Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I apologise for being late but a vote in the Dáil delayed me. I thank Members for their patience.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the Bill for the consideration of the House following its recent successful passage through the Dáil. I will begin by providing some background to the Bill and put it in context. This Bill gives effect to a key Government commitment arising from the Pensions Commission's recommendations and implementation plan. While broader reforms to the State pension system are being led out by my colleague, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Calleary, this Bill addresses a specific gap in employment rights, namely the ability of workers to remain in employment until they reach the State pension age. Its purpose is to allow, but not compel, employees to remain in work until they reach pensionable age, which is 66, where they work under a contract that provides for a lower retirement age. The Bill creates a new statutory structure for employees to notify their employer of their intention to remain in employment until a later age, up to 66, where their contractual retirement age is lower.

Throughout the discussions in the Dáil, there has been keen engagement and a shared determination to strengthen protections for individuals nearing retirement. There was strong cross-party consensus on the core principles of the Bill in relation to enhancing the rights of older workers and the choices available for those nearing their contractual retirement age. These discussions have helped to ensure that the balance between worker and employer perspectives have been rigorously considered. The constructive engagement of Deputies was very much appreciated.

During discussions on the Bill in the Dáil Deputies broadly welcomed the measures that allow employees to remain in work until the State pension age. Issues which arose in the course of the debates included giving full access to the State pension at 65. This falls outside the scope of this Bill and is a matter for the Minister for Social Protection. This legislation deals exclusively with contractual retirement ages. I recognise the challenges posed by the income gap faced by employees who are required to retire before they can access the State pension. Addressing that gap by giving employees the choice to remain in work until the State pension age is a core objective of the Bill.

Deputies also raised the issue of abolishing contractual retirement ages in their entirety. This would substantially exceed the objective of this Bill and would potentially create a significant difficulty for employers in managing their workforce. It would make succession planning and providing career opportunities for other employees much more difficult. That said, I am strongly in favour of supporting workers who want to extend their working lives.Rather than them abolishing contractual retirement ages, I encourage employers and employees alike to have regard to the code of practice on longer working of the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC.

The Department has also worked alongside the WRC to develop a comprehensive information campaign for both workers and employers on the new rights and obligations arising from this Bill, once enacted. In addition, I expect that a new WRC code of practice will be developed clearly setting out the obligations arising under this legislation. This approach will support a smooth commencement of the Bill and ensure that the new right is implemented consistently and fairly.

I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill, which consists of ten sections, divided into four Parts. An explanatory memorandum has been published and provides a summary of the provisions. Part 1 of the Bill deals with preliminary and general matters. Sections 1 and 2 set out the Short Title of the Bill, commencement provisions and necessary definitions. Section 3 provides that the Bill applies to employees with a contractual retirement age that is below the State pension age and who have completed their probation. This section also explicitly excludes employees with a retirement age set out in law, such as members of the Garda or the Defence Forces, from the Bill’s effect. Section 4 is a standard provision relating to expenses incurred in the Bill’s administration.

Part 2 of the Bill sets out how this new employment right operates. Section 5 provides that employees may give notice to their employer that they do not consent to retire at a contractual retirement age below the State pension age. This notice period must be a minimum of three months but no greater than one year. An employer’s handbook may require a longer minimum notice period but this cannot be more than six months. Employees also have the right to change their mind. They can choose to withdraw the notification and retire. However, they must give the employer notice in accordance with their contract or minimum notice legislation, whichever is the shorter. When employers receive this notification, they cannot enforce the retirement age, except in limited circumstances. If the employer wants to enforce the contractual retirement age, it must give the employee a written reply that sets out an objective and reasonable justification for applying the retirement age to that individual employee. This exception recognises that there may be limited circumstances where it is necessary that a retirement age below the age of 66 applies. This fact was recognised by the Pensions Commission in its report. I want to make an important point here. The employer must be capable of justifying the retirement age for the individual worker as distinct from a general class of worker. The threshold to be met is, therefore, higher than is provided for in the Employment Equality Acts, which will continue to have effect more generally.

Part 3 sets out how employees can enforce their rights under this Bill. Section 6 sets out the complaints procedure, which is in line with other employment rights legislation. Employees will be able to refer a complaint and seek redress through the WRC if their rights under this Bill are breached. Where a complaint is well founded, the WRC may require the employer to take a specific course of action, including reinstatement or re-engagement. The WRC can also award compensation, with an upper limit of the greater of 104 weeks’ remuneration or €40,000. This is aligned with the compensation set out in the Employment Equality Acts for offences under that legislation. These compensation levels are designed not only to benefit an employee whose rights are breached, but to be sufficient and dissuasive to encourage employer compliance with the legislation. Section 7 makes technical changes to the Workplace Relations Act 2015 to provide for this complaint mechanism.

