Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 9, to delete lines 3 to 8 and substitute the following:

"(c) it shall not be lawful for an employer to require an employee compulsorily to retire from his or her employment on reaching a particular age if on reaching that age the employee is able and willing to continue in employment."

I referred to this matter on Second Stage. The purpose of the amendment is to do away with compulsory retirement ages and to stipulate that it would be discriminatory to set down such ages in employment contracts in the future.

This is a matter in respect of which action is needed. I read an interesting article in a supplement of The Sunday Times which outlined the problems the UK will encounter in the future in terms of demographic changes. The article in question referred to Ireland which in terms of population replacement, namely birth rate, is not producing enough people to replace those who die. This is the general trend in Europe. The younger population of Ireland will decrease and people will live longer because they pursue healthier lifestyles. Outside of that, there is a need to take action to retain older people in the workforce.

The article to which I refer mentioned that we are wasting a resource by making people retire at particular ages before they need or want to. Early retirement is available in Ireland. We have been getting rid of people with great experience, and who have made a great contribution to the economy, from the public service. We need to reverse that type of approach, both in terms of our demographic needs and also because of the positive contribution those people make to the workforce and the economy.

There may be moves along these lines at European level but Ireland must show the lead in respect of this matter, which is the reason I tabled an amendment. The amendment states that employees should be able and willing to continue in employment. On Second Stage, I stated that it would be important, in terms of bringing about this change, to allow for more flexible work practices and to encourage people to change careers. We do not want people to be forced to remain in jobs in which they are not happy. It is not just to older people that more flexible work practices should apply; they should apply to people with families and those in other circumstances. I accept that the change would have to be made in that context.

The amendment is based on US anti-ageism law. I do not know if the Minister of State will take it on board at this point but, for many reasons, we must begin to take action in respect of this issue in the near future. If we do not take such action, we will only compound the problems that will arise in the future. We will waste a great opportunity in terms of keeping people involved in the workplace if we do not do something.

I have given further consideration to the amendment to the existing legislation which the Bill will make. I refer here to section 4(c), which the Labour Party's amendment would remove. I am not sure that paragraph (c) represents a positive amendment and I would like the Minister of State to indicate how it improves the situation as regards people over 65. I thought initially that it was a positive amendment but now I am not so sure. I would like the Minister of State to consider the Labour Party's amendment as an alternative. Senator Quinn's amendment No. 6 is somewhat similar to ours and I welcome it.