Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies have been received from Senators Frances Black, Lorraine Clifford-Lee and Martin Conway. I welcome Deputy Mick Wallace.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, sir.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before proceeding, I invite members to turn off their mobile phones. The purpose of this part of our meeting is to conduct pre-committee scrutiny of the Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2016, sponsored by Deputy John Brady. I welcome Deputy Brady. The format of the meeting is that I will invite Deputy Brady to brief the committee on the Bill. He will present a brief opening statement and I will then open the meeting for general discussion, questions and answers. The officials are distributing a replacement opening statement by Deputy Brady as there were a couple of typos in the one circulated, which he has addressed, so this is the substantive address that he will now proceed to put on the record. Before I invite Deputy Brady to present his opening address, I thank Senator Ó Clochartaigh for facilitating the quorum requirements of the committee. I call Deputy Brady.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair and members for bringing this Bill forward for scrutiny by the committee. I would also like to acknowledge the support, assistance and advice I received from a number of organisations ahead of the debate on this Bill in the Dáil on 23 February last, including Age Action Ireland, Active Retirement Ireland, the National Women’s Council of Ireland and SIPTU.

The Bill seeks to give people choice. It is about one issue - abolishing mandatory retirement and putting an end to ageism at work. Its importance to so many people is extraordinary. Since I first introduced the Bill, my offices have been inundated with letters, emails, phone calls and personal visits asking when this Bill will become law. Of course, while it has been impossible to provide such a timeframe, I want every member of this committee to know that people approaching retirement are holding out hope for this Bill, so its importance should not be underestimated.

It is also important to consider the wider benefits this Bill will have and the issues it will help to address. Abolishing mandatory retirement will mean that 65 year olds will no longer be forced onto a jobseeker's payment, a lesser payment than the State pension, for one year. In 2021, when the pension age will be 67, will jobseeker's payments be extended for two years, given this would be very messy? Abolishing mandatory retirement will also assist people who do not have the necessary contributions to qualify for a full State pension, which is a huge issue. To date, due to the 2012 pension changes, 35,000 older people are on a lesser pension payment than they would have been on had they retired before 2012. It should also be borne in mind that mandatory retirement has been abolished in a number of other countries, for example, New Zealand, Australia and the United States as far back as 1986.

This Bill is not perfect, which I acknowledge. There are a number of technical issues that must be addressed and here is the place for that process to be undertaken. However, although issues were identified by the Government, I welcome the fact it saw beyond those issues to the bigger issue at play to pass the Bill unanimously.

With that said, I would like to address the concerns raised by the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, in his speech when this Bill was debated on Second Stage in the Dáil. These concerns may be shared by some members of this committee today, so I will go through the Minister of State's concerns. First, he stated that multiple pieces of primary legislation would be required in the context of the enactment of this Bill. We know that changes to employment law are not simple and that one change will not suffice. However, simply because multiple pieces of legislation may have to be changed should not be off-putting, given we are here to legislate. I suggest we could easily insert a provision in this Bill that any references to mandatory retirement in existing legislation would no longer be applicable as our new provision would apply.

Second, the Minister of State mentioned the amendment made to the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 to bring our equality legislation more in line with a directive issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union. This is an important amendment in light of this Bill. The directive was issued by Europe 17 years ago. It states that any compulsory retirement age must be objectively and reasonably justified. However, this is difficult to define and it has largely been left to the courts to define what is objectively and reasonably justified and what is not. There have been various interpretations of what "objectively and reasonably justified" may mean and it invariably works against the employee's interest.

We want to balance this out. We want it to be based on clear actuarial evidence rather than interpretation, strengthening what is already there and giving further support to employees.

The retrospective question is key to this Bill. The Minister raised concerns around the setting aside of retirement provisions in most existing employment contracts. The Bill will impact on existing contracts; for many of those contacting me about the Bill, this is an essential element. It does not mean that people will be forced to remain at work; people can retire whenever they want. Instead of being given a set age at which they must retire, employees can consider their own circumstances and make their own choices. It is nothing more than a question of choice. The Minister commented that the Attorney General has advised that applying this Bill retrospectively to pre-existing contracts of employment may be susceptible to legal challenge. All legislation is susceptible to legal challenge. It is up to us to analyse this legislation and make it as strong and well drafted as possible for the benefit of workers.

