Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am supportive of the Bill. I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for bringing it to the Seanad. The Bill is important for several people. I know that some individuals have spoken about the sense that they have been pulled away from work that is important to them through the mandatory retirement age and cut off, in some cases, in terms of their contributions.

While I welcome the Bill and will be supporting it, there are some key issues that I wish to highlight. As the Bill sets out, it should not be mandatory to retire at 65 years of age. We should allow for persons to continue to work until 70 years of age, although that may change. It is important that we do not make it a requirement to work until 70 years of age. I know that is not provided for in the Bill. In any event, as a statement of policy for the future, it is important that we allow for persons who may have had long working lives to be under no expectation to work until 70. We already have fast-paced lives. I realise that public servants will be affected differently. In the wider context of our pension policy, we have a pension age that is increasing significantly to 68 years and that is to rise at a pace somewhat faster than will be the case in many other European countries.

There is a real concern about this matter. A public consultation is taking place this summer in respect of the contributory pension. I urge everyone to engage with the process. The concern to which I refer relates to the total contribution approach. We had been promised that the total contribution approach would be introduced in 2020 and that it would require 30 years of contribution. There is concern now that total contribution may now become 40 years. That could have a negative impact on several people who have been planning for retirement with 2020 in mind.

It is important that we do not contribute to a situation whereby people will be required to work until 70 or 75 years of age in order to access full pensions. Given the gaps in the years of the recession and austerity, there is a concern for many in that regard. Overall, I recognise that this is something of a broader question that falls outside the brief of the Minister of State. It relates more to the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection.

I support the Bill. It is constructive. I wish to voice my concern – this has been expressed by previous speakers – about those who have reached 65 years of age during the interim period. Some of these individuals find themselves on the lower point on the pay scale. While I recognise that the one-year contract extension they have signed may be unable to be changed, it is important that the Bill would provide a route back for those persons. This should involve a process whereby at a date subsequent to enactment, should the one-year period of extension expire for a person, the person will be able to access the benefits of the Bill and return to employment at the previous pay scale. That is important and it is something that we can do. I recognise that it is likely to be the subject of an amendment. Perhaps it is best if the Minister of State brings forward the relevant amendments on Committee Stage. I imagine that we would all support them.

I respectfully disagree with my colleague in respect of job-sharing. One thing we know from Age Action and many other groups is that many people in their 60s and 70s want to move towards job-sharing. It allows them to maintain their connection to the workplace, contribute experience and, in many cases, provide mentorship to those who will take over roles in future. In fact, there is considerable benefit in job-sharing-----