David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate. I regard reform in this area as something very important, as I stated a number of years ago, although it is not as long ago as Deputy Crowe made out. We have had elections and the formation of a Government since then. At that time and now, it seems we have agreement across the House that this must be addressed. We must get the detail right if the reform is to be feasible and work as intended. I mention again that Ireland does not have a mandatory or statutory retirement age in the private sector. In that space, retirement issues are regulated by employment contracts, so we can put that aside for the moment. If the employment contracts can be set up in a certain way, this issue does not arise. There are mandatory retirement ages in the Civil Service and public service, so we must be clear about the paramaters of the issues we are trying to solve.

I will reflect briefly on some of the issues we must consider before we can take this Bill any further. I mentioned the technical problems with the Bill as drafted and I am happy to note the Deputies across the House will take that advice on board. We will all work on it together and I look forward to the proposals Deputies might bring forward to address some of those issues. We on the Government side will work as well. We must think carefully about the implications for employment policy, including issues of youth unemployment, pensions and public service recruitment and expenditure. I mentioned earlier that matters would include pensions policy and pensions schemes, and the immediate implications for affordability may be positive as persons expected to retire shortly choose not to do so. However, there may be implications for pensions contributions calculated actuarily, which could have the opposite effect.

In employment law, the retirement clause in existing contracts would be made void without reference to the wishes of the contracting parties. The current Private Members' Bill as drafted would allow an employee discretion to retire at the previously envisaged age but leave no choice to the employer. Voiding a contractual agreement in such a one-sided way may be legally problematic. With regard to the labour market and employment policy, the reduction in expected numbers leaving employment may reduce opportunities for young people or advancement opportunities for people at an earlier stage of their careers. The advancement opportunities are something we must think about as well.

Retirement ages in the public service are generally set out in legislation. The key point for Deputies to consider, and which I should repeat, is that the Bill would not set aside such specific provisions in other legislation unless they are amended in this Bill one by one. We would have to go through all the legislation in the Statute Book and amend it as required. It is not simply about producing this Bill, as this will not change all the other legislation. I mentioned the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012 and that arising from considerations at the time, the retirement age for members of the public service pension scheme was linked to the age of qualification for the contributory State pension, which is currently 66 and will be 67 from 2021 and 68 from 2028. It also incorporates a mandatory retirement age of 70, subject to certain exemptions. Again, I should recall that the Attorney General has raised issues with the approach in the Bill and specifically with regard to retrospection. We are living in a time when people are living longer and the sustainability of the pensions system must be addressed as well. That is why the pension age is being progressively increased. This has implications for retirement ages and the Bill provides the opportunity to consider this in great detail, which is welcome. The Department of Social Protection argues that it looks after anybody caught in the arrangement mentioned by Deputies and it does not necessarily end with the social welfare payment.

We must proceed carefully in what is a very complex area. We do not want a Bill with serious adverse or unintended consequences arriving on the Statute Book, leaving the State vulnerable. I close by stressing my personal commitment to reform in the area and, as I have said, I have some history in this respect. People who can still make a valuable contribution to the workforce and can do so should be facilitated in so far as is possible. I hope we can agree a way forward in this complex and important area. There is some work being done, as I mentioned, and I ask that we wait for those reports to be presented in order that we can consider the detail of the information. This debate has been very useful because it reminds us of the work that has been done and the importance of this area for people listening to this debate. As Deputies Crowe and Brady have said, they want to stay at work and for all kinds of reasons find work beneficial. They do so for social or economic reasons and it was mentioned that it is a reason to get up in the morning. There are many reasons and we have been through this many times.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the time and Deputies for their work and attention in the area.

See this speech in context