The Minister said there may be significant implications for youth unemployment. This is the most overused and tired argument when it comes to abolishing mandatory retirement, and one which people fail to back up with any proper evidence. It is also defined as one of the legitimate aims referred to in the EU directive to allow mandatory retirement. In reality, the evidence indicates that reducing labour force participation among older people does not lead to increased employment for young people. Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and Iceland are among the top ten countries in the world for youth employment and also for the employment of older people. Age Action Ireland addressed this argument in an excellent briefing paper on abolishing mandatory retirement and outlined the following evidence: a 2014 report from IZA World of Labor found that there is no trade-off in the employment of young and older workers; higher employment for older workers coincides with higher employment for younger workers; and reducing the employment of older persons does not provide more job opportunities for younger persons. The report also found that measures introduced in Denmark and France that reduced labour force participation for older workers saw drops in youth employment over the same period. The link has also been comprehensively dismissed on repeated occasions by the OECD. It is important to dispel myths in this area. The claim that fewer jobs for older workers results in more jobs for younger workers, though unfounded, is proving especially stubborn.

The Minister mentioned that allowing financial incentives to be offered to employees to cease work would have cost implications. They will give an employer the option to provide an incentive for an employee to retire. That is not an obligation; it is simply providing an alternative avenue. The Minister mentioned PRSI contributions being paid by those who would remain at work. It is far more beneficial to have payments going into the Exchequer than out of it. The Minister spoke about the impact on defined benefit pension schemes. Obviously, legislation of this nature will have knock-on effects but this should not prevent us from moving forward with the Bill. There are fewer defined benefit schemes than ever before and provisions can be put in place to complement the Bill. Instead of setting older and younger workers against each other, we should be trying to maximise the valuable contribution older workers provide to the economy, including making full use of the skills, experience and wisdom of older workers to train in younger and newer employees. For me, this argument resembles those that could have been made against women entering the workforce. Although it might have been argued that women would take men’s jobs, this was not the case. I ask the committee to look at the evidence and not to focus on this flawed argument.

Turning to the Bill itself and examining it section by section, I would like to address a number of issues. The structure of the Bill needs to be changed. Instead of substituting subsection (3) of section 34 of the Employment Equality Act, as the current drafting of the Bill provides, we would like to insert this subsection into section 34(9) of the Act. This is a structural issue and it is not serious. Alternatively, it could be inserted into section 37. The specific section into which the provision is inserted is not of great importance. As I have already said, using the wording "clear actuarial or other evidence" will strengthen the provision, which currently allows for mandatory retirement once it is “objectively and reasonably justified” which I feel allows for far too wide an interpretation. A definition of what "clear actuarial or other evidence" involves is important here and I would like to see that included for clarification purposes.

I would like to see a further definition of what is meant by “capable of doing the job” – physically able to come to work, do the job and carry out all necessary duties. Section 1(b) makes reference to the Garda and Defence Forces, and is contradictory in its current position in the Bill. We do not wish to delete the text here but insert it and again, this is part of a structural issue which I feel can be easily rectified. To clarify, we are retaining the reference to "objectively and reasonably justified" for those in security-related employment .

We remain open to suggestions and amendments from Deputies, Senators and the relevant Ministers once they do not impede the overall objective of the Bill, which is to abolish mandatory retirement and to end ageism. That is its sole objective.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat, Deputy Brady and thank you for a very informative opening address.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Brady for the effort he has put in to the Bill. I would not worry about the fact that it is not perfect. I have never seen a Bill in this House that is, and it is no reason that we should not discuss this very important issue. Looking at the legislative basis of the Employment Equality Act, it outlaws a number of grounds upon which people can be discriminated against in the workplace such as gender, marital or family status, sexual orientation, religion, disability, race, and Traveller status. Age is included among these grounds but the Act states that discrimination on the basis of age is allowed where a person has not attained the age of 18, which is understandable, or has attained the age of 65 or 66. I always thought it was very unusual to have such discrimination permitted in our legal system. It only really applies in the public sector and there have been a couple of examples recently. David Davin-Power had to retire recently although he seemed to be perfectly good health and to be a very competent journalist. I was listening to Michael O'Keeffe on the radio. He is an ophthalmologist in the Mater hospital and he has to retire from practice in the public health system. Both of those people can, of course, continue to work in the private sector. It shows how indiscriminate this is, and I welcome the fact that the issue is being presented here.

The way Deputy Brady has presented it, in order for the discrimination to be justified or not, we will have to consider whether there are increased costs. It appears to be the case under his proposal that discrimination would only be permitted if there was going to be a very large increased cost to the State. How does the Deputy think that would operate in practice? There is also a legitimate concern that if there is no retirement age for people in the public sector, they will never leave. They will be like politicians who get in and never get out. It may then become more difficult for young people to get in to the State sector. I am interested to hear what Deputy Brady has to say about those two things.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have no doubt that this generation of public voices will give good example.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I again thank Deputy Brady for bringing the Bill forward. Plenty of examples come to mind. One thinks of nurses forced to retire at a particular age who are then rehired by an agency to work at the same workplace so they have a pension and might be fully employed through an agency, which costs the State twice or three times what it cost previously when they wanted to continue to work in the public service. This rigid age anomaly should be lifted.