Part 4 relates to penalisation and offences. Section 8 protects employees from penalisation for exercising, or proposing to exercise, their entitlements. Section 9 states that employees’ existing rights under employment equality legislation are retained but redress cannot be granted by the WRC under both pieces of legislation. Section 10 makes it an offence for an employer to retire an employee having failed to provide a written, reasoned reply in response to the employee’s written notification.

In summary, the aims of this Bill are multiple. It will facilitate employees who wish to continue working beyond the normal retirement age of 65. It will bridge the income gap for those workers who may experience a significant drop in their income when they are required to retire before they can access the State pension. It will improve adequacy and predictability of income for older workers. I look forward to hearing Senators' views and to continuing our work on this important Bill.

Ollie Crowe (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber this afternoon. I also welcome this legislation, which, as she outlined, will allow workers whose contract has a retirement age of 65 or under to work to the State pension age of 66, if they so wish. It will allow those who wish to bridge the income gap experienced by persons who are required to retire at an age lower than the age at which they can access the State pension to do so. Workers may still retire at 65 as per their contract if they so wish, but there are many people who are happy to continue to work for an extra year and this change in employment law will allow for this. A number of people in Galway city and beyond have raised this issue with me in recent years, so I am happy to see that this Bill will address it.

As the Minister of State has said, this legislation will implement a key commitment included in the Government’s response to the Pensions Commission recommendations and implementation plan. What people want in the pensions area is certainty and clarity. They want to know what they will be entitled to and at what age it will be delivered. As the Minister of State noted, this is part of a broader package of pension reforms being rolled out by the Government. The provisions in this Bill are an important step in improving the predictability of retirement income for employees and helping to protect workers when they are approaching retirement. These reforms will enhance the clarity and certainty people are seeking when it comes to pensions.

As part of those wider reforms, we should examine mandatory retirement ages in general. People are healthier than ever nowadays, with Ireland having a life expectancy of 82 years, one of the highest in Europe. Many are eager to continue working but are not able to do so due to a mandatory age limit. We are also much more aware now of the negative impact thatforced retirement can have on the mental health of those who wish to continue working. Wherever possible, we should allow people to have choice in this area and to make decisions based on their own capacity and their own personal circumstances. I appreciate that this is outside the scope of today’s Bill but with the Minister of State in the House, I wanted to take the opportunity to raise this issue.

Thankfully, we are living in a period of full employment. Indeed, there are employers across the country who have positions they cannot fill. This legislation is both welcome and needed. It reflects the changing demographics of the country, with people living longer lives than ever before. It provides people with the opportunity to continue to work and contribute to our strong economy if they so wish. It supports the long-standing policy to encourage and support longer and fuller working lives, where older people are facilitated in continuing in employment, if they so wish, until the age at which they can first access the State pension. I am happy to support the Bill and expect it will receive broad support in this House as it did in Dáil Éireann.

Joe Conway (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This proposed legislation is very progressive. I am delighted that as part of the programme for Government it has been given early prominence in the legislative schedule of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The disjoint between the mandatory retirement age of 65 and the age at which people can access a State pension is really counterintuitive. It is almost as if people are being penalised for being in robust good health such that they can work until 65 or even longer.At the same time, they are put into this sort of limbo where they are devoid of the standardised luxury of an income, and they have to go to social welfare and go through all sorts of hoops to get them through to the pension age. That is not very good for people's morale after a lifetime in the workforce doing decent work for the State and for us all.

The new pattern of work in the years ahead is going to be manifestly a time of changing careers and people not just sticking to a job they start at 18 or 20 and adhering to it until they are ready to assume pensionable status. We see very frequently now people changing careers at 40 and 50 and then moving on to something often through no choice of their own. Sometimes, life just deals them a difficult hand of cards and they have to adjust. However, by and large, people do. People who have the positivity and who are blessed with the good strength and fortitude of good mental health can usually be resourceful enough to move on to a new career, and that is to be greatly admired. This should not just be the be all and end all of the legislation. The Government should be looking at the possibility of having people continuing in employment productively into whatever age they feel they are capable of generating productive work for the State.

I was blessed to be given the new career in the Houses of the Oireachtas at the end of January last. By and large, I am probably acquitting myself reasonably well along with my colleagues in the Seanad even though I am well into my eighth decade. That is a matter of considerable pride to me. I would like to make this career longer, so I entreat the Minister of State and her Government colleagues to please get on nicely together and give me a nice extension of my career until whenever - 2029. I would be immensely grateful for that.

