Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and the opportunity to speak on this topic, in which I have a personal interest. I am delighted to see the Leader of the House, Senator O'Rourke. Some 12 years ago, as Minister, she introduced a Bill on unfair dismissal. It had passed through the Dáil, and in my first few weeks in the Seanad I examined it and discovered that age had not been included as a wrongful reason for dismissal. I raised the matter and was delighted to see my first amendment accepted by the Minister on the basis that it was a clear example of unfairness.

The second reason is that, now that I am well into my 60s and approaching the next big round, I have a personal interest in this matter. However, I also have a personal interest in recognising, with regard to ageism, that there is no single cut-off point. That someone can step down, as I did a few months ago, from full-time, day-to-day work means that he or she can be busier than ever in many other ways. I recognise that it is possible for individuals not to assume that they must stop work because they reach a certain age.

Ageism is a complex subject with wide ramifications, on one of which I wish to focus my remarks, namely, retirement. Recently there has been a great deal of discussion of the issue, and the idea now seems to be gaining ground that people should have more flexibility regarding when they choose to retire. I have used the term "choose" on purpose, since many people literally cannot wait until they are 65 and opt for early retirement where it is offered. Others are quite happy to wait until they are 65 but are determined to stop working at that point.

I have no problem with either choice, which have been the only options available hitherto. One option not available to most people but increasingly sought is that of continuing to work after the age of 65; I stress that I mean it only as an option. It seems madness to prevent a person from working who wants to do so and is physically capable simply because he or she happens to have reached an arbitrary age. The notion of having a fixed retirement age dates from another era, when people did not live as long as they usually do now and when they were generally not as healthy in their advanced years.

I think of an employee, whom I will simply call John, who came to me ten years ago. He told me that he would be 65 on 31 December that year. He had worked in the company for nine years and attended every day looking forward to work. He also said that many times during those nine years, he had looked at his watch thinking it was 4 p.m. only to see that it was 6 p.m., and I was very impressed.

Unfortunately, he died on Christmas Day that year, six days before being due to retire on his 65th birthday. Three days later his wife also died, so we had two funerals that week. I remember thinking in church of his words, which were a great challenge and a target. Irish employers must see the benefit and value of being able to give that to older people. From an employer's perspective, we must use the talent we can garner from older people. Over the years, I have learned that the talent in question has been wasted where people have been forced to retire.

There are many reasons people wish to continue working. They may enjoy the job so much they dread a life without it. They may not enjoy the work all that much but highly value the social life and contacts that accompany it. On the other hand, they may simply need the money. Whatever the reason, it can be a real tragedy if someone who wishes to work may not do so simply because of reaching an age limit. Apart from the personal side, from a national perspective, to end an employment in that way means a loss of resources to the company and the country as a whole. We currently have more vacancies than people to fill them, and it makes no sense to throw people on the scrapheap without good reason.

Having said that, I am not sure that I support moves in some quarters to raise the retirement age. The beady eyes of bean-counters in Merrion Street have spotted the fact that if we raised the retirement age, it would cost the State less. Of course, they are all in favour of it. Raising the official retirement age involves a degree of compulsion that should be absent from the discussion.

It would be better to focus on creating a situation relating to people's needs and wishes rather than to economic implications. In employment and taxation policy, we should focus attention on ensuring we place no obstacles before anyone who wishes to work past 65. I would like to see a further refinement introduced to the discussion, namely, the idea of partial retirement. Just as we need flexibility regarding the age at which people stop work, we should also consider greater flexibility regarding how people retire.

Instead of a sharp cut-off point whereby one works one day but not the next, a far better approach would enable people to gradually reduce their involvement in the job. A full five-day week would be beyond the wishes and capability of many over 65, but they would be willing and able to work part time. That way, their knowledge and expertise would continue to be available to their employers, but those concerned would have the benefit of a more relaxed lifestyle, being able to secure some of the leisure we associate with retirement.

We will only move in the direction I am suggesting if we value the input of older people. While some older people feel overwhelmed by the pace of modern life and, in particular, the technological changes we have seen in recent years, many others are as smart and up-to-date as any youngster, while also benefiting from greater experience and accumulated wisdom.

It is particularly appropriate that we are holding this debate during the annual Bealtaine festival, a month-long nationwide celebration of older people's creativity and participation in the arts. I am delighted that Senator White has also expressed her enthusiasm in that regard. The festival serves to remind us that our older generation represents a resource which this nation cannot afford to neglect.