John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Yoko Ono once said that some people are old at 18 and some are young at 90 and that time is a concept that humans created. I will begin by thanking the individuals and organisations that have come out in support of this Bill and in support of an end to the mandatory retirement age. They are Age Action Ireland, Active Retirement Ireland, the National Women’s Council of Ireland and Professor John Crown, who also formally brought forward a Bill to abolish the mandatory retirement age. I also acknowledge former Deputy Anne Ferris who brought forward this Bill in 2014.

To put this into perspective, if the rules we allow employers to set for ordinary workers were to be set in the House, how many Deputies would be sitting in the Chamber, perhaps not tonight but any other night? Does any Deputy believe their age impacts on the job they do every day? If the answer is no, which I am sure it is, then how can we allow age to impact on the ability of others to work? It is very easy to make rules in here for others which do not and will not impact on people in the Chamber. This Bill provides us with an opportunity to right this wrong and allow choices for workers. Age does not determine whether a person can do his or her job. This Bill is fundamentally about choice. It is about saying to workers that if they want to, they can continue to work beyond 65 or 66 and that they can retire earlier if they wish and have the means to do so. There are many different reasons a person may choose to continue to work beyond 65 or 66 such as financial or social reasons or simply to avoid isolation. The question to all parties and Deputies is simple. Should workers have a choice when it comes to their retirement?

The national positive ageing strategy published by the Government states there is evidence that longer working lives have beneficial effects on the well-being of individuals and that productivity does not necessarily decline with age. Any decline is easily compensated by qualities and skills acquired through experience. Since I introduced this Bill in December, I have received numerous e-mails and phone calls from many parts of the State. I will mention one from a lady named Ann who e-mailed me about her late husband who was forced onto a jobseeker's payment after being forced to retire at 65. She told me:

My husband gladly paid taxes all his life; he should not have been forced on to Jobseekers. My husband did not make a decision to retire; he had to retire at 65 years of age ... Not only do I have to live with the loss of my husband every day but I live with the knowledge that during my husband’s final six months he faced the frustrations that this system imposed on him.

This is the impact that mandatory retirement has had on one couple and this is only one story of many more.

The scandal of 64 year olds being forced onto a jobseeker's payment for one year as they wait for the State pension cannot be allowed continue. That is a serious issue which came into play in 2012 and which is having a major impact on many people. Currently, there are more 65 year olds in receipt of jobseeker's benefit than any other age group in this State. There are 5,239 men and women aged 65 in receipt of jobseeker's payments. Not only is that a huge problem now, it will be a bigger problem in 2021 when the pension age rises again to age 67. It will give rise to even greater difficulties in 2028 when the pension age increases to 68. We need to address this anomaly now and we can do so by means of this Bill.

One of the greatest challenges facing this country is sustaining the State pension into the future. According to the census figures for 2011, there are more than 530,000 people aged 65 and over, and just 128,000 aged 85 and over. By the year 2046, 1.4 million people will be aged 65 and over and 470,000 will be aged 85 and over. If we look at that from solely a financial perspective, it makes more sense for workers to continue paying into the Exchequer rather than receiving payments from it.

Another very serious anomaly that will be addressed by the passing of this Bill is the difficulty of reaching the 520 contributions - increased from 260 - required in order to qualify for the State pension. The huge increase to which I refer has left many people, particularly women who may have taken career breaks over their working lives in order to look after loved ones or family members, short of the necessary 520 contributions. That is evident from the 36,000 women who have applied for the State pension since 2012 and who are in receipt of smaller amounts than would have been the case had they retired prior to that date. By abolishing mandatory retirement we will give people an opportunity to work and build up the necessary contributions and, therefore, avoid a lesser pension payment and also avoid possible poverty in their older years. Again, this is only a choice.

