Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I would like to refer to the wider attack on ageing and work. The human race, in the first world, is living longer but that is sometimes seen as a problem rather than as something to be celebrated. I do not know how often in my short time as a Deputy I have talked about pensions, retirement, attacks on defined benefit pensions, a move to defined contributions and companies, such as Irish Life, that were going to fold because the workers would not go onto a defined contribution. It comes up regularly in legislation and controversial issues. That is because our system sees the fact that we are living longer as a challenge rather than as a cause for celebration. If someone who is a bus driver for 40 years, like my dad was, lives into their 80s but wants to retire because they are fed up working shifts for 40 years, driving buses, putting up with Joe Public giving out to them, they should be able to retire on a decent pension and look forward to a happy retirement and long life because they have made a massive contribution to society. The same applies to all workers, particularly public sector workers.

I want to make a particular representation on behalf of civil servants and people in this House and beyond. We, the elected representatives, are the one cohort in the Civil Service who do not have to worry about their pension, or their future. That gets better the higher up we go and Members love to be Ministers or junior Ministers because they get better pensions. Taoisigh are even more lán abhaile, for life, after they retire, without having done the sort of 40-year job that people like my dad did, and others do. There is, however, a cohort that works in this House and beyond, throughout the Civil Service, that is being discriminated against and we need to take cognisance of that.

Prior to April 2004, civil servants were required to retire at 65 years and from that date new civil servants had no retirement date. In 2013, new civil servants were given a maximum retirement age of 70. I understand that is a choice and that people should be able to work longer if they wish to but there used to be a transitional pension that was equal in value to the old age pension, paid to those who retired at 65 until they reached 66. That was abolished and those retiring at 65 have to go on jobseeker's allowance for that year. In January 2021, the old age pension will not be paid until someone is 67 and, in 2028, it will move to 68.

This is the kernel of my argument. The system is forcing people to work for longer. The choice that may be given to civil servants to work for longer is a choice that they make, that one would absolutely respect, and many people want to stay in work for good, understandable reasons, but all in the Civil Service should be given that choice. It should not preclude a cohort who are squeezed in the middle.

It was announced that the retirement age for pre-2004 civil servants would be moved to 70 but there is no primary legislation in place to do that. A temporary circular was introduced to cover those people. This allowed them to apply to their head of section for permission to stay until they are 66. They had to revert to the lowest point of the non-PPP scale as opposed to the relevant point on the non-PPP scale, subject to hardship grants, which they would have to write in and apply for. Such people were deemed to have been retired and rehired. The legislation does not allow people to work beyond 66 if they so desire if they fall into that cohort. People were not asked if they wished to defer their pensions and lump sums at this point. A suite of options was not presented to them. It might be possible to repay the lump sum at this point. However, it could be offset against a final payment. It might be easier to repay the pension and offset that against restoration to full pay but once the Bill is enacted those pre-2004 civil servants can stay in employment which is rated for pensions until their 70th birthday. There is a mechanism in the Bill for this to be extended to 75. It is extraordinary how the future is envisioned with regard to the amount of work that people are expected to do in their lifetimes.

In this Bill, I need to have the terms retrospectively applied to either the date of the temporary circular or the date of the publication of this Bill. I have been asked that by civil servants in this House and beyond. It was interesting to note that a Deputy from Fianna Fáil made a contribution where he said that this Bill, if retrospectively applied, would not amount to a cost incurred on the State and therefore allowing for retrospection is not going against the intent of the Bill or Standing Orders of the House. I ask the Minister of State and other Deputies to take that on board. If necessary, we can table an amendment to that effect. It is important not to discriminate inadvertently and have unforeseen consequences in a Bill. Choice is the kernel of this. People should have the choice but I often worry that choices are limited when these things are established. I thank Members for their time.

See this speech in context