Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Labour Party supports the motion. I want to raise some issues in respect of the Pensions Commission, which the Minister of State has spoken extensively about. We are struck by the IBEC submission. One of its key recommendations calls on the Government to remove the necessity to objectively justify a post-retirement fixed-term contract. We believe that this is a retrograde step that would give employers the green light to discriminate against workers on the grounds of age. While plenty of sticks and stones are thrown at the Labour Party about our time in government, we must remember that it was a Labour Party Minister of State, my colleague, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, who introduced vital legislation in 2015 to protect working people and bring laws to prevent age discrimination in line with European case law. We must protect the provisions set out in section 6(3)(c) of the Employment Equality Act at all costs. This vital legislation prohibits employers from "offering" a post-retirement fixed-term contract without any requirement to objectively justify it.

It is vital that is protected. A move though to row back on this or amend this legislation, as some are calling for - I hope the Government will resist those calls - would set back workers' rights and equality rights by decades, which would be unacceptable.

The reality is that many workers wish to remain in their employment until at least their State pension becomes payable due to their continued ability to do their job and that they would see a significant drop in their income if forced to retire. The recently introduced benefit payment does not address this issue. Let us call a spade a spade here and be honest with each other about the debate that we are having tonight about the benefit payment. It does not address the issue. Addressing this issue requires legislative change.

The Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2015 state that an employer cannot discriminate against a worker on the grounds of age. The Act allows, but crucially does not require, employers to set a mandatory retirement age for workers provided it can objectively be justified by legitimate aims. Therefore, where we have legislation which allows for workers to be retired by a particular age, it will not be regarded as age discrimination if it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim. However, such an aim most include legitimate employment policy, labour market and training objectives for it to be in line with the EU's directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation. That is the law. That is where we are and there can be no going back on that. These decisions must be justified rather than the decisions of individual employers. The Labour Party believes that is missing from tonight's motion, although it addresses it to a certain extent. As well-meaning as it is, it falls short on a crucial element the Stop67 campaigners are calling for, which is a statutory right to remain in the job.

We are supporting the motion. I listened very carefully to the Sinn Féin contributors to the debate. De factoSinn Féin is calling the retirement age to move to 65. I do not think there is any ambiguity about that. That is my understanding of it. The motion states in the first line that "workers in the State make a considerable tax contribution throughout their working life and should have the right to access the full pension rate of payment when they retire at age 65". In other words, it wants to move the retirement age from 66 down to 65. The final Sinn Féin speaker might clarify this for us. The motion calls on the Government to "commit to restoring the State Pension Transition payment for those retiring at 65 years of age". I may be misinterpreting the motion but I ask for clarification. If the motion is calling for the retirement age be reduced by 65, I imagine it negates the need for the State pension transition payment to be reintroduced at 65 years of age. However, I may be missing some logic there.

We support the motion and we support the work of the Pensions Commission. We need to be cognisant of what is already in law. When the Pensions Commission makes its final deliberations, hopefully it will not recommend any unwinding of pre-existing law particularly in respect of arguments Stop67 has so stridently put forward, and which we have all adhered to. The Employment Equality Act is existing robust legislation. We need to ensure that fixed-term contracts are dealt with properly in the context of the Pensions Commission. We all wait with anticipation for the report of that commission. Ultimately, it will be for this House to decide where it goes thereafter. The Labour Party is setting out its stall tonight in respect of post-retirement fixed-term contracts because we believe that issue will be very high on the agenda.

We support the motion; there is no ambiguity about that. I just want to raise a minute, but significant issue on the benefit payment. The application process can be cumbersome for some people. On 15 June I asked the Minister if she would make the form for the benefit payment for 65-year-olds available to download and print, rather than on request only. The Minister responded to say that people can apply online, which is fine and many people will apply online. For those not able to apply online, the alternative is to make a request to the local Intreo office or through the Department's income-support helpline and it is posted to the applicant. If the form could available online for people to print it off and make their application it would help a significant number of people. It is a relatively minor issue. We do not understand the logic of not being able to print off the form itself. However, a significant cohort of people are not able to do that at the moment. I would be very grateful if that could be considered.

See this speech in context