Mary White (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State and commend the Bill before us. Both the Minister of State and my colleagues have commented on the many good aspects of the legislation but I would like to focus on section 15 which provides for the amendment of section 4 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 to entitle employees who have attained the age of 66 years to statutory redundancy payments. The section changes the lamentable status quo, whereby employees aged 66 and above are refused statutory redundancy payments. It is yet another example of age discrimination codified in law. It refused to appreciate the valuable work and contribution that older people made in the economy. Until now, however, these valued workers were not entitled to any statutory redundancy payments on being made redundant. The reasoning behind this could only have been faulty and ageist. Perhaps it was thought that these older employees would be happy enough to draw the pension and withdraw from working life, but why was this attitude held? Surely, it was obvious that the people concerned were working beyond the usual retirement age of 65 years because they wanted or needed to do so. It was wrong, therefore, for the legislation to deny them their deserved statutory redundancy payment and assume that they did not merit it. Can one imagine the heartbreak for an employee treated in such as way to see their cherished job being taken away through no fault of their own, and, furthermore, to find that, unlike their younger colleagues — perhaps even colleagues they helped train in — the Government does not see fit to recognise that they too have suffered a loss, just because they can draw a pension?

I am, therefore, delighted that the Bill proposes to increase the upper age limit for employees to receive statutory redundancy payments. This move is not before time. At least now workers who have toiled loyally for their employers for decades can receive recognition of that dedication and contribution should their positions cease to exist. The former position was ludicrous in that a 65 year old working for 40 years for a company would receive compensation, but a 66 year old who may have worked for the company for a longer period would not. The legislation is a step in the right direction. I look forward to further legislative change in the future to help erase the remaining vestiges of entrenched ageism in our society.

I am driving for change and the abolition of the mandatory retirement age in both the public and private sectors. I thank the Minister of State and his officials who gave us a tremendous briefing on this complex Bill earlier. They told us how they had toiled over it at weekends with officials and the representatives of the social partners. It is a great compliment to both sides. The legislation is heavy going and complicated. It is not scintillating and sexy and required serious detailed attention to make sure its provision were correct. I compliment the Minister of State and everybody else involved.