Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

On one level, this is a very straightforward Bill. I will try to stick to the topic, although the Ceann Comhairle might give me some leeway. I have read that this is an updated version of the earlier touted Employment (Restriction of Certain Mandatory Retirement Ages) Bill 2024, which was here before I was elected in November. The Bill delivers a statutory provision that sets out that an employer may not enforce a contractual retirement age that is below the State pension age if the employee does not consent to retire. It is essentially a way of bridging the income gap for people who are forced to leave work before they reach the age of 66. I apologise if the Minister of State is getting bored because she would have heard a lot of people say that and has probably has it learned off by heart. It is such a simplistic Bill in that sense.

As Ministers have pointed out, this is one of the Government's key responses to the Pensions Commission's recommendations and implementation plan, going back as far as 2021. It allows but in no way compels an employee to stay in employment until the State pension age of 66. It is worth referencing - I am not sure if others referenced it - that it differs from the 2024 Bill in that it clearly enables the prosecution of individuals and bodies corporate. For the purposes of this Act, two employers shall be taken to be associated if one is a body corporate of which the other, whether directly or indirectly, has control or if both are bodies corporate of which a third person, whether directly or indirectly, has control. Insofar as it does not compel employees to keep working up to the age of 66 but allows them to do so if they wish rather than being forced by an employer, it is a worthy piece of legislation.

Why then would bodies such as Age Action Ireland call it a weak Bill? They do so because it fails to address many of the fundamental challenges facing older people in the workplace in the modern age. Others who have spoken on this legislation echo my opinion that this Bill fails not because of what is in it but because of what is not in it. That is why some Members may have stretched the leeway in terms of talking about other issues but there are some direct things that are not in the Bill that are relevant. Unless someone is self-employed or is otherwise in a position to make demands by dint of a job shortage or some special skill that makes him or her indispensable, once he or she hits his or her 66th birthday, he or she is deemed surplus to requirements. This is separate from the debate on whether we can pay for future pension needs and whether the retirement age needs to be increased as a result. That is a very controversial debate that we probably need to have again.

The deficit I am talking about relates to whether there should be a mandatory retirement age where the person is shown to have continued high performance allied to invaluable professional and lived experience and is contributing in a meaningful way. At a time when we are at or near full employment and need to import workers in many sectors, there is an argument that we should not set an arbitrary age ban. We know that so many older people lead active and healthy lives way beyond the current retirement age. We know that forcing people to leave something fulfilling and meaningful that provides a social outlet can have many negative consequences for physical and mental health. This is before we look at the damage caused by the financial aspects. To quote Age Action Ireland:

Mandatory retirement is based on gross and insulting stereotypes about ageing. It is experienced by workers as a humiliating and dehumanizing injustice. It takes away our autonomy and our control over how and when we retire, which is a major life event. People who had no choice in retiring report poorer mental health, life satisfaction, health status, dietary habits, marital satisfaction, self-efficacy, and income adequacy, even years into their retirement.

The quote is a little verbose but it lists a lot of meaningful knock-on effects of leaving work.

I am often inspired, for want of a better word, when I go into the local Woodie's, for example. One often sees people who have been working all their lives who have gone back to work. They might only take a part-time job. I will make a point that is anecdotal and I am not criticising young people at all - we had a discussion on crime, which I will not get into, where we spoke about how some young people between the ages of 13 and 18 are involved in crime but most of them are model citizens - but they do not have that life experience. I am thinking of the general, “How are you? How are things?” and the bit of chattiness that people like when they go to the till or the helpfulness they get when asking about something. That built-up life experience can help in a major way. If employees are doing a fantastic job at the age of 66, why should they be told, “Sorry, your time is up now,” when the people themselves may feel they are making a better contribution than their peers?

As others have said, the Bill is fine as it stands. I cannot see myself voting against it but I would be interested to hear the views of the Minister of State on what amendments might be possible to what is a very limited Bill or if a commitment be given to look at the wider aspects relating to people who want to work and are capable of working beyond retirement age.

Finally, I will address the bus driver angle. Taxi drivers between the ages of 70 and 75 can drive a taxi, as many people have noted, but if they want to add to the service to transport kids to special schools, Bus Éireann does not let them. I know it is within Bus Éireann’s remit to look at that but maybe we should issue guidelines. We have the workforce ready, willing and able to provide a service that is clearly needed. I call on the Minister of State to please let the people who are capable do the service and give them a bit of meaning in their lives.

See this speech in context