John Crown (Independent)

There has been considerable discussion here and elsewhere over the past several days about the disclosure that various senior staff in the public service had been re-hired following their retirements. Much of the discussion is focused on the appropriateness of this practice, the potential waste, and there has been a focus on the degree of compensation for people whose new temporary salaries are totted up with their pensions. However, there has been insufficient discussion on what is the most important aspect. This is the most telling example we could have of the inappropriateness of mandatory retirement. These people were clearly able to do the job, they are still able to do the job, they wanted to do the job and they were told they had to retire and become dependent on the State. This is irrational. In the best of times if the economy was booming we would have difficulty dealing with the demographic burden that will be imposed by mandatory retirement and by the presence of a large number of ever longer-living retirees who will be using their pension funds. The arbitrary figure of 65 years was one which was chosen at a time when the average life expectancy was considerably less than 65 and it was chosen at a time when people who lived to the age of 65, on average lived maybe two years longer. Now we know that people who live to the age of 65 are very likely to make it close to their 90th birthday.

This does not make economic or demographic sense, coupled with the fact that I know from first-hand experience that many doctors and nurses who work with me in the health service, do not want to retire. They are in the full of their health, they are doing jobs well and they are told one day that they are now surplus to requirements and they must go on the pension and they must become dependent on the State. This policy is irrational and anachronistic and is a breach of people's human rights. I know my colleague and friend, Senator White, will be attempting to address this issue at some stage and I hope there will be cross-party support for an Irish-led initiative for a critical examination of a practice that has become a central tenet of social policy. I do not mean we should terminate optional retirement but I certainly believe we should end mandatory retirement. I would like a debate in the House on this issue.