How would the process work in the public service? Who would decide? What would be the process to deal with the difficult circumstances that would arise where someone did not want to retire but there were probable grounds for them to do so? How would Deputy Brady envisage that working within the public service? How has it worked elsewhere?

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Deputy Chambers's overall comments in support of the Bill. We will do away with any age restrictions because age is a figure on a piece of paper. In many circumstances, people do not feel as old as that piece of paper states. To use a terrible cliché, 80 is the new 70 and 70 is the new 60. That is the case for many people because of healthier lifestyles. The Bill will remove any age restrictions in any contract. It will allow an employee to remain in work longer and it just means that people can work longer. They can also retire so it gives people choice. I do not foresee any difficulties in those circumstances. If people in the public service want to retire at 65, it will give them that option and if they want to continue working beyond that age, there will be no age restriction within the contract.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How would clear actuarial or other evidence that it would significantly increase costs be assessed? Who would do it?

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be done by the Employment Appeals Tribunal which up to this point has been adjudicating on-----

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On everything?

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, only where there are difficulties within the employment and if the employer is forcing the hand of the employee to retire. Ultimately, that is where it will lead. The difficulty up to now is that the directive from the EU, which was passed 17 years ago, was only incorporated into legislation here in 2015. The courts have tended to be interpret it in the employer's favour. There have been many examples. In the case of Paul Doylev. ESB International, the court believed that compulsory retirement could be applied to ensure cohesion among all employees so it ruled against Mr. Doyle in that case. In this case, forced retirement was essentially allowed to facilitate promotion within the ESB and that is the difficulty with the interpretation. This is why I am seeking to bring in a higher level of proof where clear actuarial and other evidence will determine these cases if they end up in the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was just thinking that in another walk of life, Deputy Chambers's party colleague might aspire to challenge the late Maurice Gaffney and his mighty performance as a barrister within reach of his 100th birthday. Go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a anam dhílis. I call on Deputy Clare Daly, who does not have the same ambition in terms of membership of this House.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I certainly do not. You must be joking. We want lower retirement ages. Fair play to Deputy Brady for coming in. Our main job today is to say as a committee that this is an urgent issue for loads of people.

It is so because of the changes to the pension legislation.

Trade unions and others fought for years for a retirement age so that workers could retire, enjoy life and not be overburdened by work. One visits America and somebody serves people in a shop - a little granny, who can hardly stand as she gives people their change. She probably has three jobs because she could not survive otherwise. Obviously, we do not want that type of situation and it is probably why in some ways the unions have resisted changes to retirement ages. It was seen as a protection measure for workers. What we are trying to do is balance the situation because life has changed. People's health and expectations have changed, and we need to accommodate people's choices. I do not know how we do this, but it needs to be addressed because of the changes in pension schemes. It was a poor response by the Minister to state on Second Stage that it will cause problems for defined benefit schemes because it is precisely because of changes to pensions that many people are in this situation.

I support Deputy John Brady's point. I would like the committee to move this on as one of our equality legislation priorities. Many people would thank us for it. It is not really our job to correct the faults - the Department can assist us in that regard.

One area that will be important is what being capable of doing the job means. We certainly do not want those who should be at home and are not capable of doing a job being in there merely by virtue of the fact that one cannot get rid of them-----

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A pilot.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----or due to poverty. There is need for assessments. There are reasons.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Politicians.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are reasons that workers should not be in jobs too long. Workers become institutionalised, and it is very difficult. How one address that needs to be factored in as well, but those are management areas. What we are talking about here is removing the fact that one must go at 65 and providing choice for many workers. Ideally, I would like a situation where workers who have the income and the wherewithal are encouraged to retire comfortably at 65, which is the other side of the equation. Many people do not want to work forever. Well done to Deputy John Brady.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Daly. There is no response required from Deputy John Brady. That is an endorsement.

In the absence of other hands, I welcome Deputy Danny Healy-Rae, who has indicated, to the committee.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few awards.

I thank Deputy John Brady for opening up this debate. Many people I have known certainly did not want to retire and, sadly, they did not live very long after retirement. A few of them were depressed and felt bad about it. Others did not live until the day they were due to retire.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should turn his phone off.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very much in favour of allowing a person to retire when he or she felt, as Deputy Clare Daly stated, still capable of doing the job. Some people are still very capable at the point of retiring.

