Ms Mary Murphy:

We know the motivation to remain in work is high. A survey, which includes data from Ireland, found that 30% of people across Europe wanted to stay in work longer than they did. What we find is a great diversity in motivation. It can be a sense of identity, love for the work or financial.

A point we want to flag is that as we advocate for the abolition of mandatory retirement, if we see an increased length in working lives, the State pension needs to be protected as the bedrock of income in older age. People staying at work beyond the traditional State pension age cannot be used as an excuse to weaken or limit the State pension or access to it.

In terms of the negative experience people have around mandatory retirement, we talk to people who are in their 80s and they are well able to conjure up the anger they felt when they were retired at 65 or 66. It really stays with people and has long-lasting ramifications. Long-term studies show that people are negatively impacted by it not just six months afterwards but six and 15 years later.

On the specific issue with 65-year-olds accessing the benefit payment, that is a specific dilemma that emerges from allowing mandatory retirement. It is not the only issue with mandatory retirement. People who are forced to retire by virtue of their age at 67 will still have a really negative experience. It is still ageism, still not evidence-based and still unfair. Law that chooses to focus on the problem of ensuring that mandatory retirement is brought up to the State pension age and ignores all the other problems associated with mandatory retirement is giving tacit approval to the system by allowing it to otherwise continue. It is also giving tacit approval to the ageism that underlies the system.