Mary White (Fianna Fail)

I was delighted and honoured that the Minister of State commended my document in his speech. I appreciate that very much. I wish formally to thank the Leader, Senator O'Rourke, for allowing us to have this debate on ageism and ageing. In my policy document, A New Approach to Ageing and Ageism, I make a case on behalf of the thousands of older people who suffer unnecessary discrimination in Ireland every day. I launched my document in June and Senator Maurice Hayes kindly made a presentation on behalf of the older people in Ireland and in support of my document. This policy document is based on more than a year's research, on consultation with older people's groups, public meetings and attending conferences for older people.

Benefits for older people in Ireland are currently provided for on a year by year basis in the budget and are subject to budgetary constraints. Services for older people should be guaranteed in law. In 1965, United Stattes President Johnson introduced the Older Americans Act, which outlines the duty of the US Congress to older people. This Act spells out that in law older people are entitled to an adequate income on retirement; the best physical and mental health care science can make available; suitable housing at costs older people can afford; and efficient community services. More importantly, it put into law people's right to freedom, independence and the free exercise of individual initiative in planning and managing their lives. We need legislation such as an older Irish people's Act to prompt a paradigm shift in the minds of policymakers to ensure improvements in the areas of quality home care services, quality community support services and quality long-term care services.

The last census in 2002 showed that 15% of the population were over 60 years of age and 11% were over 65 years of age. Despite negative stereotyping to the contrary, older people are not helpless, a liability or a burden. All research shows that older people in Ireland feel capable of doing their everyday business without any difficulty but they are held back from realising their full potential by the outdated attitude of Government and society as a whole. In saying that I am not attributing blame to the Minister of State.

With the improvements in health care, standards of living and housing, the number of people over 65 years of age is set to increase dramatically in the coming years. The Central Statistics Office, CSO, projects that the number of people over 65 years of age will increase by almost 50%, from 430,000 in 2002 to 628,000 in 2016. Therefore, the response we make to today's positive challenges set by a healthier and more active older population will have far-reaching consequences for future older generations.

Life expectancy is increasing all the time. A man of 60 years of age today can expect to live to the age of 80 while a woman of 60 years of age can expect to live to the age of 84. As older people are healthier and live longer, they will have higher expectations for their quality of life. Professor Seamus Caulfield of UCD, who spoke at one of the public meetings I organised, said that a person can go to bed the night before his or her 65th birthday perceived to be an asset to the State but the next morning be perceived a liability.

A topic that has frequently arisen at my public meetings is the issue of mandatory retirement. The age of retirement at 65 was introduced in law approximately 100 years ago when the average life expectancy was 65 years of age, and it has not been reviewed since. I have experience first hand at my public meetings of the frustration and heartbreak suffered by men and women who will have to retire in the next two or three years on reaching the age of 65. Their hearts are broken because they do not want to retire. Not all employees want to continue to work after retirement age but approximately a quarter of employees who retire every year do not want to retire.

For many women, including myself, the mandatory retirement age of 65 is a double discrimination because they had to retire when they got married. It was not until the implementation of an EU directive in 1973 that married women were allowed to continue in employment. Men have raised this issue at my public meetings and I have had letters published in a newspaper to which people have responded. Some men who are due to retire in two or three years' time do not want to do so and the requirement that they must is upsetting them now. Many of them do not want to retire for financial reasons; they still have children in college and have to provide for them. However, many people want to retire at the age of 65 and many older people want to pursue further education, a point to which I will return.

The measures I propose can be implemented quickly and will have a positive effect on the economy and the quality of life of our older people. At their core is the provision of real choice for older people who wish to continue working, the choice of staying on in work, retiring or retiring gradually by reducing their hours. In my document I propose that the mandatory retirement age should be abolished and that continued employment should be subject to the same assessment of competency, ability and good health that is used by employers in the case of employees of all ages.

My second recommendation on the issue of retirement is that the Government should introduce a gradual or phased transition to retirement such that a person could chose to work one week on and one week off rather than his or her job being guillotined when on reaching the age of 65, and all that goes with that. A person's network at work is cut off when the person reaches retirement age.

It is a contradiction to force experienced people out of work while desperately seeking economic migrants to fill job vacancies. People are being forced into retirement while we are desperately trying to recruit people to fill job positions. A recent MRBI survey, commissioned by The Irish Times and published in September, found that more than half of people over the age of 50 do not want to retire before the age of 65 and that many wish to keep working beyond that age.

The UK introduced the UK Employment (Equality) Age Regulations on 1 October, which provide that it will be illegal to discriminate against employees, job seekers and trainees on the basis of their age. Our Government is to be congratulated on the enactment of the Equal Status Act, which led the field in many ways. However, the UK Act goes further than our legislation. According to the Department of Trade and Industry in the UK, its procedures will allow a constructive dialogue between employers and employees who want to continue working after retirement. Employers will not be able to retire employees before they reach the age of 65 without objective justification. Above all, these new UK regulations give all employees the right to request to work beyond the age of 65 and the right to have this request considered by management. I urge the Government to consider introducing similar legislation.

In regard to the health service, surveys consistently show that older people consider they are not treated equally and that doctors are reluctant to refer them to specialist treatments and preventative care programmes. Older people feel their health complaints are dismissed by health service workers as part of the ageing process. They have a right to parity of esteem in their access to services and treatments and care must be available on the basis of need, not on the basis of age. Old people must not die of treatable diseases. An example of ageist discrimination is the age limit of 64 on BreastCheck. Professor Des O'Neill, professor of gerontology in Tallaght Hospital, has told me that women are at the highest risk of developing breast cancer between the ages of 55 and 75. I acknowledge that the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, has accepted the need for an increase in the age limits, but the new strategy for cancer control only recommends an increase in screening age up to 69.

While the life expectancy of older people is increasing continually, Ireland is not at the head of the class, as I discovered last year when I started my research. Our outdated approach to health care for older people contributes to the relatively low life expectancy of older people in Ireland compared with life expectancy for older people in other OECD countries. To effect an improvement in these figures, we must change our attitude to older people's health by providing services on the basis of need, not age.

I have spoken on about ten occasions, in Donegal, here yesterday in the audio-visual room to older people from Cork, and elsewhere since I produced my document. I mention on every occasion how doctors talk down to older people, telling them their health problems are due to their age. They do not address the problem. They do not want to give aggressive treatment for the problem. It is abominable. Everyone in the room nodded. Doctors and nurses talk over their heads. They talk to their families about them. In the workplace we have had a very successful national action plan against racism. I propose, and perhaps the Minister could drive it in his Department, that we introduce a national action plan against ageism. We have role models such as our esteemed Senator Maurice Hayes who is an inspiration to me and to all of us in the House and is a role model for men and for women. Dr. Garret FitzGerald is also a role model. Even though he is a member of an Opposition party, I commend him. Dr. Whitaker and Gay Byrne are also role models.