Eamonn Coghlan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House and the introduction of Senator Crown's Longer Healthy Living Bill 2015. It sounds exciting to live longer and healthier. I agree that the issue of mandatory retirement at 65 must be debated at a national level, as the Minister has indicated. They say that 80 is the new 60, 60 is the new 40 and, as the Minister will be glad to know, 40 is the new 20. He has much to look forward to in the coming years. We are told that we are certainly living longer due to a healthier lifestyle and diet, etc., despite all the issues we have with obesity and other health problems. I recently read a piece from Professor Lynda Gratton from the London Business School who asked the question of whether a person would like to live to 100. If that is to happen, the person will have to work until he or she is 80. To do that, the person will have much to do to be organised.

It is appropriate to speak today of how in the past month I have been involved with a television series called "Super-Fit Seniors". It involves sportsmen who are between their mid 70s and late 80s who are still competing at a high level in their respective sports. One gentleman is a sailor who is 83, and he is still competing against men who are less than half his age and beating them. There is a 74-year-old Formula 2 motor car racing driver who competes against men younger than him, as well as an 85-year-old marathon runner who runs 60 miles per week. There is an 86-year-old rower who is competing in the world championships in the new year and who is still doing approximately 40 km per week in the boat. There is an 83-year-old cyclist who is riding 500 km per week and who only this past weekend had a wonderful race down the country, which I attended. There is a 70-year-old power lifter who is deadlifting half a tonne in weight and will soon be competing in the world championships.

That is not a promotion for the programme but I was quite impressed by these gentlemen. When I asked them about retiring, they told me it does not enter the equation whatsoever. It is not their philosophy to quit. They thrive in competition, not necessarily against others but against themselves. It is a psychological and physical competition, leading to mental stimulation that keeps them fresh, happier and feeling younger; it keeps them busy and gives them a good attitude in life. I loved one man's philosophy in particular, as he said that growing old is mandatory but growing up is optional. In essence, that is what this Bill is about. It is about whether retirement can be optional or mandatory. At the same time, we must remember that some people are looking forward to retiring at 65, and it is very important that there can be an opt-out. People cannot be forced against their will to retire.

I very much agree with Senator Crown that it would be an extraordinary benefit to retain the invaluable knowledge and experience of the older workforce. If those people are competent and willing to work after the current retirement age, why not allow this to happen? The only problem I have is that the Bill applies to the health sector and the various agencies alluded to by the Minister. My concern is whether this can cross to other public services and even the private sector. These issues must be addressed if we are to make this applicable to the health service.

I have some concerns regarding section 9 of the Bill and a person's fitness to remain in the workforce. There could be many occasions where a person, for one reason or another, could consider himself or herself fit to stay but colleagues or managers may think differently. I know the Bill outlines procedures in sections 10 to 13, inclusive, on examinations by medical practitioners, etc., but personality clashes could come into play, so the area requires careful consideration. Since 2004, the Public Service Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act has, among other elements, removed the compulsory retirement age for certain categories of new entrants to the public service. Already, new entrants are not necessarily required to leave work on age grounds. This Act, however, does not deal with all those in the public service prior to 1 April 2004, and those employees are required to retire at 65, whether they want to or not. I also have a reservation in that if too many people choose to work beyond 65, it will affect the amount of jobs coming on-stream for graduates and school-leavers. Many people view this as unfair as, for example, retired teachers can come back to work to fill substitute or supervision roles while many young people and graduates are looking for work.

I note that the Minister agrees in principle with the Bill but many of the proposed provisions require very careful consideration and consultation will be required with the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform, Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, and Social Protection, as well as the HSE and other agencies outlined as being under the remit of the Department. In a survey from 2012 on whether retirement at 65 should be scrapped, 28% of people indicated it should be scrapped, 48% indicated it should not and 23% indicated they did not know. The question will be contentious and it will be interesting to see how this progresses through the House. I thank Senator Crown for bringing the Bill to the House.