James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome everyone to the first meeting of the Select Committee on Enterprise, Tourism and Employment. Before we proceed, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through. I advise members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate when he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask members participating via MS Teams to confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus prior to making their contribution. Should a division occur, any members participating remotely will be required to make their way to the meeting room within the normal division time to vote before returning to their original location.

As this is the first meeting of the select committee, we have some committee business to discuss. I refer to the Leas-Chathaoirleach of the select committee. As members are aware, a select committee may choose to elect a Leas-Chathaoirleach who can perform the duties and exercise the authority of the Cathaoirleach in my absence. Is it agreed that we will elect a Leas-Chathaoirleach next Wednesday if possible? Agreed. I suggest we hold the election of the Leas-Chathaoirleach of the select committee on or after the proposed public meeting of the select committee on 10 July 2025. Members might wish to consult with one another and send nominations to the clerk by 8 July. Nominations may be made from the floor. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Regarding the schedule of meetings of the select committee, a number of Bills and the Estimates, which end up in the appropriation Bill, were referred to the select committee. Today, we will consider Committee Stage of the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Bill 2025. We have agreed to consider the Revised Estimates for public services, Vote 32 – Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, on Wednesday, 9 July 2025 at 6.30 p.m. I propose that the select committee will consider Committee Stage of the Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Bill 2025 on Thursday, 10 July 2025 at 9.30 a.m. or at 12.30 p.m., depending on the Minister’s availability. Is that agreed? Agreed. There were suggestions that a meeting be held on Thursday, 3 July 2025, but as a number of members are unable to make that date, I propose the meeting will take place next week. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will consider Committee Stage of the protection of employments Bill 2025 at a later date.

This meeting has been convened to consider the Committee Stage of the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Bill 2025, which was referred to the committee by order of the Dáil on 10 June 2025. I welcome the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Deputy Peter Burke, and his officials, to our meeting. I propose that we publish the opening statement and briefings provided by the Minister on the committee’s website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed to group the following amendments for the purpose of debate: amendments Nos. 1 and 2. All other amendments, which are not grouped will be discussed individually.

I invite the Minister, Deputy Burke, to make opening remarks.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is my first appearance in front of the new Oireachtas select committee and I look forward to working with all the members and being available to everyone. My door is always open. I look forward to having a strong working relationship. I congratulate the Cathaoirleach. I look forward to working with him throughout this term to ensure we are enhancing the capacity of the enterprise economy, sustaining the level of employment we have, which is significant, and ensuring our value proposition is very strong for inward investment and protecting the indigenous economy, which is critical.

I thank everyone for the time to progress the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Bill 2025. We had a very constructive debate on Second Stage, and I was encouraged by the broad support across the House for the principles underpinning this legislation. There is a shared recognition that this Bill addresses a real and pressing issue for many workers who are approaching retirement age.

This legislation gives effect to one of the Government’s commitments under the Pensions Commission recommendations and implementation plan. While the broader reforms to the State pension system are being led by my colleague, the Minister for Social Protection, this Bill addresses a specific gap in employment rights, namely, the ability of workers to remain in employment until they reach the State pension age.

At present, employers may set a contractual retirement age but this must be objectively and reasonably justified. However, this framework does not always provide sufficient clarity or protection for employees who wish, or need, to continue working until they become eligible for the State pension. The Pensions Commission recommended that employees should be allowed, though not compelled, to remain in employment until pensionable age. This Bill implements that recommendation by creating a new statutory right for employees to request to stay in work until age 66, where their contractual retirement age is lower. This is a balanced and proportionate measure. It respects the rights of employees while recognising the operational needs of employers. Today, I will also be putting forward two technical amendments, as referenced by the Cathaoirleach, that reflect the changes in ministerial titles and departmental responsibilities which have taken effect recently.

James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister and appreciate that. We will now proceed with consideration of the Bill.

James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, to delete line 21 and substitute the following:

"“Minister” means the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment;”.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, lines 5 and 6, to delete “Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform” and substitute “Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation”.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am interested in getting a sense from the Minister and his Department about section 5(4) which states:

(a) ... is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim by the employer, and

(b) the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

What specific examples are envisioned by the Minister and his Department in terms of the phrase "reasonably justified by a legitimate aim"? Is that defined in law anywhere else? Who would decide if there is disagreement on those aims?