The Minister, Deputy Varadkar, has reminded us time and again that there is no mandatory retirement in Ireland. However, Irish law permits employers to impose mandatory retirement ages in employee contracts in both the public and private sectors. That is the issue at the heart of this debate. We are aware there may be some minor technical structuring issues with the Bill but having met with Department officials, we are confident that those can and will be overcome on Committee Stage by way of amendments. We will be happy to accept all amendments because the Bill is so important. We are big enough to accept such amendments. The Bill includes exemptions for those in security-related employment such as the Prison Service and so on. That reflects the position in existing equality legislation. Current legislation states that mandatory retirement can be allowed in cases where it is objectively and reasonably justifiable, which leaves scope for a very broad interpretation by the courts. It is for that reason that we want to see this legislation strengthened to ensure that the abolition of mandatory retirement becomes a reality. We owe it to every worker in the State to give him or her a choice when it comes to retirement.

We must end the facilitation of ageism and outright discrimination against workers. This is fundamentally a human rights issue for workers and I urge all parties across the House to support this Bill. As I have stated already, we are open to amendments. We are not saying that the Bill is perfect; it is not. We want to get broad support from across the Chamber and allow the Bill proceed to Committee Stage where the changes that are necessary can be made to end this discrimination that has existed and continues to exist. I am glad to bring the Bill to the floor of the House and I will listen with interest to Members' contributions. I will hand over to my colleague, Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I presume the Deputy Ó Caoláin is sharing time.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. We will see how we go.

I commend my colleagues, Deputies Brady and Mitchell, on bringing this important Bill forward. I also wish, as Deputy Brady has already done, to acknowledge the work done by the former Dáil Deputy, Anne Ferris, who brought this same Bill forward in 2014. I thank her for all her work on this issue.

What this Bill ultimately aims to do is end discrimination and give older workers a choice when it comes to retirement. In my opinion, it is a no-brainer. I am sure every Deputy and Senator elected to these Houses has been approached on this subject by people who have been forced to leave their jobs as soon as they reached the age of 65 or perhaps even earlier. They are people who are in good health and who enjoy their work. People who have financial obligations and mortgages to pay simply cannot afford to be unemployed and with no pension entitlement. That is wholly unfair. It is wrong that Irish law currently permits employers to impose mandatory retirement ages via their employees' contracts, in effect, facilitating ageism and creating a set of second-class employment rights for older workers. That should not be allowed happen. The employee should have the right to choose when he or she will retire, not the employer.

This Bill is supported by numerous organisations, including Age Action Ireland and Active Retirement Ireland. The United Nations Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing called for older persons to be able to work as long as they want to work and are able to do so. Interestingly, in a Eurobarometer survey conducted across the European Union in 2012 it was found that 61% of respondents felt that people should be allowed to work beyond retirement age. In Ireland, this figure was 73%, which is considerably greater than the average return across the survey.

An argument used to support the current legal provision is that if people retire at an earlier age there will be more employment opportunities for younger people. Such statements have been dismissed time and time again, and I believe the evidence supports the contention that it is simply not true. The experience and wealth of knowledge held by an older person at work can be taught to younger workers coming in. The World Health Organization has recommended the elimination of mandatory retirement ages and stated, "Policies enforcing mandatory retirement ages do not help create jobs for youth, as was initially envisaged, but they reduce older workers’ ability to contribute and reduce an organization’s opportunities to benefit from the capabilities of older workers." That is also acknowledged in the Government’s National Positive Ageing Strategy which was published in April 2013. In regard to employment, the strategy states:

There is evidence that longer working lives have beneficial effects on individuals’ physical and psychological wellbeing. Some evidence also shows that workers’ productivity does not necessarily decline with age - any decline in physical capacity is easily compensated by qualities and skills acquired through experience.

There is no doubt but that one of the greatest challenges facing us as a country is sustaining the State pension into the future. By 2046, 1.4 million people will be aged over 65 - or so the experts tell us - compared to the 530,000 recorded in the last census. This would represent a staggering increase. As it stands, a worker forced into retirement at the age of 65 is entitled to jobseeker's benefit of €188 per week at the maximum rate until he or she turns 66. Financially, it makes sense for an older worker to continue to contribute to the Exchequer instead of receiving payments from it.

