Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate Senator White on bringing the Bill forward. From what we know of the Senator, she has a habit of doing things like this. She finds an issue that is logical and credible but which has remained dormant and she brings it forward for debate and, suddenly, we are all energised about it because we see the significance of what she is trying to achieve. In her case, it has been in gestation for some time. It is not a knee-jerk reaction. She has done much research on the subject and has published a report on ageism, therefore I see this as an extension of work she has already done. I am sure from the research and analysis she has done that she sees a particular glitch that needs to be examined. It was evident from the Minister's response that the issue was not far from his attention and that he could see the need for it. This is in the context of a simple human right, where a particular restrictive code is put on one section of society but there could be several other areas where the same restrictions were not applied. It was evident that the Minister could see that. He was right in saying that it is a very complex area. The complexity of the issue has to be dealt with in the context of a partnership between the young and those who are not so young.

When people of a certain age speak, there is a vested interest if one is reaching a certain age. For those who have not reached that age yet, it is interesting that when one does reach it and people are discussing ageism, one looks around and wonders about whom they are speaking, because it does not hit one in that way. We should bear that in mind. It has to be a partnership between young people and older people. It is interesting to note that people of an older age always encourage young people to do things, whether in organisations or communities. How often does somebody stand up and say a young person is needed? We must hear that from the other side as well. It is not the fault of young people, they have not reached that particular attitude as yet but it would be helpful to the debate if we expanded into that area where young people also see the aspect of wisdom and so on.

In the past in Germany, grandparents were close to the family unit and many lived with their children and grandchildren. This began to disappear, however, when people put grandparents into care homes. After several generations, research showed grandchildren had lost out in the important experience of growing up with a grandparent, gaining wisdom and so on. We must keep this in mind when we consider this legislation.

One problem with this type of legislation is that we start weighing up its effects. For example, if this happens, then people say X number more young people will not get jobs. As has been pointed out already, when the marriage bar for women in the Civil Service was removed, a similar effect did not occur. Years ago, we would not believe people with a physical handicap could be in a normal workplace. Now, there is no issue with it. It took someone to pioneer this and it is now seen as a plus rather than a minus. It does not automatically follow that if one allows people to stay at work after 65, then everyone will do so. A friend of mine who worked in the public service as a nurse was due for retirement. On the day he was retiring, he telephoned me at various points to say, ?Two hours to go?, ?One hour to go? and finally, ?I am free?. In his case, he wanted to be with his grandchildren. However, in the case of those who want to remain on in work, it might follow their experience and wisdom might create jobs rather than the opposite.

The expertise that is leaving the Garda Síochána is a matter of concern. Senior people are leaving the force when we are challenged by crime. The only way this can be handled is by allowing people to continue in work after 65. We should also remember that there is an attitude of mind. I remember the story of the television crew interviewing a man about his lifestyle. The man used two sticks, his back was bent over, his voice shaky and he was hard of hearing. The interviewer explained they just wanted to ask a few questions as to how the man attributed his age to what happened in the past. When asked did he drink whiskey, the man replied he did, even for breakfast. When asked did he smoke, he replied he always smoked. When asked did he diet, he said he ate anything that came his way. Finally, when asked what age he was, he replied he was 29.