John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Yoko Ono once said that some people are old at 18 and some are young at 90 and that time is a concept that humans created. I will begin by thanking the individuals and organisations that have come out in support of this Bill and in support of an end to the mandatory retirement age. They are Age Action Ireland, Active Retirement Ireland, the National Women’s Council of Ireland and Professor John Crown, who also formally brought forward a Bill to abolish the mandatory retirement age. I also acknowledge former Deputy Anne Ferris who brought forward this Bill in 2014.

To put this into perspective, if the rules we allow employers to set for ordinary workers were to be set in the House, how many Deputies would be sitting in the Chamber, perhaps not tonight but any other night? Does any Deputy believe their age impacts on the job they do every day? If the answer is no, which I am sure it is, then how can we allow age to impact on the ability of others to work? It is very easy to make rules in here for others which do not and will not impact on people in the Chamber. This Bill provides us with an opportunity to right this wrong and allow choices for workers. Age does not determine whether a person can do his or her job. This Bill is fundamentally about choice. It is about saying to workers that if they want to, they can continue to work beyond 65 or 66 and that they can retire earlier if they wish and have the means to do so. There are many different reasons a person may choose to continue to work beyond 65 or 66 such as financial or social reasons or simply to avoid isolation. The question to all parties and Deputies is simple. Should workers have a choice when it comes to their retirement?

The national positive ageing strategy published by the Government states there is evidence that longer working lives have beneficial effects on the well-being of individuals and that productivity does not necessarily decline with age. Any decline is easily compensated by qualities and skills acquired through experience. Since I introduced this Bill in December, I have received numerous e-mails and phone calls from many parts of the State. I will mention one from a lady named Ann who e-mailed me about her late husband who was forced onto a jobseeker's payment after being forced to retire at 65. She told me:

My husband gladly paid taxes all his life; he should not have been forced on to Jobseekers. My husband did not make a decision to retire; he had to retire at 65 years of age ... Not only do I have to live with the loss of my husband every day but I live with the knowledge that during my husband’s final six months he faced the frustrations that this system imposed on him.

This is the impact that mandatory retirement has had on one couple and this is only one story of many more.

The scandal of 64 year olds being forced onto a jobseeker's payment for one year as they wait for the State pension cannot be allowed continue. That is a serious issue which came into play in 2012 and which is having a major impact on many people. Currently, there are more 65 year olds in receipt of jobseeker's benefit than any other age group in this State. There are 5,239 men and women aged 65 in receipt of jobseeker's payments. Not only is that a huge problem now, it will be a bigger problem in 2021 when the pension age rises again to age 67. It will give rise to even greater difficulties in 2028 when the pension age increases to 68. We need to address this anomaly now and we can do so by means of this Bill.

One of the greatest challenges facing this country is sustaining the State pension into the future. According to the census figures for 2011, there are more than 530,000 people aged 65 and over, and just 128,000 aged 85 and over. By the year 2046, 1.4 million people will be aged 65 and over and 470,000 will be aged 85 and over. If we look at that from solely a financial perspective, it makes more sense for workers to continue paying into the Exchequer rather than receiving payments from it.

Another very serious anomaly that will be addressed by the passing of this Bill is the difficulty of reaching the 520 contributions - increased from 260 - required in order to qualify for the State pension. The huge increase to which I refer has left many people, particularly women who may have taken career breaks over their working lives in order to look after loved ones or family members, short of the necessary 520 contributions. That is evident from the 36,000 women who have applied for the State pension since 2012 and who are in receipt of smaller amounts than would have been the case had they retired prior to that date. By abolishing mandatory retirement we will give people an opportunity to work and build up the necessary contributions and, therefore, avoid a lesser pension payment and also avoid possible poverty in their older years. Again, this is only a choice.

The Minister, Deputy Varadkar, has reminded us time and again that there is no mandatory retirement in Ireland. However, Irish law permits employers to impose mandatory retirement ages in employee contracts in both the public and private sectors. That is the issue at the heart of this debate. We are aware there may be some minor technical structuring issues with the Bill but having met with Department officials, we are confident that those can and will be overcome on Committee Stage by way of amendments. We will be happy to accept all amendments because the Bill is so important. We are big enough to accept such amendments. The Bill includes exemptions for those in security-related employment such as the Prison Service and so on. That reflects the position in existing equality legislation. Current legislation states that mandatory retirement can be allowed in cases where it is objectively and reasonably justifiable, which leaves scope for a very broad interpretation by the courts. It is for that reason that we want to see this legislation strengthened to ensure that the abolition of mandatory retirement becomes a reality. We owe it to every worker in the State to give him or her a choice when it comes to retirement.

We must end the facilitation of ageism and outright discrimination against workers. This is fundamentally a human rights issue for workers and I urge all parties across the House to support this Bill. As I have stated already, we are open to amendments. We are not saying that the Bill is perfect; it is not. We want to get broad support from across the Chamber and allow the Bill proceed to Committee Stage where the changes that are necessary can be made to end this discrimination that has existed and continues to exist. I am glad to bring the Bill to the floor of the House and I will listen with interest to Members' contributions. I will hand over to my colleague, Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.

See this speech in context