There is another side to it that we must be wary of, for example, where teachers retire and for some reason or other are re-employed. This is depriving young teachers of jobs, but I do not know how we can legislate for that. This must be properly thought out. It is unfair that a teacher retires and has his or her pension, but the next thing he or she is working again and a young teacher who is qualified cannot get a job. If such young teachers get jobs, they may have to travel to the other end of the country and be away from home. They have the cost of that and the job is not as good as it should be after many years in college getting qualifications and jumping every hurdle. They find they cannot get proper jobs. I was with somebody who was home from America the other day. He is 77 years of age and is driving a lorry in New Jersey and New York. He is in perfect health and well capable of doing his job. I am sure if one told that man that he had to give up work tomorrow, he would probably die very shortly after that because he lives for it and he is good at it. There are two sides to Deputy John Brady's Bill.

I again thank Deputy Brady for raising this topic. It is something that is important to many people. We will have to work together to see how we can progress it and ensure that fair play is available to all.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Danny Healy-Rae. Does Deputy John Brady wish to comment on what Deputy Clare Daly or Deputy Danny Healy-Rae have said before the next speaker? It is entirely the Deputy's prerogative.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Many of the organisations I referred to in my opening address, such as Age Action Ireland, have been calling for the abolition of mandatory retirement to give workers the choice. The issues around schoolteachers and others in the public service who are being brought back as consultants to work clearly shows that for a multitude of reasons they feel that they must continue working whether that is for financial reasons or due to issues around isolation or whatever. It could be because of the changes that were brought in, as Deputy Clare Daly outlined, in 2012, where the State pension and how it was calculated was changed, which had a particularly hard-hitting effect, predominantly on women. I outlined that at this stage the changes that were brought introduced in 2012 have affected 35,000 people. They are on a lesser payment than if they had retired prior to 2012. Clearly, there are issues, and that is why some would feel they have to remain within the workforce. This will do away with that problem. Instead of retired people being brought back as consultants, they will be able to continue working beyond the set retirement age, whether it is 65 years or whatever level is set.

I acknowledge the support of Professor John Crown who, as a Senator, tried to bring forward a Bill that would have abolished mandatory retirement. Professor Crown is fully supportive of this Bill also. He has outlined at length the difficulties within the medical fraternity where staff, particularly senior consultants, are forced to retire, and with that goes their knowledge and experience built up over many years. We are all aware of the difficulties in terms of the recruitment of new nurses and doctors.

All of this will do away with the litany of errors that have been made previously. It will address to some extent the issues around the changes that were made to the PRSI contributions and how the State pension is calculated in 2012. Importantly, it will give the employee a say. It will not force workers into remaining at work. Certainly, as Deputy Clare Daly stated, the intention is not to force workers to remain at work into their 80s or 90s, as in the example given in America where a very old lady was working behind a till, but to give workers the choice to retire when he or she sees fit.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien was the next to indicate. If any other members would like to make a contribution or ask a question, I ask them to indicate to me and I will call them in turn.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae raised an important issue. Individuals will decide to retire for various reasons. As Deputy John Brady stated, some may decide to retire on health grounds. Others may have a nice pension that they feel comfortable they can retire on and they might want to spend time with grandchildren or become their childminders.

Then again, there may be other people in those circumstances who do not have family or grandchildren. Their only social interaction might be through work. The mental health side of it is important because if somebody who does not have strong family support at that age is forced to retire, it can affect that person's mental health.

It is important that the objective is not to force people to retire. One of the arguments that was raised on Second Stage was whether it would be possible to stop somebody who was not capable of doing his or her job from carrying on forever. If people are not capable of doing their job it does not matter whether they are 66, 76, 36 or 46. If that person is not capable of doing the job, there are mechanisms to deal with that.

The age argument is also somewhat of a red herring. In the public sector very few people of that age would have jobs involving a lot of manual labour. There would be a very small number of cases where somebody might be physically unable to do a job. It is a flawed argument to say that somebody would not have the mental capacity at 66, 65 or 67 to continue doing a job that the person was doing excellently 12 months previously. Age does not come into a person's ability to do a job. Obviously certain types of jobs would be an exception, but age certainly does not come into the argument regarding a person's ability to work or not.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there any point in Deputy O'Brien's contribution on which Deputy Brady would like to elaborate?

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is none in particular. On the point that Deputy O'Brien mentioned around the isolation when people are forced into retirement, I want to acknowledge the fantastic work of Active Retirement Ireland in trying to make the process of retirement easier for so many people. I acknowledge the fantastic work it does right across the State in helping to keep people active and in breaking down that rural isolation. There are certainly examples where people who have been forced into retirement, and who do not partake in the fantastic work of Active Retirement Ireland and other bodies, fall into that kind of isolation. This will give people the opportunity to make the decision themselves.

