Maire Devine (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin believes in the full abolition of mandatory retirement. Our Bill, the Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2016 is currently on Committee Stage in the Dáil, and would completely remove an age of retirement. This time last year, the Citizens' Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of abolishing mandatory retirement on the basis of age with a vote of 86%. Nobody should be forced to leave a job because of age. There is a clear appetite for change and I hope the Government will enact the Bill.

That said, I welcome this Bill as it does take some steps towards a more age-equal public service. The Bill recognises the fact that for those public servants who began their employment before April 2004, a gap exists between their mandatory age of retirement at 65 and the age at which they can receive the contributory State pension, CSP. This gap reveals a lack of joined-up thinking between Departments and we welcome it being closed. It is even more important since the age at which the CSP can be received is due to increase from 66 to 67 in 2021 and 68 in 2028. However, an important point is that this mandatory age of retirement does not mean public servants cannot retire before the age of 70 - if they wish to do so, they can.

A further rationale for this Bill is that it is a response to demographic change and the effects of an ageing society. We all know 70 is the new 60. The current arrangements deny public servants the choice of working beyond the age of 65, but the merits of this Bill fall beyond this consideration. It is essential that workers have the choice and capacity to exercise agency, and determine the conditions of their work and the length of their working life. Mandatory retirement at the age of 65 foreclosed that right, and the provisions of this Bill go some way towards addressing that.Furthermore, it is unwise to facilitate or force any loss of experience in the public service. We have much to learn from those who have cultivated a knowledge base and expertise through experience in our public service. We should not force them to leave and take their knowledge with them. It is important that their experience and skills are available as a learning resource for those who will remain in our public service after those to whom I refer choose to leave. The Bill gives some provision to allow this.

I wish to raise one concern in particular. A circular was issued on 15 December 2017. It applied to civil servants recruited prior to 1 April 2004 and who reached the age of 65 years between then and December 2017. The circular ensured that if a retired employee was rehired, he or she was paid at the minimum point of the pay scale rather than the point at which he or she had retired. This was an interim arrangement and ensured that a rehired civil servant could continue to draw salary until he or she was eligible to receive the contributory State pension. However, it is not clear whether those who availed of these interim arrangements will be able to be rehired under the terms of the Bill before the House, work on the basis of their previous salary scale and then retire at the new mandatory age of 70 years. For example, I spoke to a teacher this morning who will turn 65 years of age before the Bill is enacted. She will take a financial hit by being placed on the interim arrangement. Yet, it seems from section 2 she will be excluded from continuing to work until the age of 70 years. Perhaps the Minister of State could clarify that. If he cannot provide clarity on the matter, we recommend that amendments be brought forward to address this lacuna. Such amendments should provide for those who availed of the interim arrangements but who are excluded from these provisions.

My argument is that this Bill does not go far enough in radically challenging the ageism that obtains in our public service. However, it will make some positive changes to those who wish to continue to work past the age of 65. It will positively benefit the well-being of older individuals and the public service in terms of the retention of expertise. However, the concerns we have raised regarding those who will fall through the cracks by being on the interim scheme before this Bill is enacted must be addressed and a viable solution worked out. I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister of State.