Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

The essential point I am making relates to the gap of a year in provision in the case of an employee who has a contract of employment up to the age of 65 . I cited a ruling of the Employment Appeals Tribunal which provided that because it was custom and practice to retire at age 65, the person concerned had to retire at that age. A problem will arise in the gap year when no transition pension will be provided.

I understand the provisions of the framework on equality and the European Court of Justice in regard to discrimination on age grounds. It seems the onus is being put on individual employers to renegotiate contracts of employment for employees up to the age of 66, yet the custom and practice in those companies can be challenged at the Employment Appeals Tribunal, although such a challenge would probably not be successful as the tribunal has already ruled against such a challenge. In 2014 employees aged 65 will be let go, they will have to wait a year before they can get their pensions and in that period they will be in receipt of jobseeker's benefit but they will not be genuinely seeking work. This area needs to be examined in terms of people's rights to ensure it will not be left to individual employers to arbitrarily decide an employee can remain at work until they reach the age of 66 because it is custom and practice, while at the same time a person who must retire at the age of 65 will have no means while waiting a year to get his or pension at the age of 66.

See this speech in context