Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

59. To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will engage with stakeholders regarding the employment (restriction of certain mandatory retirement ages) Bill 2024. [16748/24]

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In 2006, the OECD recommended the abolition of mandatory retirement in Ireland. I have brought legislation forward on this, as have my colleagues, Deputies Claire Kerrane and John Brady. Recently we had stakeholders present at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment to discuss the employment (restriction of certain mandatory retirement ages) Bill. We heard from people who had made submissions but who do not feel that their voices have been heard. They feel that the Government is simply eliminating mandatory retirement up to the age of 66, which is where the pension has been set. We believe it should be set at age 65. People feel that their submissions were not heard and that the Government is pressing ahead with legislation that will not deliver for all workers.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for her kind remarks and I look forward to working with her. The purpose of the general scheme of the employment (restriction of certain mandatory retirement ages) Bill 2024 is to implement a key recommendation related to mandatory retirement age, which is included in the Pensions Commission recommendations and implementation plan.

As recommended by the Pensions Commission, this proposed legislation will deliver a statutory provision which will allow, but in no way compel, an employee to stay in employment until the age at which they can first access the State pension, which is 66. The measure will improve older workers’ adequacy of income in retirement and reaffirm our long-standing policy to support longer and fuller working lives.

The membership of the Pensions Commission included representation of workers, employers, civil society, academics, and those with technical and policy expertise. The commission held a full public consultation process and a virtual stakeholder forum. The report of the commission is a comprehensive and authoritative report based on various analyses of population, labour force and expenditure projections; an examination of international approaches; and responses to an extensive consultation process with stakeholders.

In the interests both of older people and future generations of older people, the Government took the time to carefully consider the recommendations.

There was a series of discussions on the various options and recommendations through the Cabinet committee structure. The views of the joint committee on social protection and the Commission on Taxation and Welfare were also taken into account.

In addition to the extensive consultation carried out by the Pensions Commission in producing its report, my officials have consulted with employer and employee representatives through discussions at LEEF. They have also met separately with stakeholders, on request, to brief them on the policy proposals. Furthermore, all other Departments have been consulted to identify any professions where a statutory retirement age below the State pension age is provided for in law. Officials have also engaged with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to ensure that full consideration is given to employment equality aspects of the proposal.

The Deputy asked if the Government will engage with stakeholders and the answer is "Yes". We are engaging with stakeholders and will continue to do so.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but will the Government listen to them? That is probably the question I should have two minutes on.

We heard from a range of stakeholders, some of whom pointed out something that was quite interesting, namely, that at the last election, 13 Deputies were aged 65 or over. During the course of this Dáil, 12 Deputies will attain the age of 65, and fair play to them, but nobody is asking them to retire. Nobody is asking them to retire at 66 years of age either. It is hypocritical that we would pass legislation in here providing that people have to retire at the age of 66 but not the people pushing the button to make that decision.

The Government knows the Sinn Féin position on this. We believe that people should have the right to retire at the age of 65 but notwithstanding that, we also believe that mandatory retirement should be abolished, at least up to the age of 70. It is interesting to hear what stakeholders say about mandatory retirement. They say it normalises ageism and excludes older workers from normal managerial processes. Effectively, people are let go just because of their age. It is estimated that 4,000 people may experience mandatory retirement at 65 every year. Others will be forced to retire at different ages but age is not a reliable predictor of capacity. Research clearly shows that mandatory retirement has a deeply negative impact on the level of control that people feel over their own decision-making.

The Department needs to engage with those stakeholders who have a very clear, evidence-based view and to listen to what they are saying. The Government must recognise the fact that at the age of 65, an awful lot of people cannot continue working, and that needs to be accounted for, but those who can work on should be facilitated.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Deputy may be aware, it is not possible for the State to provide that a retirement age below 66 in all circumstances will be illegal. The reality is that certain roles may require a lower retirement age, often for the health and safety of the workers in question. That is especially so where people have very physically demanding jobs, for example. It is also critical for public-safety-critical roles and that is a matter of contract between employers and employees. The Pensions Commission recognises that and Members in this Chamber also need to recognise it. Having said that, this legislation will make it very difficult for employers to enforce a retirement age below 66 unless they can justify it and the WRC is there, as a matter of recourse, in cases where workers may experience issues in that regard.

The reality is that we need to provide for the limited cases where a lower retirement age is required. For the vast majority of people, this legislation is going to give them choice, autonomy and the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they want to retire at 65 or continue working beyond that.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Pensions Commission also recognises in the case of people who work in certain occupations, like hairdressers who are on their feet all day and those working in construction and retail, that by the time they hit 65, they feel they have done their shift. Many do not want, and nor should they be compelled, to work past the age of 65. That is contained within the Pensions Commission report. At least we won that argument with the Pensions Commission and we may yet win it with the Government.

The OECD recommended the abolition of mandatory retirement. It noted that it is a commonplace practice that is inconsistent with strategies to remove obstacles to working in older age. Effectively, mandatory retirement operates as a barrier. When we engaged with Age Action Ireland, the Retirement Planning Council of Ireland and others, they told us that mandatory retirement creates a sense among workers of not being valued because they will be out the door at a certain age, regardless of their capacity to do the work or of their work record. An arbitrary age is decided upon and people are excluded from the normal managerial process, in which case they would be entitled to appeal but where it is in their contract, they cannot do that.

The Minister of State should give consideration to meeting and engaging with these groups. The Department should examine the legislation again because it is inherently ageist, inasmuch as it only adjusts the pension age very slightly when what it should do is remove mandatory retirement.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy and I agree that when it comes to certain occupations, it may not be appropriate to have indefinite periods of working life and that is what this legislation provides for. There are complexities where there are existing contracts between employers and employees, particularly in the private sector, that specify a mandatory retirement age. What we are doing here is making changes in that regard.

Regarding engagement, my officials met IBEC, ICTU and SIPTU representatives to discuss this last October and again as recently as three weeks ago. We are consulting widely on this and are listening to stakeholders. We are going to make improvements in this area for both workers and employers.