Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the chance to discuss this issue. From my previous work experience, where I encountered people who came up against a compulsory retirement age, I genuinely believe workers want the right to make the decision to work on at 65, should they wish, up to age of 70, as provided for in the legislation that my colleague, Deputy Claire Kerrane, and I brought forward, or to retire with access to their pension at 65. This is not at odds with the recommendations of the Pensions Commission, as I am sure the Minister well knows.

While it can sometimes be a bit of a slog in opposition, we mark those victories where we get them. I welcome the acknowledgement by the Minister that the normal retirement age is in fact 65. I have argued this point here many times with the Minister's colleagues and they have attempted to contradict me, but there it is in black and white. This Bill will facilitate employees who wish to continue working beyond the normal retirement age of 65. Well hallelujah, that is the normal retirement age and it is the age at which workers should have the right to access their pensions, or to work on should they so choose. That is what this should be about; it should be about choice.

I am not aware of anyone advocating for the complete abolition of mandatory retirement ages, although the Minister mentioned it in his speech. I am not sure that is an ask of any organisation. In his speech, the Minister referred to the fact that the abolition of any mandatory ages would impose potentially substantial burdens on employers. The Minister did not say how that is going to happen because, of course, it is a piece of fiction. It does not impose any more burdens on employers. In fact, it gives employers the choice to ensure that they have more access to that experiential learning. It gives employers the choice to value their colleagues and to not be ageist. If somebody is fit to work, then they can work. If they are not, then every single workplace in the State has rules and procedures in place to deal with that. If a person if fit, willing and able to work, they should be allowed to work on. In my opinion and that of my party, they should be allowed to work on to the age of 70.

When framing legislation such as this, I request that the Minister consider the case of women, many of them forced out of the workplace through not fault of their own because they had to engage in the business of rearing their children and tending to their families. As they get older, many women will care for older relatives. At that stage, they will have to take time out of the formal workforce, leaving them at a substantial disadvantage. If they had the opportunity to work on and were able to do so, that would be a very productive use of the Minister's time.

I am disappointed at the limitations in this legislation. The Minister should go further. In line with the opinion of the Pensions Commission, I believe workers in physically onerous employments should have the opportunity to retire at the age of 65. I also think that women who are forced out of the formal workforce should have the opportunity to work on, should they so choose. This is about choice. There is somewhat of a paternalistic attitude in this legislation and, with respect to the Minister and his contribution, I think workers are big and able enough to choose. I said this when the Labour Party took that right away from them. We campaigned against it then and we stand against it today.

See this speech in context