Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)

I thank all Senators for their contributions. Can I say that Senator Joe Conway looks amazing for eight decades? He is very dapper today. Congratulations. What a wonderful achievement. Very valid points were raised and the officials are working furiously in the background, taking copious notes on Senators' suggestions, comments and observations.The story about Senator Nelson Murray's mum is a lovely story to tell. My own dad is in his 70s as well, working in Slane, County Meath, not too far from the Senator. We all know people who, while they may reach the retirement age, do not really think of life in terms of retirement. We have to acknowledge that and respect it and support people who do want to continue long past 65 or 66. Equally, I know Senator Murphy has been making the case that those who do want to retire have those options and are supported financially to do so. I thank everyone for their comments here today.

The Bill is a targeted and proportionate measure designed to address a very specific problem, namely, the gap between the age at which many employees are contractually required to retire and the age at which they can first access the State pension, which has been a huge problem. This is not an isolated measure. It complements wider reforms to strengthen Ireland's pension system for future generations. This Bill is part of a comprehensive package of pension reforms designed to ensure sustainability and predictability in the retirement system. These measures stem from the recommendations of the Pensions Commission and reflect the Government's commitment to provide adequate and reliable income for people in retirement, while safeguarding the long-term viability of the Social Iinsurance Fund. In January 2025, my colleague the Minister for Social Protection will launch the auto-enrolment retirement savings scheme, a trademark reform that will help workers build pension savings throughout their careers. Together, these initiatives promote fairness, encourage longer working lives and give people confidence that their retirement income will be both sustainable and predictable. Workers retiring at 65 have faced an income cliff edge before reaching the pensionable age of 66. This Bill bridges that gap. It allows, but does not compel, employees to remain in employment until pensionable age. This measure will improve adequacy of income for older workers. It will practically benefit employees who would experience a significant drop in their income if they were forced to retire before the age at which they could first access the State pension. It also gives employees the opportunity to build up further PRSI contributions, potentially improving their pension entitlements while enabling further and fuller participation in economic and social life.

Calls to abolish mandatory retirement ages entirely have been raised. While understandable, this would go far beyond the scope of this Bill and current Government policy. The Pensions Commission examined this option in detail and concluded that complete abolition would impose substantial burdens on employers and would severely limit their ability to plan for recruitment, succession and workforce renewal. These functions are essential for the business community to continue and for creating opportunities for younger workers. We should be mindful that while unemployment in the State is at near historic lows, the youth unemployment rate is higher than in any other age group. The commission's recommendation, which Government accepted, was to introduce a targeted measure that aligns contractual retirement ages with the pensionable age for employees who do not consent to retirement at the contractual age. This strikes the right balance. It addresses that income gap for those retiring before they access the State pension and respects both the operational needs of employers and the choice of employees who are happy to retire at that contractual retirement age. This Bill, therefore, focuses on bridging that gap and creates a new employment right for those affected, strengthening protections by requiring an individual assessment where an employer seeks to enforce a contractual retirement age below the pensionable age, but provides clear redress through the WRC. In short, it is a proportionate, practical solution that improves fairness without undermining the legitimate interests of employers or the integrity of workforce planning. The sheer range of types of work and occupations means it is not practical to supply a comprehensive list - a point that was raised earlier - of jurisdictions for enforcing a retirement age. The law sets a high threshold for any refusal and in each case must be assessed individually. Employers may only enforce a contractual retirement age below the pensionable age where they can objectively and reasonably justify the decision by referencing a legitimate aim and where the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. This is not a general test; it requires an individual assessment of the type of work involved and the employee's continued ability to carry out that work. If an employer refuses and the employee challenges the decision, the WRC will examine all relevant factors, including the nature of the work, health and safety considerations and whether the employer's justifications meet the legal standard. Where an employer is found not to comply with the law, the penalties are significant, up to the greater of 104 weeks' pay or €40,000. Ultimately, the WRC will determine whether the employer's justification is proportionate and reasonable and its decision will be binding. This ensures that the process is fair, robust and tailored to the realities of different workplaces.

In common with much of employment law, we have provided for offences under this legislation. As Senators will be aware, offences must be accompanied by penalties. This does not mean we expect many employers will ever face prosecution. This would arise only in the most serious cases. As a general rule, an award made in favour of an employee should itself have a dissuasive effect.

This Bill is a practical, proportionate step forward that respects the interests of employees and workers alike. It will make a real difference to thousands of workers approaching retirement. I commend this Bill to the House.