Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on today's legislation. I will set out some of they key principles that inform the Social Democrats' policy positions on retirement and pensions.

I had the privilege of working in this area a few years ago when I ran a digital literacy programme for older people in a previous job. People use that word "privilege", but I genuinely did find it a privilege to learn about ageing in that context. It really opened my eyes and it was quite transformational for me to see how much we hold on to these assumptions, stereotypes and negative concepts around ageing and how freeing and liberating it is on an individual level, as well as potentially on a societal level, to reframe our thinking around ageing and how we, as a society, support, value and cherish older people throughout our lives. Obviously, the world of work is just one of the ways in which I truly believe we need to do this.

The key points I wish to touch on today are that older people face major issues accessing the job market, but we reap the benefits of them when they are in employment. We also need to end this assumption that the age people can work until is a decision that should be left wholly to employers. Across industries, retirement gaps cause grave worry and real issues for workers. Several years ago, my own mum ended up in this one-year hiatus situation. In reality, most of us in this Chamber, and outside it, will know someone who has been in this situation of having this gap. We are living longer and if people want to work, then they should not be prevented from doing so. Helping people to stay in the labour market is not a substitute for a social floor. We have longer and healthier years and we need to take advantage of this situation as a society and public policy should address pension and retirement sustainability.

In the Minister's opening comments, the two priorities he put forward concerned the economic sustainability of a pension plan and supporting older people. I advocate switching these priorities around. It is our obligation as a State and as policymakers as well as the Government's to support older people into their older age when they do not have adequate income to support themselves. Of course, this must be economically sustainable, but even reordering those priorities is something the Social Democrats would welcome.

My first point is that older people are facing major issues accessing the job market. If we do facilitate them doing so, we will really reap the benefits of them staying in employment. It is difficult to start a new job at 65 when just one year away from a State pension. It is also difficult to survive without income for that period. It really brings about enforced hardship, which is what I would call it, without any objective reason. In 2023, for example, 20% of 50-to-64-year-olds were living in deprivation or consistent poverty. Keeping people who do not wish to retire in employment, where possible, does benefit us all. We have this double whammy where we get the income tax and we save on the social welfare payments at the same time in respect of people who otherwise would be getting them if not facilitated to keep working. We avoid poverty and deprivation, and this makes people happier and healthier. We also reduce the stress of making ends meet until people reach 66, which is such a horrendous thing to have to face when you are reaching the end of your working life.

Second, we need to end this assumption that the age people can work until is a decision that should be left wholly to employers. Ba chóir go mbeadh oibrithe iad féin in ann an rogha dul ar scor a dhéanamh dóibh féin. This is all about choice, and others have spoken about this aspect already. We really welcome this legislation as part of the picture of making choice available for people regarding when and how they retire. Obviously, this must be relevant to the particular area and nature of work people have been employed in. Age-based discrimination is a real thing. Again, my own experience in that programme helped me to learn it. One of the places we can immediately go to see age-based discrimination is a greeting card shop. What we see when we look at the cards celebrating birthdays of all ages is this negative attitude towards ageing. We all hold an essentially negative attitude towards ageing. People who work in this sector, however, will tell us again and again it is much better than the alternative.

We must challenge ourselves as a society to remember growing old is not a bad thing but a very good thing. It also does not mean decreased capacity. In the context of this issue, where I am talking about decision-making being within the ambit of the employer or, preferably, a more balanced one, objectivity is key. While employers may have a reason, this does not make it the only reason, and does not even make it always a legitimate reason. It is extremely important to have fairness in this process and to recognise the imbalance of power where there is an individual versus an employer. Again, I heard the Minister mention in his opening comments the increased threshold because this is individual rather class-based in terms of the Employment Equality Act 1998, and this is to be welcomed. This is, of course, a decision that has a much smaller impact on the employer than the employee. This is something else we must remember. It cannot be arbitrary.

My next point is that people are living longer and if they want to continue to work, then they should not be prevented from doing so. Mandatory retirement is often seen as a way to ensure a healthy and sharp workforce. We have, however, moved on from that as a society. This is because, once again, this view assumes incapacity in older people, which is simply just not acceptable any more. These are paternalistic measures not to people's benefit but to their detriment. Economic security in retirement is threatened by that gap in the last years of employment.

