Susan O'Keeffe (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. As a young person I would like to be part of the debate. I join others in saying, "well done" to Senator Mary White for bringing the matter to the House. As Senator Bradford has said it is not a matter of politics, our age affects all of us. As Senator Quinn has said we all had a birthday, we all have a birth certificate and we know where it is heading. The generosity of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, is something we can embrace and we all understand this is a debate to which we are contributing. The spirit of the Bill is welcome. We are talking about the right to retire, the right age at which to retire, the growing aging population and that the considerable number of people who have already expressed an interest or a desire to work beyond the retirement age of 65 is quite high. It remains to be seen how many people on reaching the age of 65 years might still hold that view. Obviously there is much for us to discuss in this area.

I acknowledge the work being done by the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, with the interdepartmental working in retirement group. She is looking across all the Departments that are intertwined, Departments of Social Protection, Health, Jobs. Enterprise and Innovation, Public Expenditure and Reform, Justice and Equality and Education and Skills. The coming together of so many Departments is evidence of the complexity of the issue. The group is set to consult with all the relative stakeholders and all those who have a say in the matter. On the face of it, it may appear relatively easy to legislate and change the rules. I like the sound of that. It appears as if we are doing something, that we are responding and ironing out rules we have inherited from an earlier time; I had not realised it was from Bismarck which is a long time ago. In essence, we must not be fooled by the sound of it. As legislators we are heading for the substance with the interdepartmental group. As we are engaged with it I hope we will wait for the interdepartmental group to report. However, the Minister has said he will take on board the contributions made in the House.

I have three notes of caution to sound in this area. When we start to change the retirement age, it will inevitably change our culture and our attitude to work in general. We know, for example, that the American work ethic is a very powerful one and the people there tend to work more days and longer days than in Europe. It is part of the culture to work hard. If we go down this route and push out the retirement age to 67 or 68, will people feel obliged to work? It will change the culture and that is something we need to think about. Ill health is a rising issue with increased age. The 2005 CSO figures show that more than 51% of people over the age of 65 years reported a chronic illness or disability. Senator White made the point that she hopes people who are in ill health will not continue to work. However, some people may feel the pressure to work in a changed culture. If their chronic illness is at a particular stage it may exacerbate their health in the longer term and that is not acceptable. Some of those people who have said they want to stay on until they are 65 years of age may be the knowledge workers for whom their career and their job is one that interests and stimulates them. For those for whom work is more of a chore or is physically difficult would they share that same view about retiring at a later age?

Senator Bradford and others mentioned the issue of jobs for younger people. Youth unemployment is a very serious concern across not just Ireland but Europe, the US and the world. Therefore, any discussion about changing the retirement age here would have to take that into account. The European Court of Justice referred to this particular point in Torsten Hornfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB in July and stated specifically that encouragement of recruitment undoubtedly constitutes a legitimate aim of member states' social and employment policy in particular when the promotion of access of young people to a profession is involved. The court said that the retirement age must be objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate social policy aim. The Bill does not quite strike the balance that is at stake in respect of young people and the labour market. In time that can and will be teased out in debates in this and the other House and with the interdepartmental group.

The third reason is that from much research we know that the disadvantaged who live on a low income have a shorter life expectancy. The HSE said in 2008 that despite the rise in prosperity and overall improvements in the health of the Irish population, rates of mortality and morbidity are consistently higher for lower socioeconomic groups. Barnardos said the link between poverty and ill health was clear. The Institute of Public Health research estimates that around 6,000 premature deaths are due to poverty and inequality in Ireland. The reason that is relevant is that every increase in the pension age essentially redistributes money from poor pensioners with a shorter life expectancy to those from professional backgrounds who live longer. If one retires later and lives only to 75 years, one has less time to live on one's pension. I do not think that is an intended consequence of the Senator's Bill. We must ensure in the legislation that cannot be an unintended consequence. We already know from the UK that the average age for those who die earlier is 79 years and an additional 17 years is estimated for those who have a relatively healthy life and who have had a higher income. That is a considerable number of years.

We will have a broad and reasonable discussion on the issue. I welcome the Minister's intervention on the matter and I look forward to being part of the discussion because it will affect all of us at some point or another.