Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. It is crucial that we adapt to a changing society. With advances in living standards, people living healthier lives and enjoying better healthcare. Noticeable improvements have occurred in a relatively short period. Thankfully, people in Ireland are living far longer than at any other period in history. The average life expectancy in the 1970s was around 68.8 for men and 73.5 for women. In 2012, the average life expectancy for both males and females had jumped more than ten years to 78.4 years for men and 82.8 years for women. This is altogether very positive but it creates issues that we have to deal with. There will be greater demands on our health service and a greater burden placed on the social insurance fund, which pays out pensions.

In a wider sense, we need to find ways where we can support people who wish to work on and remain independent and active in our economy past some arbitrary age that was set many years ago. The current mandatory retirement age for public servants of 65 years is just one such arbitrary age. It is clearly out of step with current life expectancy rates in Ireland but it is also out of step for the many workers older than 65 who wish to continue to contribute to society through their work. The State should be supporting these individuals, not hindering them. The benefits to society are obvious and clear for everybody to see. People are better able to support themselves and their loved ones for longer and better able to live longer and enjoy more independent lives. People of all ages value the work they do through their employment; be it in the public or the private sector. People over 65 are no exception.

We must not make the mistake of undervaluing people over the age of 65. People in that cohort can still contribute significantly to society through their work. They can provide badly needed experience and knowledge. Think of a college or university lecturer who has built a career teaching young students and engaging in research. Think of the value he or she can offer and which we are currently losing because we have set some arbitrary age which is far lower than what is should be.

The mandatory retirement age is also unfair vis-à-visthe current pension age for public servants, who are forced to retire at 65 and who can only start claiming their pensions at 66. This leaves them with a full year in which they are left with little or no income. This income cliff has already led to many former public servants having to sign on for jobseeker's allowance for that year, which is clearly contrary to the purpose of that scheme.

For these reasons Fianna Fáil very much welcomes the Bill. I encourage the Government and everyone in the Chamber to pass it as soon as possible. It is, however, disappointing that it has taken this long to rectify a matter which should have been easily dealt with. Deputy Calleary and I have been raising this issue consistently for well over a year. As long ago as last December, the Minister announced his intention to resolve the problem. We were told that the heads of a Bill to address the issue had been approved and that said legislation would be passed by the Oireachtas in a quick and efficient manner. The Minister also announced what was supposed to be a short-term interim measure. While we welcomed this measure at the time, we were under the impression that it was, as it stated on the tin, only an interim measure and not a long-term solution.

Unfortunately, for many workers, this has turned out not to be the case. Despite the assurances given to affected public sector workers and to Deputies, nothing happened until just before the summer recess when the legislation was finally introduced in the Seanad. The Minister informed us in March and April that this is a complex issue. He said that time was needed to get it right. While I agree with the latter, I do not necessarily agree with the former. The Bill contains only eight sections and is just over ten pages long. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why the Bill could not have been passed and in place before the summer recess. The problem would have been solved and we could all have moved on. The continued delay only serves to show once again that, unfortunately, the Government responds to issues only as they arise. It makes an announcement, pretends that an issue has been solved and hopes nobody notices otherwise. By dragging this matter out until now, the Government has created a new problem. The workers who were expecting it to be resolved before the summer recess have been left in limbo and are, indeed, facing mandatory retirement at the age of 65. This is grossly unfair and I encourage the Minister to consider making the legislation retrospective to the date on which it was first published. We will certainly be making this an issue for further debate and deliberation on Committee Stage.

The purpose of the Bill is to increase the mandatory retirement age for public servants to 70 for people recruited before 1 April 2004. Section 2 provides a definition of "relevant public servant". That definition explicitly excludes the President and Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, to whom no compulsory retirement age applies. The definition also excludes the uniformed pension fast accrual group, namely, gardaí, prison officers, firefighters and members of the Permanent Defence Force. These are logical exclusions and we have no difficulty with them. However, we do have a problem with some of the other exclusions. First, as already stated, public servants who are forced to retire before this legislation is passed and enabled by the Minister will be excluded from its provisions. I agree that the changes should start at some point but I would argue that the decision not to include the cohort of workers who were forced to retire between December of last year, when the Minister announced the interim measures, and now is misplaced and unfair. An important point is that what is proposed in Bill will not cost the Exchequer any money. In the explanatory memorandum, it is clearly stated that the measures proposed are not expected to give rise to any additional cost to the Exchequer. Why then has Government chosen to exclude the people mentioned? I hope the Minister of State will reflect on this and carry that message back to Government. As already stated, I will certainly be raising the matter again on Committee Stage.

The other exclusion I wish to raise is that relating to new entrants. I would like to hear further from the Minister of State as to why this cohort is also being specifically excluded. I understand that public servants recruited after 2004 have a minimum retirement age of 65 or 66 rather than a mandatory retirement age. Is it this cohort that is explicitly excluded from this Bill? Can the Minister of State confirm whether a mandatory retirement age for those recruited after April 2004 is set at 70 years? Does this mean, for example, that if somebody is recruited today, he or she will have a compulsory retirement age of 70? If that is the case, I struggle to understand the rationale behind specifically excluding this cohort. Perhaps the Minister of State can clarify the position when replying or on Committee Stage.

Section 3 sets the mandatory retirement age for relevant public servants at 70 years. This section also enables the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to increase the mandatory retirement age up to 75 years. The section outlines what steps the Minister must take before he or she decides formally to increase the mandatory age. One of the key steps in addressing the current issue, if it were to arise again, is the consideration of the pensionable age. Our population is ageing and the demands on the Social Insurance Fund will likely increase significantly in the coming years. We already know that the pension age will increase to 67 in 2021 and 68 in 2028. Thereafter, none of us knows what the pension age will end up being but it is fair to say it is likely to be higher than 68. In order to cater for that scenario, it is correct to give the Minister the authority to make the appropriate changes. We do not want a return to the current scenario, which I believe to be quite unnecessary, particularly given that this Bill will not place any charge on the Exchequer.

Section 4 will mean that service provided between the age of 65 and the new compulsory retirement age of 70 will benefit from a pension accrual, subject to the maximum accrual of 40 years’ pensionable service. Section 5 details issues with existing retirement provisions in statutory instruments. Section 6 adds a number of corporate bodies established before the foundation of the Irish Free State to the list of commercial State bodies that are exempt from the legislation and section 7 is relatively technical in nature.

I reiterate what I stated earlier, namely, it is regrettable that it has taken this long to bring this Bill to the floor of the House. It is relatively straightforward and there is no reason why it could not have been done and dusted before the summer recess, as was envisaged at this time last year. We will be supporting the legislation through Second Stage. I have highlighted the issues we would like to debate further on Committee Stage. By and large, however, we will support the speedy passage of this Bill through the Dáil because we believe it is crucial and vitally necessary at this point.

See this speech in context