I also wish to bring a gendered lens to this area of policymaking, because, of course, it is gendered. We have the existing gender pension gap because of some of the archaic and sexist policies we saw in our past, including the marriage bar, where women in their older years now are either at risk of or in poverty because of that gender pension gap and the lack of ability they had to accrue their stamps. Even putting that aside, and it is something no longer perpetuated by existing policy, there still are gendered issues in the existing framework. This is because women are more likely to have taken time out of working life. Women, also, of course, have caring responsibilities they take on disproportionately. They have working roles that have a contractual retirement age, and this can mean less of a pension, fewer savings and further disadvantage. Employment gaps also mean that getting another job to bridge the gap is harder.

Helping people to stay in the labour market is not a substitute for a social floor. Níor chóir go mbeadh faitíos orainn dul in aois. Faraor, mar gheall ar ár bpolasaithe mar Stát, tá faitíos ar go leor daoine maidir le bochtanas agus iad ag dul in aois. Ensuring people can work if they wish to does not allow the State to abdicate the responsibility. Supports for older people are absolutely vital and in today's society, of course, many older people are renters in precarious housing and many are struggling with rising household bills in today's cost-of-living crisis. People, paid and unpaid, work hard all their lives. It is extremely important to acknowledge that much of the hard work that goes on in society is not even paid work. People care for families and loved ones. Sometimes they earn a living, but they always support their communities, their families and themselves. Important supports and services are there for people to thrive because people deserve the right to be secure and have their basic needs met. Again, this is not a privilege but a right. Older people should not be working past retirement due to the threat of poverty.

We have longer healthy years and we need to take advantage of this fact. Is rud maith é dár sochaí go bhfuil daoine ag maireachtáil níos faide agus go bhfuil siad níos sláintiúla. Ní cóir go mbíonn muid nó fostaithe ag rá nach féidir leo fanacht i bpost más mian leo. Ba chóir dúinn tacú le daoine ón gcliabhán go cré na cille. Life expectancy, and more importantly, healthy life expectancy, is higher than it used to be. It is important to address this fact in meeting the needs of everybody. We need a rebalancing of relationships. We cannot just use workers until they are all used up, or deemed to be all used up, and then discard them arbitrarily. We have positive duties on employers, and we need more of these, to provide reasonable accommodations. Age-based discrimination needs to be addressed throughout the system. There are many places where it still exists and it is simply not justified.

Public policy needs to address pension and retirement sustainability. Our tax base needs to be broadened. This is a message we are consistent with as the Social Democrats. We are a wealthy country but our economic model is simply unsustainable. If people are living longer, which we know they are, the intensity of work in different parts of life also becomes relevant. We need to explore things like a four-day working week and better social floors, including perhaps universal basic income. I say this because, essentially, instead of squashing it all into the current model of the middle of people's lives, we need to spread it out better so people can work longer into their older years. With today's technology and advancements, people's working lives should be getting easier and not harder.

We need our labour market and social protection system to adapt to an older workforce who should be accommodated. The threat of poverty should not be used as a tool for encouraging compliance with arbitrary retirement age. Our gross pension replacement rates by earnings are well below the OECD average, at less that 30%, meaning that people are expected to live on significantly lower income in retirement in this country. Oftentimes, people do not have the fallback of downsizing, selling their house and so on, because of the increase in the number of older people renting.

I have a couple more points to make. I endorse the Age Action submission on today's legislation, which I am sure the Minister has received. Age Action does a great job of tying the Bill back into A Roadmap for Pensions Reform 2018-2023. The Social Democrats believe Age Action is right to call for clarity around the disparity between public and private. The Malin judgment also needs to be dealt with, both in the legislation and the code of practice, there needs to be better appeal and redress mechanisms for people and when the Bill is passed it needs to be accompanied by a robust information campaign, so that everybody knows what is available to them.

To return to my first point, there has been a lot of what I would describe as head-in-the-sand discussion around retirement and pension age. The reality is that the retirement age was set at a time when life expectancy was significantly lower. We need to be more creative and more honest with ourselves, our voters and our constituents. Within that, of course we need to recognise that people engaged in manual labour and many other areas of the economy need to be considered and that retirement needs to be made available to them when they reach the appropriate age. However, we also need to recognise that many people choose to work further into their older years and we need to facilitate that as policymakers.

See this speech in context