge amount of money in them. Obviously, it is very important to say companies are changing and the responses we are receiving in discussions with IBEC suggest many employers are adding one year, changing their retirement age to adjust or offering a one year fixed contract.

The other issue that arises for companies is that it is not black and white where a company moves to defend its retirement age. If one looks at the terminology used in the legislation, one might think it is almost plain sailing for an employer and that he or she can set a mandatory retirement age, but it must be objectively justified. When cases have come before the Equality Tribunal, it has interpreted in accordance with the most recent CJEU case law which states it is not automatic. The test is a hard one. The bar is high and it quite difficult for employers to objectively justify having a mandatory retirement age. Quite a number of cases have occurred in which it has found in favour of employees rather than employers. As cases go through, employers are learning what is and is not permissible. Senator Marie Moloney has made the legitimate point that it can take a very long time, which is true. It can take a long time before cases are heard, which is probably why we are trying to set up the new workplace relations commission, the principal aim of which is to deal with cases much more quickly in order that if people have issues, they can have their cases heard much more quickly. The aim is to have cases heard within three months.

Even the issues considered legitimate at EU level such as allowing an employer to promote access to employment for young people by setting a retirement age or workforce planning-----