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This section has been worked through with the Attorney General's office. There is a high threshold of evidence required if the request was to be refused by an employer. Obviously then there is the right to go to the Workplace Relations Commission. If the employer is not found in compliance with the law there is very significant fines of an amount equal to the greater of 104 weeks' pay or €40,000. Essentially there will be a very significant threshold. It is very difficult to give examples because employers have constitutional rights. Once the assessment by the Workplace Relations Commission is that what the employee asks is reasonable, then it would be entitled to make a determination on that and obviously the determination is binding. There are different sectors of work. Some sectors are more suited to retiring earlier than others because of the impact the work has on a person's health because of the physical nature of the activity. All those areas will be taken in the round by the WRC should a challenge be made and if the employer refuses to acquiesce to the request by the employee.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To be clear, this would not be defined in law anywhere else.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be at the discretion of the WRC or, if taken further, the courts.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Absolutely. So it would have to judge the threshold of evidence to see if it is proportionate and reasonable to the request made by the employee.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I must admit that I am fairly new to law making. Is it typical to introduce legislation where something this significant is not defined?

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Absolutely. It is, indeed, yes. It is an area where we are trying to balance with the Constitution and the legislative process and ensure that the courts will have their role after in determining the input of the legislation. Our view is that sectors are very different. It is very difficult to be very proscriptive in terms of that right. What we are doing here is codifying the right for an employee to ensure that should they require to work past their statutory contracted date, that the law would be changed to allow them to do that. Obviously the threshold of evidence is in proscribed primary legislation in terms of what they would have to do in respect of the process - the notification process, the determination by the WRC - and, second, the fines if they determine that the request by the employee is not reasonable.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister spoke about the constitutional rights of employers.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What are the constitutional rights of employers?

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are constitutional rights in contract law. For instance, a person already has a contract that is in place with someone and that the retirement date is proscribed as 65 years. However, the law has changed and 66 years is the recommendation, as decided by the Pensions Commission. If an employee decides to work for longer, then that requires deviating from the agreed contract and this legislation provides the pathway to do that.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remain concerned. If a case goes to the WRC or the Judiciary, would the onus be on the employee to establish the violation of the legitimate aim or is it on the employer to defend that it is a legitimate aim?

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The onus would be on the employer to defend the right to refuse the employee's request. We are very clear on that. The threshold is very high in terms of fines and the reasonable justification. I understand that is defined in the Equality Acts as well. We have to ensure that it is proportionate and reasonable and fits the bar whereby we are not impinging on contractual rights under the Constitution but also are vindicating the right of the employee to work on.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will ask a hypothetical question. Let us say a business says that it believes that it is "a legitimate aim" for the business to have somebody of a certain age fronting the house, say, for example in a restaurant or hospitality industry. Could that be used a defence in this particular scenario? Could it be enforced?

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am no expert in employment law but it is very clear to me that the example given by the Deputy is discrimination, and that should be clear to every member of this committee.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Those are all my questions.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 9, after line 31, to insert the following:

“Investigation Report

11. The Minister will provide a report to the Dáil, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, investigating the possibility of lowering the age at which citizens can access their State pension, in accordance with the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, to the age of 65.”.

I will say a few words to explain the rationale behind the amendment. The amendment requests the Minister to "provide a report to the Dáil, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, investigating the possibility of lowering the age at which citizens can access their State pension ... to the age of 65.”

We in Sinn Féin believe that after a lifetime of work, people deserve the right to retire on a pension rate at 65 years or to continue to work, if they choose to do so because accessing the State pension at 65 years, as the Minister will know, was abolished by Fine Gael and the Labour Party in 2013. That is an absolutely dreadful thought for anyone who are on their feet all day such as waiters, waitresses, hairdressers, carpenters, farmers and many other employees. We, in the Dáil, can only imagine how tiring these essential jobs are and we are lucky not to be on our feet so much. Many of us will have done those jobs in our teenage years but to have to work like that up to the age of 65 or beyond is quite gruelling and can have an impact on people's health and well-being.

We are elected to represent the people and I have yet to hear a constituent tell me they do not think they should be eligible for a pension at the age of 65. That is the reason I ask for a report to be in the Dáil within six months to re-examine at that. It should be re-examined in the context of some of the reneging that has been done with workers' rights, the living wage, enhancing sick pay, abolishing the sub-minimum youth rates of pay, increasing minimum annual remuneration for employment permits and pension auto-enrolment. I would like to see this section inserted into the Bill and that is what I propose here today.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for her comments. However, I cannot accept this amendment. The amendment proposes that I report on the feasibility of lowering the State pension age, as set out in the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. This falls outside the remit of my Department. Matters relating to the State pension age and the administration of the social welfare Acts are under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Social Protection. As such, it would not be appropriate for my Department to undertake a report as proposed in the amendment.

James O'Connor (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance at this meeting here today. I also thank the Members for their attendance.

The select committee will now adjourn until 6.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 July, when it will meet to consider the Revised Estimates for public services 2025: Vote 32 - Enterprise, Tourism and Employment.