John Gilroy (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the Chamber. We are not opposing the Bill, the intention of which is decent and sound and worth much consideration.We can speak only about the Bill before us. The Bill, as presented, requires additional work before it can be fully supported, and I look forward to discussing it on Committee Stage. The Minister might think about and redress some of my concerns. Does the Bill propose to exclude other employees across the public service, or is it confined to those who work in the health service? If so, by what logic do we include one specific group of workers and exclude the rest of the public service? A case can be made that if it applies to the health service, it should apply also to the wider public service. If not, it would not just be inequitable but would possibly stand contrary to agreed public service employment agreements, labour relations conventions and labour law. Unless it can be demonstrated that a unique set of circumstances exists within the health sector to confine the provisions of the Bill to the sector, we must rework it.

There might be concern that the Bill may create a third classification of worker, although it is not the intention of the Bill. There are employees who are required to retire at the end of their employment contract, generally at the age of 65. There are other employees whose employment terms are defined under the Public Service Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004. The Bill before us requires us to introduce a third category of worker whose employment terms are defined by it. We must examine it more closely and determine whether section 9(a), which allows for an individual to be declared unfit for work, introduces something we might not necessarily want to introduce. To classify a person as unfit for work due to his or her age is discriminatory because it is based on age-related criteria rather than health-related criteria and would introduce a direction we might not wish our industrial relations machinery to follow.

If we can demonstrate that certain unique conditions exist in the health sector that would confine the provisions of the Bill to the sector, it would be worthwhile specifying them. There is a precedent in the superannuation arrangements regarding the care of mental patients which specifies a particular category of health sector worker who is treated differently in employment law than other sectors. Section 9 introduces a category of employee who is to be treated differently. The reference to section 9 introduces this discrimination. The Bill, as proposed, would work as well without section 9. If we examine what the section is trying to achieve, we can find it is probably achieved without reference to it.

The Bill needs to have regard to the provisions of the Public Sector Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004, although the only Act referred to in the construction of the Bill is the Medical Practitioners Act 2007. We would benefit from considering the Public Sector Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004, particularly section 4(1)(b). We could ask some questions about how the section relates to workers. Would superannuation benefit be paid to an employee after he or she has reached the age of 65 or would the employee already have accrued his or her full entitlements at that stage? If there is a requirement for a further adaptation of the superannuation apparatus, we would need to be clear about how it would work and how it would be calculated. Schedule 1 of the Public Sector Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004 lists bodies which are not defined as public service bodies and to which the provisions of the Act do not apply, and we could have usefully applied the same criteria to the Bill before us.

Is there a concern that if we induce workers to stay in their posts at the top of their positions, generally speaking, after the age of 65, we would disincentivise younger staff from applying for these posts? I am thinking particularly of areas in which there are very few workers, for example medical consultants. Would we disincentivise younger doctors from moving into an area if they think they must wait another five, ten or 12 years for a consulting position in a particular specialty? I hope the Minister understands what I am trying to say. I look forward to discussing it further. It is very complicated. It is not as simple as proposed in the Bill. While I do not oppose the Bill, I look forward to amendments being tabled, and some rewording and redrafting to take my points into consideration.