It has to be acknowledged that there are different types of work. I do not want to put any employment or job down or anything like that, but some jobs are more difficult in terms of physical labour as opposed to jobs where someone who might work behind a desk. They are two different types of employment. Someone who is involved in physical employment might feel that, because of the nature of the work, 65 is the time to go. Indeed they might feel that 60 is the time for them to retire. Again, this Bill will give those people the choice. If they feel 60 is the time for them to retire, the choice will be theirs. There are different types of employment. Some may require more physical endurance than others, but this gives the employee the option. Employees know best when it is for them to retire. There are people out there in their 80s and 90s who are doing fantastic work. As was previously alluded to, there are some people in their 20s and 30s and questions might be asked as to whether the work that they are doing is of a suitable standard. Age does not determine what kind of level of engagement one has or how good one's work is. People will know themselves whether they are suited to the job.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you Deputy Brady. I do not know the extent of the lobby that members of the committee have been individually subjected to in respect of this Bill, but I can confirm to the committee and to Deputy Brady, that this has been one of the most active lobbies that I have personally experienced, either in my capacity as a Deputy or as Chair of this committee. There has been a significant lobby from throughout the country. In fact I wrote to a great number of people yesterday to advise that the committee was facilitating this pre-Committee Stage scrutiny this morning. I hope that they are watching or have the opportunity to watch a recording.

I think I am representing the views expressed when I note that the unanimous position on Second Stage is continuing in this committee and state that we, as a committee, look forward to the facilitation of Committee Stage of this legislation as soon as possible. We will be preparing a report. It will be furnished to the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality as an ex officiomember of the committee for any observations, but we would urge Government to facilitate the onward passage of this Bill into law. That is one of the most important concluding statements I can make while Deputy Brady is still here with us this morning, not just for his own benefit but for the benefit of the many people I know from the lobby I have received not only from my own constituency, but from across the country. Some are in their 60s and looking at the calendar. It is almost like an advent calendar. They are afraid to open the little boxes, it is getting ever closer, but they are very anxious about this legislation. It could be their last chance to be able to continue in fruitful employment - employment that they love, appreciate and in which they want to be able to continue. On behalf of the committee I would like to send our good wishes to them in the hope that we collectively and individually will be able to assist in that objective.

Would Deputy Brady like to make any closing point before I draw this session to a close?

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman touched on it all himself. I know there are so many people watching this debate. I have been inundated. I do not say that to overplay this Bill's importance, but since I brought it to the floor of the House I have been inundated by people who are turning 65 this year, including schoolteachers who are turning 65 in September and who are hoping that this Bill is passed before they retire. It is not in my power to move this any faster than it is moving. I welcome the words from the Chairman of the committee and the overall support of committee members here, but unfortunately there have been false hopes in the past. One of my own former constituency colleagues, Deputy Anne Ferris, brought forward this legislation back in 2015. It went through Committee Stage, there was a committee report produced and at that stage the Thirty-first Dáil fell, as did that legislation. I do not have a crystal ball to see how long this Government will stay in place, but I do know that this is essential legislation that has the potential to greatly benefit many people and to give them the choice to decide themselves when they want to retire.

I concur with the Chairman's remarks. I hope that Ministers or the Taoiseach are watching this morning. I think it is a money order or a money note that is needed at this stage. I appeal to Ministers to ensure that this Bill is advanced as quickly as possible.

That should be done to end the sleepless nights for the many people who are looking at the calendar in fear of their next birthday, which is sad. People should be able to enjoy not just their birthday, but turning 65, 66 or however many years of age. I urge that the Bill be advanced to the next Stage as quickly as possible.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will offer a last comment. The statistics that the Deputy cited regarding RTE were interesting. It is not that the situation will be so overpowering in terms of the numbers that will choose to remain. Two of 21 opting leaves 19. It is not necessarily that they are going into retirement. Some may be going on to some other form of employment or activity in life. That is a choice, as the Deputy has emphasised time after time. There should not be any nervousness about the potential outworking of this Bill's passage. Absolutely, I hope that the Taoiseach is watching this morning. He should be. There we are.

I thank Deputy Brady for his engaging with the committee today. The clerk will prepare a draft scrutiny report, which will be circulated in due course to members of the committee. As I have already indicated, the Minister will be included in this circulation as an ex officiocommittee member and invited to submit observations or propose amendments to the draft.

The committee will suspend for one minute, which we are required to do, and will then resume in private session to deal with housekeeping matters.