Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister. I will be making many of the same points raised by Senator O'Toole. Of course, I must congratulate the Government on bringing this Bill forward. It is planning for the future regarding pension reforms for the public service; one could not deny that. There can be no smirking or otherwise in that regard. However, the first of the two points we must address is raising the standard pension age to 65. The second is abolishing the compulsory retirement age. The rise in the standard pension age will cover civil and public servants, gardaí, nurses and health employees. In most cases, it is easy enough to agree with that. However, regarding politicians and teachers, I have significant reservations.

I am delighted by the welcome removal of the compulsory retirement age. We all know the reasons for that. Life expectancy has now risen sharply, as have the capabilities and performance of people at 65. Why should they not be allowed to continue if they so wish? That is certainly to be welcomed, and no one would say anything against that. However, while many of the recommendations of the commission are certainly all right in my view, the key area of retention for the teachers goes down very hard with me. Perhaps I might remove my politician's hat and put on that of a secondary and careers guidance teacher with which I lived for 30 years. I feel very strongly on this and am compelled to express my feelings.

There were special terms for teachers, including secondary teachers. Those were that they retired at 60. If necessary, they could retire at the age of 55 without losing increments. That agreement was justified, particularly when we look at society's changes regarding stresses and strains among teachers. No one should expect teachers in their 60s to try to control, let alone teach, an honours leaving certificate class in mathematics, physics or chemistry. They would be trying to control a bunch of students who do not want to learn. Considering remedial teachers, home-school links and all the societal problems, it is simply unreasonable to expect teachers to have to stay on until they reach 65 before they can benefit from a full pension. I would like the Minister to re-examine that. Those special terms laid down in the conditions of service for teachers should remain. The age of 60 should be retained as the standard retirement age, and voluntary early retirement without losing pension benefits at 55.

I appreciate that the working group sat down and talked at length. Senator O'Toole has referred to that. There were many discussions on trying to find a formula on this but, unfortunately, they were not able to reach agreement on it. However, I would like them to take note of some kind of requirement regarding teachers. Those in school management — principals who have spoken to me — all feel strongly that it would work and that some formula or mechanism should be introduced. Perhaps the Minister might add in some subsection that a special case should be made for those who have reached the age where they have peaked in their careers and are not capable of delivering a full programme. Perhaps they should have a lower level of responsibility at a certain point in their career, coming out with that retirement without losing their pension benefits. I would like the Minister to revisit that area to see it he could find some formula or mechanism for those. I might add that not many avail of it at present, but it should be there as a kind of cushioning for those who feel they could leave the profession if they wish and, if they do not wish to do so, have a lower level of responsibility and hang in there until 60. There should be some sort of formula to give them some leeway, and I ask the Minister to revisit that. I have great difficulty accepting this provision regarding Teachtaí Dála and Senators. I say that because, as we know, being a politician today is more volatile than ever. When I grew up in politics, if one became a Teachta Dála or a Senator and worked at all at one's profession, the public would vote one back in. That is no longer the case. We have all felt that we have not received our just reward when we were not successful in politics. This shows the volatility of the political profession.

I come from a political family from which another generation of politicians will come forward. It will not, however, be for some time because they will not be allowed to enter politics until they are well-established in their careers. The likelihood that young people who enter this profession at the age of 23 or 24 will be voted out by the age of 35 and will be unable to draw a pension until the age of 65 discourages young people from entering politics. This is wrong. Only the wealthy or those involved in business who can later take up where they left off will get involved in politics. For those in the professions, the prospect of leaving politics at the age of 35, having failed to develop a career, is too dangerous. I ask the Minister to revisit the section to ensure that Members leaving the Houses receive a lump sum or superannuation to allow them to start in another profession.

I also ask the Minister to revisit the Bill to allow those who currently enjoy special terms enabling them to leave their profession aged 55 years to continue to do so on a voluntary basis without losing benefits. This is extremely important to teachers because once they reach 55 years, they find it too difficult to contain a class and teach a subject at second level. Many of my former colleagues have spoken to me at length on this issue. If it is not possible to allow teachers to retire aged 55, I ask that the Minister try to devise a formula to allow them at least to complete the final few years of their careers with less responsibility. This would mean giving them some scope to opt out of responsibilities, for which management would be grateful.