The fact that the Bill was voted through in 2014 is a source of hope, but it is deeply regrettable that nothing further was ever done with it. Mar sin, iarraim ar gach Teachta vóta a chaitheamh ar son an Bhille seo. I urge all Deputies to vote in favour of the Bill and to ensure that, collectively, we address this anomaly once and for all and have it closed down. I commend the Bill to the Members and hope they note that many of them will already have supported it. I hope this is indicative of how they intend to address the Bill on this occasion.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Brady for the opportunity to discuss this very important issue and this very important Bill. As he will be aware, I have long had an interest in reforming our retirement age regime so that persons who have something valuable to contribute can continue to do so even beyond the so-called "normal" retirement age. The Government has decided not to oppose the Bill. As Deputy Ó Caoláin said, this has happened previously. On the previous occasion, the Bill was sent to the Oireachtas committee I chaired. We did much work on the Bill at the time and had public hearings on it and so on. The Government supports in principle measures aimed at facilitating fuller working lives. This is notwithstanding the fact that there are serious technical problems with the Bill as drafted and that there are serious policy and expenditure issues that need to be considered very carefully. I will come back to these in a moment. I note that Fianna Fáil has also put forward a Private Members' Bill on this issue, so it is clearly of considerable interest to many Deputies and Senators.

It should be noted that Ireland does not have a mandatory statutory retirement age in the private sector, where retirement issues are regulated by employment contracts, but there are mandatory retirement ages in the civil and public services. The Bill is presented as an amendment to equality legislation that would have the effect of abolishing mandatory retirement ages, save in respect of specified security-related employments. However, the policy implications that would flow from this step are fundamentally not in the equality area, but rather relate to employment policy, including issues surrounding youth unemployment, pensions and public sector recruitment and expenditure.

Deputies will be aware that this Bill is very similar to the Bill proposed by the then Labour Party Deputy Anne Ferris towards the end of the term of the previous Government. The Oireachtas joint committee, which, as I said, I chaired at the time, subsequently invited public submissions, held a day of hearings and published a supportive report on the Bill. At the time, I said the report was marked by its progressive nature, taking account of our changing workforce and ageing population. It struck me as I was listening to the Deputies that as we are reaching full employment now, we will be looking for more people to stay in the workplace. Things have changed. We now have people saying they are finding it hard to recruit employees, which is good and should be acknowledged.

In December 2015, an amendment was made to the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015, bringing our equality legislation further into line, but not completely, with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. This reform specified that any compulsory retirement age must be objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim and that the means of achieving that aim must be appropriate and necessary.

In August 2016, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform published the report of the interdepartmental group on fuller working lives. The report made a number of recommendations assigned to Government Departments and employer and worker representatives for follow-up. For example, the report recommended that the Department of Jobs should ask the Workplace Relations Commission to prepare a code of practice under section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 on the issue of longer working in order to set out best industrial relations practice in managing the engagement between employers and employees in the run-up to retirement, including requests to work beyond what would be considered the normal retirement age in the employment concerned. The WRC has commenced work on preparing the code in consultation with relevant stakeholders. In this regard, I bring Deputies' attention to the fact that work is being done in this area. The matter has not been ignored.

The report of the interdepartmental group also recommended that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, with public service employers, review the current statutory and operational considerations giving rise to barriers to extended participation in the public service workforce up to and including the current and planned age of entitlement to the contributory State pension. This review is currently under way and is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2017. I believe it would be preferable to await the outcome of the review before any related legislation is pursued. Again, I make the point that work is ongoing in this area. The matter is not being ignored.

Retirement ages in the public service are generally set out in legislation. Amendment of multiple pieces of primary legislation would be required in the context of the enactment of the Private Members' Bill as proposed. The key point for the Deputies to consider is that the Bill would not set aside such specific provisions in other legislation unless they are amended in the Bill one by one.

