Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2014. Fianna Fáil will support the Bill and we compliment Deputy Anne Ferris on its introduction. We believe we should recognise the potential of our ageing population to contribute to and enrich our society in many diverse ways, given their talents, experience, wisdom and the many years of healthy life expectancy which most can enjoy. With that in mind, we believe it is time to abolish the mandatory retirement age in order that people can continue to work beyond normal retirement age should they wish to do so. I am concerned that some people would think we are forcing people who have had long and difficult careers, sometimes involving hard physical work, to extend their retirement age. This is strictly for people who choose to work beyond the normal retirement age. There is no compulsion in it, but it is important to say that in case some think we are trying to do something different today, which is certainly the direct opposite of what Deputy Anne Ferris is saying. Messages get mixed, however, and their original intention is transposed.

The position outlined in the Bill has been our position for some time and that is why we introduced the Employment Equality (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2012 in Seanad Éireann. Senator White has been campaigning on this issue for several years and has been very strong and steadfast in her views. We are very pleased to be discussing similar legislation today. We sought to abolish the mandatory retirement age in Senator White's original Bill. That is the essence of what we are discussing today. It is good that we are discussing it in the Dáil.

The purpose of our Bill was to prohibit the compulsory retirement of persons over 65 years of age and, accordingly, to promote equality between employed persons. This is an issue of equality.

That Bill provided that the age ground for discrimination identified in the Employment Equality Act should include any scheme or contractual arrangement whereby a person is compulsorily required to retire at the age of 65, unless such age-ground discrimination is proportionate and contributes to a legitimate aim. That reflects the spirit of what the Minister said in his conclusion today. They might not be the same words but it reflects the spirit of what Deputy Ferris is saying. In his concluding remarks, the Minister said that our law and EU law allowed for compulsory retirement ages provided these could be objectively justified, and we all accept that. We cannot force people to work longer but there must be objective criteria where there is a mandatory age for retirement. That is the essence of the argument. Some people will retire and it will be appropriate that some people retire as the demands of a job will, in some cases, make it necessary. However, the decision must be objectively justified and people must be able to see a clear rationale. Where there are no objectively justified criteria, it should not apply and it would amount discrimination on age grounds.

Our Bill, which is similar to the Bill in the House today, provides that a person shall not be compulsorily retired at or over 65 years of age providing they meet the necessary health requirements for their continued employment. It also provides a basis upon which age-ground discrimination may be regarded as proportionate and as having a legitimate aim. In some cases it may be legitimate but the grounds have to be specified. It might be necessary because of training requirements and the age ground does not apply if there is a genuine occupational requirement for a jobholder to be of a particular age. The document published by Senator Mary M. White on behalf of the party in 2012 is broadly in line with this so we have no hesitation in supporting this Bill, in spirit and in practice, and will do so on Committee Stage. The Minister said there would need to be amendments and he said that other legislation currently going through the Seanad might be amended to deal with some particular issues. It is important that this legislation comes before the Dáil as well as we do not want a lacuna to be created as a result of the Bill not passing through the Oireachtas.

The majority of older people who have reached the age of 65 can look forward to many years of healthy and active life. Society has changed and people's longevity has changed. Many people are living much longer than in the past because they are healthier and more active. I do not know if the Deputy said 40 was the new 30 or 50 was the new 40 but, as far as I am concerned, 60 is the new 40. People are more active and more conscious of their health and they are getting more careful. This is about choice for older people. They may choose to retire or they may choose not to. I accept the Minister's point that this should not be unilateral and there needs to be an objectively justified basis for it as we cannot have a situation where one party to an employment contract unilaterally has an exit clause while the other side does not.

Many older people will want to continue working after pension or retirement age, not just because they feel fit and active and capable of doing so but for reasons of income. Many people still have significant financial commitments when they reach the age of 65 and if they are fit, well and active and able to do so they should not be deprived of that income. We do not want people living in poverty in their elderly years if they are in a position to continue to work.

There will be opposition to this legislation from some people. I heard the remarks of the Deputy on unconstitutionality but I just do not buy that. It makes no sense and I think that is a lazy response. Sometimes an official feels it is his or her job to find a reason not to do something and constitutional grounds are a hardy annual for this purpose. I do not accept the principle of that point. However, some people will say it is time for older people to move on. Young people in their 30s think they know it all and think people in their 40s or 50s should get out of their way and move on. That is a fact in every walk of life and we are all familiar with young people saying certain activities are a young man's or young woman's game. However, society is changing and there are more older people in society now. This has been illustrated by what happened in Wal-Mart, which was the biggest retail company in the world, though I think it was passed out last year by Amazon in terms of retail sales. We all know of going into a DIY shop and coming across a young person, male or female, who has no clue what we are talking about while an older person will know all about it and can explain. They have wisdom, knowledge and experience so one must ask whether it is more helpful to a business to get a young person in who just wants a bit of short-term work.

There has to be an option in this legislation regarding the number of hours to be worked. A person does not have to work the full 39 or 40 hours and it may suit many people to work 20 hours or two or three days a week as the case may be. Once mandatory age discrimination is gone, a level of flexibility will be required so that people can work hours that suit them on a family-friendly basis.

We must knock some of the criticism of this proposal on the head. Some people will accuse old people of being job blockers but that is exactly the argument that was used before the abolition of the marriage bar for women in the public service in 1973, following our entry into the European Union in that year. We were decades late in getting to that point and we are now getting the follow-through from that issue. In our constituencies we are all meeting people who retired early and do not have the PRSI contribution to get their full pension. In fact, one could say those people who left their jobs on that basis have a case here. In 1992 we amended the legislation so as not to allow leaving on family grounds or taking time out for the rearing of a family to be used against people in calculating their average yearly contribution for PRSI purposes. People who had to leave early were caught in that way and that was a long-term knock-on effect.

Some people will glibly say older people are not up to it any more and cannot perform adequately. We say competence should not be evaluated on the basis of age. That would be a lazy approach. We ask people to be flexible in their approach and not to be lazy in their thinking. Just because a person reaches a particular age does not mean they cannot do something any more. If Deputy Ferris's legislation is sent to Committee Stage, as the Minister said today, we should bring the legislation forward as urgently as possible. I respectfully point out that the Tánaiste is 66, the Taoiseach will be 65 soon and the Minister for Finance is 72. Their ages have not prevented them doing their job and if it is good enough for the national Parliament it is good enough for everybody else.

See this speech in context