Mary White (Fianna Fail)

I will tell the Senator about that later as I have prepared a Bill.

In 2007, a retirement age of 65 is out of date. Mandatory retirement at 65 was introduced when life expectancy was only 65. With greatly improved standards of living and better health care and nutrition, the average life expectancy of a man aged 65 today is 80. For a woman aged 65 today, the average life expectancy is 84. As this is the average, some people will live until 90 who are 65 today. As a result, many people do not want to retire at 65.

There are four key reasons for abolishing mandatory retirement at 65. An Agreed Programme for Government for 2007 promised to abolish mandatory retirement. I must boast that I worked hard to include this, first in the Fianna Fáil manifesto and then the programme for Government. I will track the matter until it is delivered. The second reason is that as the population ages, people remaining in employment longer will remain as financial contributors to the economy. It is common sense that if people do not wish to retire and draw on their pensions, they should be allowed to continue working. Forced retirement at 65 is a clear example of age discrimination.

The first recommendation in my document, A New Approach to Ageing and Ageism, is that mandatory retirement at 65 in the public and private sector be abolished. Continued employment should be subject to the same assessment of competence and ability used by employers in the case of employees of all ages.

My second recommendation from 28 in total was that the Government should introduce phased retirement options to allow employees to gradually retire. It is very blunt for a person to have an important job one day, complete with social and intellectual interaction with colleagues, only to abruptly retire at 65. There should be innovative options for people to retire in a phased manner and be allowed to work to supplement a pension. We have introduced an allowance but this is not enough, as people are only allowed to earn approximately €100 per week in such cases.

At a meeting of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party last night, I pleaded with the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and my party colleagues to introduce this change. I asked why it should not happen, as Deputies and Senators do not have to retire at 65. Why should anybody else in the public and private sector have to retire at that age? I cannot understand why this change has not already occurred. People raised arguments about complications, which we all know.

The pensions programme we discussed last year from the Pensions Board indicated that people may have to stay in their jobs beyond 65. I am talking about choice, as many people are in jobs they wish to get out of. Not everyone wants to stay in a particular job but people should be free to take up another opportunity. Some may be bored as their potential has not been developed and they may want to leave their jobs. We should not introduce rules meaning people would have to stay until they are 67 but there should be a choice as to stay or go at 65.

It is a pity Senator Fidelma Healy Eames is missing as I drew up a bill on flexible working arrangements. I was in full flight with it before I run into some stubborn walls. I warned my colleagues at the meeting last night that I will persist with the issue, whether they get sick of listening to me or not. That is the reason I am here.

Returning to my Bill on flexible working legislation for parents, modern communication technologies have delivered an unprecedented ability to work away from the standard office setting.