In the context of the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012, the issue of a mandatory retirement age was considered. The outcome to these considerations was that the retirement age for members of the public service pension scheme was linked to the age of qualification for the contributory State pension - currently 66; 67 in 2021; and 68 in 2028 - but it also incorporated a mandatory retirement age of 70, subject to certain exceptions. This was considered as an appropriate balance between making provision for longer working lives arising from the increased mortality expectancy of the population while incorporating a mandatory retirement age. The mandatory retirement age can be changed by order of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. This approach reflects the approach at European level incorporated in the EU Framework Employment Directive 2000/78/EC which provides that national authorities can provide for mandatory retirement ages if they can be objectively justified. I reiterate that the policy implications here would have to be carefully considered.

The proposal in the Bill would involve setting aside the retirement provisions of most existing employment contracts on a unilateral basis and would have serious implications, which we need to tease out carefully, for public sector employment, pensions policy and labour market policy generally. My stating this is not to raise a principled objection to the Bill, but to flag that we consider that the Deputy has substantial work to do yet before we are in a position to consider the Bill in detail. I think the Deputies acknowledge that further work needs to be done by all of us in this area.

It appears the Bill is intended to apply retrospectively to pre-existing contracts of employment. The Attorney General has advised that legislation of this nature may be susceptible to legal challenges, having regard to Article 15.5.1° of the Constitution, which precludes the Oireachtas from declaring unlawful acts which were not so at the date of their commission. In addition, employers may consider that the legislation amounts to an interference with contractual relations and disproportionately interferes with their constitutionally protected property rights. The legislation may further impact on pending legal proceedings where an employee has challenged the justifications advanced by an employer for imposing a compulsory retirement age. This issue may, in the absence of transitional provisions, generate disputes and legal challenges. I would be genuinely interested to hear how Deputy Brady proposes to address such questions. Again, I do not say this to challenge the Deputy in any way, but these are issues we all need to tease out carefully because they are complex.

In financial terms, I also point out that the Bill may have implications - not all favourable - for older workers and pensioners. The need for consequential amendments to income tax and pay-related social insurance measures connected to retirement age arises and should be considered in respect of the Bill. These include the age tax credit, which is currently available to individuals aged over 65, and the exemption from PRSI available to those aged 66 and over.

Close consideration would be required to ascertain the impact of the proposed measures on defined benefit schemes and their sponsoring employers and employees in particular. This would involve developing an understanding of the potential range of positive and negative consequences for employers, employees and defined benefit scheme funding. We also need to consider the consequences of legislative changes to mandatory retirement ages provisions that may conflict with the existing legal and regulatory conditions stemming from employment law, defined benefit scheme trust deeds and rules, pensions law and pension drawdown rules.

We also need to consider the consequences of legislative changes to mandatory retirement ages provisions that may conflict with the existing legal and regulatory conditions stemming from employment law, defined benefit scheme trust deeds and rules, pensions law and pension drawdown rules. On the other hand, however, abolition of fixed retirement ages may have a positive impact on the ability of women to quality for the full State pension and this also needs to be weighed in the balance. I acknowledge that Deputies have pointed that out. There may be significant implications for youth employment if considerable numbers of older workers do not retire as envisaged in their original employment contracts and if this reduces the number of new hires. The impact is difficult to quantify at this stage without detailed research and analysis.

The Tánaiste requested officials from the Department of Justice and Equality to meet with the sponsors of the Bill and at that meeting a number of fundamental drafting errors were pointed out. The current Bill seeks to amend section 34 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 by substituting a new subsection for subsection (3). However, it would appear that the drafter is seeking to replace the original subsection (3) in the Bill as enacted. In fact, it should be noted that subsection (3), as originally enacted, was replaced by the Equality Act 2004 and the substance of the revised subsection now relates to occupational benefits schemes. The proposed approach in the Bill would cause this to be replaced. Presumably this is an error but the resulting loss would include the explicit prohibition in occupational benefit schemes of discrimination on the gender ground.

Moving on to section 34(4), this subsection was also replaced by a new subsection in the Equality Act 2004. Again, this drafting error would need to be addressed as the Bill seeks to make special provision for members of An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces, the Fire Service, etc., but the proposed amendment does not make any reference to the related provisions for recruitment and retention in those professions in section 37(3) and (4). The collective citation to the Bill should be revised to reflect all relevant legislation - the amendments made in the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2015 are not reflected here.

