Denise Mitchell (Dublin Bay North, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

What this Bill aims to achieve needs to be emphasised, namely, choice. We cannot and are not forcing people to remain in work. There is a point at which people will retire and the decision to retire must be a personal one but at present people are being forced, through a contract, to retire at a certain age. Leaving the labour market suddenly because of an employment contract does not respect a person's time served, skills gained and experience given.

People sometimes feel they are no longer individuals, but numbers. As we all know, this can affect people socially and financially and in many other ways. We must also bear in mind that some people cannot afford to retire.

The Government has taken away the transitional State pension and has made it clear that it is not going to be reinstated. This places a financial burden on some people who are forced to retire at the age of 65. It is crazy that people who are forced to retire at the age of 65 must go on the dole and be available for work. The Government increased the pension age to 66 in 2014 and intends to increase it further to 67 in four years' time. Will those who are forced from their jobs at the age of 65 have to wait a further two years for a State pension? While the State is continuing to push out the pension age, it is allowing employers to compel people to retire at the age of 65. I suggest that the least the Minister should do is allow women who will receive smaller pensions as a result of the 2012 changes in the pension bands to work to gain more contributions. Having said that, Sinn Féin's preference is for those changes to be reversed. We set out our position in this regard when we proposed a motion in this House in December.

It is clear that people have a contribution to make after retirement. It seems to me that specifying an age at which people may be forced from the workplace suggests that people of that age have no economic value and no contribution to make. This approach, which sends out a signal of "out with the old and in with the new", cannot be allowed to remain. According to the national positive ageing strategy, there is evidence that longer working lives have benefits for physical and mental health. Surely we should not put any legal barriers in the way of the achievement of this source of well-being.

Many Deputies probably received correspondence on this issue in the run-up to this debate. I would like to read from a touching e-mail I received from a lady called Jackie:

I am worried sick about turning 65 next year and having to leave my job. My husband died suddenly last year and I am already struggling with bills on my own. I cannot afford to retire next year. It is not just financial. I love my job, my children are all grown up and have their own lives; my job gives me a purpose and a reason to get up every morning. I do not want to have to leave it next year because of my age.

As we all know, 65 is not an old age. Employers should not have complete power to change people's lives when they reach that age. We are proposing to amend the Employment Equality Act 1998. How can we say we have equality in the workforce when the State allows this discrimination to exist? It must be changed.

See this speech in context