John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This is an important Bill, which is long overdue and necessary. It is not without its faults. Announcing his intention to introduce this Bill last year, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, allowed for those in the public service to remain at work beyond the age of 65 under interim arrangements ahead of this Bill becoming law. This meant that public servants could remain at work but only for one year and only under certain rules, including retiring and being rehired for the year, being paid at the minimum point of entry on their relevant pay scale, and continuing to work at a reduced income but not being able to accrue pension benefits for that year. While the interim arrangements allowed for 65 year olds to remain at work those who took that option are not covered by this legislation. That is my interpretation of it. They must leave after the year whereas others will be able to remain until they are 70. I would like the Minister of State to clarify why this is the case.

This debate affords us the opportunity to discuss the wider issue of mandatory retirement for other workers who are obliged by contract to retire at the age of 65. In 2016, I introduced a Bill, which was supported by all parties, to abolish the mandatory retirement age for all workers with the exception of those engaged in certain security-related employment. The intention of that was not to force anyone to continue to work. It was to give people the choice to continue to work. There is a multitude of reasons that a person might want to continue working beyond the age of 65, whether financial or social isolation because that is where their friends are. Changes were made in 2012 for people in receipt of the State pension, particularly women. Some changes are now being made and those people await the letters about having their cases reviewed. That is an example of how people have been affected by the measures taken by this Government. If they were allowed to continue working beyond the age of 65 they would be able to continue to pay their contributions and build up their pot for retirement.

The State has created other anomalies, such as pushing the State pension age to 66, leaving a year when people are forced onto a jobseeker's payment after being forced to retire at the age of 65, instead of getting their full State pension. My party has brought forward proposals because there are two more State pension increases due, in 2021 when the age will be pushed up to 67, and in 2027 it will go up to 68. That needs to be halted because there was no consultation on it.

The Bill that I introduced passed Second Stage but has not progressed to Committee Stage. While this Bill provides for those in the public service to remain at work beyond the age of 65, the Minister of State might consider doing the same across the board for all workers who are forced to retire - many against their will - rather than picking and choosing workers he feels have the ability to work beyond 65 years of age and disregarding others, forcing them to retire at 65.

We will not oppose this for the sake of opposing it. We want the clarification I sought. I hope the Minister of State will be in a position to give that clarification. If amendments are needed, we will table them. It has opened up a broad debate on all who are forced to retire. It is a question of choice for people who want to continue working. They know whether they have the ability to work. A number on a piece of paper should not determine whether a person is fit, willing or able to continue working. They should have the choice, whether they are in the public or private sector.

See this speech in context