The Attorney General has advised that the scope and objective of the Bill requires clarification in light of its opening paragraph. On first reading, this language goes beyond the Title and stated objective of the Bill. It would appear the amendment in its present form would repeal employment equality rules prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of age or disability in the employment area. Clarification of the position is essential to ensure that the State continues to comply with its EU treaty obligations. It is important to note, as I said, that the cost implications arising from this Bill could be very significant. The Bill would appear to allow for financial incentives to be offered to employees to cease work at any particular age. There is an overriding need to stay within the parameters of the fiscal rules and this must be borne in mind in any policy change such as the Bill proposes.

Government is open to debate on the current Bill. However, we need to proceed carefully in what is a complex area. We would not want a Bill that could have serious adverse or unintended consequences arriving on the Statute Book where the State would then be vulnerable. I look forward to the debate and welcome the comments and views of colleagues.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil supports this Bill which, like our Employment Equality (Amendment) Bill 2016, seeks to abolish mandatory retirement. We believe we should recognise the potential of our ageing population to contribute to and enrich our society in many diverse ways, given their talents, experience and wisdom and the many years of healthy life expectancy which most can enjoy. With that in mind I believe it is time to abolish mandatory retirement so that people can continue to work beyond normal retirement age should they so wish. This has been our stated position since 2012 and is why we introduced the Employment Equality (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2012 in Seanad Éireann which, like the Bill being discussed, also sought to abolish mandatory retirement.

In 2012 Fianna Fáil issued a new policy document, Active Ageing and Quality Caring: A Fianna Fáil Policy Paper to Promote the Human Potential and Human Rights of our Older Irish Citizens. The document was published by the former Senator, Mary White, on the party's behalf and she introduced the Bill in the Seanad in 2012. In that policy paper we point out that we have the opportunity to benefit our society by harnessing the social and economic potential of older people and at the same time to benefit our ageing citizens by responding to their desire to participate in society whether socially or economically.

In order to broaden choice and rights, Fianna Fáil seeks the end of the compulsory retirement of persons at the age of 65, whether in the public or private sectors and to make it unlawful to require a person to retire at or above the age of 65 unless there are clearly specified grounds justifying such compulsory retirement such as competence and performance.

In Ireland today, people are living longer and have more years of healthy active living than previous generations enjoyed. Today, a woman who reaches the age of 65 has an average life expectancy of 20 further years while a man can anticipate 17 additional years of life. We have an ever-growing number of older people in our midst. Their numbers are projected to double in number from some 500,000 today to 1 million in less than 20 years. It is simply wrong that people who are productive, working, contributing to society, paying tax, healthy and who want to keep working should be compelled to retire. In Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Employment Equality (Repeal of Retirement Age Provisions) Regulations came into force on 6 April 2011. The effect of those regulations was to repeal the legislation which permitted an employer to terminate the employment of an employee who reached 65 without that being deemed unfair dismissal or unlawful age discrimination. Compulsory retirement based on age is discrimination. Unless there are convincing reasons, such as health and safety concerns, workers should have the right to choose when they retire. When Canada ended mandatory retirement last year, its Human Rights Commission pointed out that we are not born with date stamps saying our fitness for work expires at 65.

A major study carried out by the EU, published in January 2012, found that almost half of Irish people would like to continue working after they reach pension age entitlement and far exceeded the EU average of one third being so inclined. Older people who want to continue working after pension or retirement age do so because they feel fit, active and capable or they wish to maintain their current income level. It is wrong that people who have worked all their lives are forced to retire at age 65. The contributory pension is not payable until one reaches the age of 66. People who retire at 65 are forced to apply for jobseeker's benefit at €188 for 12 months until they reach the age of 66 and their pension entitlements kick in. There is also a significant difference, €42 in the amount paid for the pension and the jobseeker's allowance. Recently a man came to my office who had worked with the Waterford local authority since he was 18 and he had to retire at age 65. He told me it was the first time in his life he had to apply for jobseeker's benefit and it broke his heart. He always boasted of the fact that he had never had to sign on in his life. He was fit and healthy and still had much to offer. There are more people aged 65 on the live register claiming jobseeker's benefit than any other age group. We all know that. The age to collect the State pension will rise to 67 in 2021 and to 68 in 2028. Future incomes for those retiring before reaching State pension age will become an increasing problem. I likened it recently to a runaway train, that is coming towards us all. Over 1 million people will be aged over 65 in 20 years' time. We have to make provision for that. It is a source of real fear for people that their retirement may not be financially secure. This morning I met Justin Moran of Age Action who fully supports this Bill and what it is trying to achieve. Fianna Fáil fully supports it too. It may not suit every employee. House of our support in this matter.

Denise Mitchell (Dublin Bay North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What this Bill aims to achieve needs to be emphasised, namely, choice. We cannot and are not forcing people to remain in work. There is a point at which people will retire and the decision to retire must be a personal one but at present people are being forced, through a contract, to retire at a certain age. Leaving the labour market suddenly because of an employment contract does not respect a person's time served, skills gained and experience given.

People sometimes feel they are no longer individuals, but numbers. As we all know, this can affect people socially and financially and in many other ways. We must also bear in mind that some people cannot afford to retire.

The Government has taken away the transitional State pension and has made it clear that it is not going to be reinstated. This places a financial burden on some people who are forced to retire at the age of 65. It is crazy that people who are forced to retire at the age of 65 must go on the dole and be available for work. The Government increased the pension age to 66 in 2014 and intends to increase it further to 67 in four years' time. Will those who are forced from their jobs at the age of 65 have to wait a further two years for a State pension? While the State is continuing to push out the pension age, it is allowing employers to compel people to retire at the age of 65. I suggest that the least the Minister should do is allow women who will receive smaller pensions as a result of the 2012 changes in the pension bands to work to gain more contributions. Having said that, Sinn Féin's preference is for those changes to be reversed. We set out our position in this regard when we proposed a motion in this House in December.

It is clear that people have a contribution to make after retirement. It seems to me that specifying an age at which people may be forced from the workplace suggests that people of that age have no economic value and no contribution to make. This approach, which sends out a signal of "out with the old and in with the new", cannot be allowed to remain. According to the national positive ageing strategy, there is evidence that longer working lives have benefits for physical and mental health. Surely we should not put any legal barriers in the way of the achievement of this source of well-being.

Many Deputies probably received correspondence on this issue in the run-up to this debate. I would like to read from a touching e-mail I received from a lady called Jackie:

I am worried sick about turning 65 next year and having to leave my job. My husband died suddenly last year and I am already struggling with bills on my own. I cannot afford to retire next year. It is not just financial. I love my job, my children are all grown up and have their own lives; my job gives me a purpose and a reason to get up every morning. I do not want to have to leave it next year because of my age.

As we all know, 65 is not an old age. Employers should not have complete power to change people's lives when they reach that age. We are proposing to amend the Employment Equality Act 1998. How can we say we have equality in the workforce when the State allows this discrimination to exist? It must be changed.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate. I regard reform in this area as something very important, as I stated a number of years ago, although it is not as long ago as Deputy Crowe made out. We have had elections and the formation of a Government since then. At that time and now, it seems we have agreement across the House that this must be addressed. We must get the detail right if the reform is to be feasible and work as intended. I mention again that Ireland does not have a mandatory or statutory retirement age in the private sector. In that space, retirement issues are regulated by employment contracts, so we can put that aside for the moment. If the employment contracts can be set up in a certain way, this issue does not arise. There are mandatory retirement ages in the Civil Service and public service, so we must be clear about the paramaters of the issues we are trying to solve.

I will reflect briefly on some of the issues we must consider before we can take this Bill any further. I mentioned the technical problems with the Bill as drafted and I am happy to note the Deputies across the House will take that advice on board. We will all work on it together and I look forward to the proposals Deputies might bring forward to address some of those issues. We on the Government side will work as well. We must think carefully about the implications for employment policy, including issues of youth unemployment, pensions and public service recruitment and expenditure. I mentioned earlier that matters would include pensions policy and pensions schemes, and the immediate implications for affordability may be positive as persons expected to retire shortly choose not to do so. However, there may be implications for pensions contributions calculated actuarily, which could have the opposite effect.

In employment law, the retirement clause in existing contracts would be made void without reference to the wishes of the contracting parties. The current Private Members' Bill as drafted would allow an employee discretion to retire at the previously envisaged age but leave no choice to the employer. Voiding a contractual agreement in such a one-sided way may be legally problematic. With regard to the labour market and employment policy, the reduction in expected numbers leaving employment may reduce opportunities for young people or advancement opportunities for people at an earlier stage of their careers. The advancement opportunities are something we must think about as well.

Retirement ages in the public service are generally set out in legislation. The key point for Deputies to consider, and which I should repeat, is that the Bill would not set aside such specific provisions in other legislation unless they are amended in this Bill one by one. We would have to go through all the legislation in the Statute Book and amend it as required. It is not simply about producing this Bill, as this will not change all the other legislation. I mentioned the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012 and that arising from considerations at the time, the retirement age for members of the public service pension scheme was linked to the age of qualification for the contributory State pension, which is currently 66 and will be 67 from 2021 and 68 from 2028. It also incorporates a mandatory retirement age of 70, subject to certain exemptions. Again, I should recall that the Attorney General has raised issues with the approach in the Bill and specifically with regard to retrospection. We are living in a time when people are living longer and the sustainability of the pensions system must be addressed as well. That is why the pension age is being progressively increased. This has implications for retirement ages and the Bill provides the opportunity to consider this in great detail, which is welcome. The Department of Social Protection argues that it looks after anybody caught in the arrangement mentioned by Deputies and it does not necessarily end with the social welfare payment.

We must proceed carefully in what is a very complex area. We do not want a Bill with serious adverse or unintended consequences arriving on the Statute Book, leaving the State vulnerable. I close by stressing my personal commitment to reform in the area and, as I have said, I have some history in this respect. People who can still make a valuable contribution to the workforce and can do so should be facilitated in so far as is possible. I hope we can agree a way forward in this complex and important area. There is some work being done, as I mentioned, and I ask that we wait for those reports to be presented in order that we can consider the detail of the information. This debate has been very useful because it reminds us of the work that has been done and the importance of this area for people listening to this debate. As Deputies Crowe and Brady have said, they want to stay at work and for all kinds of reasons find work beneficial. They do so for social or economic reasons and it was mentioned that it is a reason to get up in the morning. There are many reasons and we have been through this many times.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the time and Deputies for their work and attention in the area.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the words of support from the Government and Fianna Fáil. It must be welcomed that the Government and Fianna Fáil will not oppose the Bill and are willing to work with Sinn Féin on getting it right. It would have been surprising if the opposite had been the case, given that all parties agreed to the Bill when it came before the House back in 2015. Unfortunately, the Bill fell with the Thirty-first Dáil. The Minister of State says we must wait for reports to be produced before we progress the Bill. I think this will be a very short-lived Government.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure Fianna Fáil has its own views on it. My fear is we will not progress it fast enough. I am conscious there are people in the Gallery and people and organisations watching the debate from home. Although they had much hope and optimism when the Bill was previously supported, ultimately, their hopes were dashed when it did not progress. It is imperative that we work on this Bill. Sinn Féin and I are willing to do all the heavy lifting and would welcome any support to try to get it through Committee Stage as quickly as possible.

As I said in my opening comments, the Bill will have an impact on many areas to the betterment of many lives. As many people have said, 80 is the new 60 and 60 is the new 40. We all know people are living longer and healthier lives. The Bill is fundamentally about choice and about giving those people the choices to continue working if they want to. As Deputy Mitchell noted, we would love to see all the changes that were introduced in 2012 amended and changed, and all those measures that have impacted on women and pensioners reversed. Outside of that, there are major challenges. Our older population is growing very quickly. As I outlined in my contribution, by 2046 we will have 1.4 million people aged 65 and older. This is a major challenge.

The Minister of State raised the old red herring of the impact the Bill would have on youth unemployment. It is a tired and flawed argument that was thrashed out back in 2015 when the Bill was first brought forward. The evidence is there to see in countries which have moved ahead and abolished the mandatory retirement age. The evidence indicates that reducing labour force participation among older people does not lead to increased employment for young people. Iceland, New Zealand, Sweden and Norway are among the top ten countries in the world for youth employment and for employment of older people. There is evidence that it does not impact on youth employment.

A 2014 report from the IZA World of Labor research institute found there is no trade-off between the employment of young and old workers. Higher employment for older workers coincides with higher employment for younger workers. Reducing the employment of older persons does not provide more job opportunities for younger people. The report also found that measures introduced in Denmark and France that reduced labour force participation for older workers saw falls in youth employment over the same period. A comprehensive 2008 working paper on the effects of early retirement on youth employment in Belgium found no positive link between early retirement and youth employment. The link has also been comprehensively dismissed on repeated occasions by the OECD, which stated in a report, "It is important to dispel a number of myths in this area ... the claim that fewer jobs for older workers results in more jobs for younger workers, though unfounded, is proving especially stubborn".

The argument that fixed numbers of jobs can be reshuffled between workers of different ages as a result of government policy is untrue. The OECD report found the more older workers were in employment the better it was for the economy and for youth employment rates. Instead of setting older workers against younger workers, we should try to maximise the valuable contribution older workers provide to the economy, including making full use of skills, experience and wisdom of older workers to train in younger workers and newer employees. Many people, when they hit the age of 65, which is a number on a piece of paper, feel their worth has expired when they are forced into retirement, in many cases, as a number of Deputies said, against their will, for many reasons, whether social or economic.

The Minister of State touched on employment contracts in the private sector. The retirement age is written into these contracts and it is permitted by law. The Bill will address this in both the private and public sectors. The Minister of State mentioned the issue of retrospective law. We understand that with any retrospective law there is potential for legal and constitutional challenge. This must be analysed and balanced on Committee Stage. Although we can get viewpoints from the Attorney General or from anybody else, good, bad or indifferent, all legislation the House produces is open to legal challenge. This makes the committee's work more important. It must ensure we get the Bill right. The responsibility falls on all of us here. We all agree with the principle of the Bill, which is to abolish the mandatory retirement age. We all need to get it to Committee Stage and get it right.

Many people are watching the debate and have been given hope by the words that have come from the Chamber. The vote will not be held until next week. The Minister of State has just indicated that the Government will not oppose the Bill and, therefore, there will be no vote. Real hope is coming from the Chamber tonight. It is imperative that we get it to Committee Stage as quickly as possible. The Minister of State has said we must wait until the reports come out. I will not outline my concerns around the Government's timeframe. However, we need to move on the Bill. People are watching and hurting.

More than 5,000 65 year olds are forced to sign on to receive a jobseeker's payment. The Minister of State has admitted that they have to sign on only once in that year and we turn a blind eye. Although they are forced into receipt of a jobseeker's payment, they do not have to go out and seek work. It is a serious anomaly that will get worse in 2021 when the pensionable age increases again and when it increases to 68 a few years after that. This serious flaw should have been addressed, but was not.

There is a serious problem for women as they are forced to take a lower payment because of the changes in pensions and PRSI in 2012. This is a real opportunity to address that and that is why it is essential the Bill moves on to Committee Stage, so it can be enacted. It means so much to so many people, and for so many reasons.

I thank the Minister of State, Fianna Fáil and my colleagues who have spoken on the Bill. It is a big achievement for everyone here. I am not sure how many other pieces of legislation have received such unanimous support from across the House. I am not sure if this is the first time it has happened but it is one of the first times in this Dáil. I am glad this is the case on such important legislation.