I just want to refer to the "justifiable criteria" that are mentioned in the proposed legislation where employers can look at justifiable criteria they might be able to resile from the legislation. The first one is on health and safety concerns where the nature of the work poses risks if performed beyond a certain age, and employers in those case must show evidence that continued employment would be compromising safety or health. That is eminently reasonable. In succession planning and workforce management, again, employers must be able to show that they are ensuring opportunities for younger workers of maintaining a career path and progression, and those measures must be balanced and proportionate, not simply a blanket or catch-all rule. The legislation refers to operational requirements where the role demands physical capacity or specific employment standards cannot reasonably be made beyond a certain age. We could make a list, but if we start making a list, we just realise that there is no such thing as an exhaustive list in that regard so it is better not to indicate anything. On preservation of institutional integrity in certain professions, retirement ages may be justified to maintain institutional balance and renewal. On consistency then with international standards, some sectors are regulated by international regulations and set maximum ages for safety critical tasks.

It is possible to look on those criteria in a sort of pejorative way, but they seem to be eminently sensible, which makes the proposed legislation very rounded and fair-minded. I have certainly not heard anybody in our Seanad Independent Group who has voiced a titter of opposition of this to me knowing that I was coming up here this afternoon. Speaking informally to people from the other parties outside, there seems to be an acceptance that what was done in the Lower House was a fair harbinger of what was going to happen here. I am, therefore, delighted to signal our support for this legislation. Go n-éirí go geal leis an Aire Stáit leis an mBille seo.

Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for being here today. I heard a great quote once, which is: "The trouble with retirement is that you never get a day off." That sounds kind of wonderful - being busy in retirement and healthy to enjoy it. However, I would like it on my own terms, and this legislation we are debating goes a long way towards that. I would not like to be told I have to retire earlier than I want to or before the State pension age, so I very much welcome this today.

As was mentioned, the background to this is that the Pensions Commission was established on foot of the 2020 programme for Government commitment to examine sustainability and eligibility issues with State pensions and the Social Insurance Fund. In its terms of reference, the commission was also asked to consider the issue of retirement ages in private employment contracts that are set out below the State pension age. Currently, there is no general retirement age for employees in Irish legislation. Under Irish and EU employment equality legislation, an employer is currently permitted to set a retirement age but only in circumstances where it can be "objectively [and reasonably] justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary."

In September 2022, in response to the Pensions Commission recommendations and implementation plan, Government committed to a range of pension reforms. The Government also committed to introduce legislation which would allow, but not compel, an employee to stay in employment until the State pension age. This legislation is really important and it reaffirms Government's long-standing policy to encourage and support longer and fuller working lives where older people are facilitated in continuing in employment if they wish to do so until the age that they can first access the State pension.

Some people dread retirement. My mam was one of those people. If she was not running up and down to the showrooms of our furniture factory in Navan, she was lost. She liked a bit of bingo and, of course, her family, but work and that passion for meeting people and selling them furniture was everything. Mam started work at the age of 12 as a seamstress and work was all she knew. She adored it. Getting her to go on holidays was even difficult, which is why she did not retire to the age of 75. At that stage, she was just about ready to retire because she was just getting a little bit tired. We are a different generation now. Our life expectancy is 82.5 years. In 1975, when I was born, our life expectancy was 71. As mentioned, life expectancy in Ireland is the fifth highest in the EU. Our health service is one that continues to deliver better results for the people of Ireland and in some cases, it is among the best in Europe. Life outcomes for a number of conditions including cancer, circulatory system diseases and heart diseases have fallen and mortality rates for respiratory system diseases are, thankfully, also falling with only 15% of us now smoking. It is also important to note that the proportion of older workers and, in particular, workers who want to continue in employment beyond what would have been regarded as the traditional age of 65, is forecast to grow significantly in the future.

This Bill essentially enacts a consent-based approach to retirement. It provides employees with a brand-new right to opt out of their contract, say, if it falls below the State pension age, which is currently 66. This would allow the income bridge to be gapped for employees who would otherwise face financial difficulties if forced to retire. Financially, yes, this is an issue, but there are also a huge number of people who do not want to retire because of their mental well-being. It is just what they want to do. The just do not want to stop working. Some people are afraid to stop because of having worked all their lives and what just stopping could do to them mentally.

In this Bill, employees can formally notify their employer in writing if they do not consent to retire at the contractual age if it is below the State pension age. The Bill also provides employees with a right to change their minds, which, again, I agree with. Therefore, if they decide that they do not want to retire and then go back to their employer and say they have changed their mind, that is also okay.

Employers will now obviously need to consider the impact of this Bill, although, as an employer myself, I would hope this will be welcomely received from all people in the private sector. They will need to consider workforce planning and succession strategies and adapt them accordingly. Employers will be able to retain experienced employees, which is critical, and draw on their expertise for longer periods or even maybe use them in a different vein in their organisation.

The publication of this Bill together with the wider package of pension reforms being rolled out by Government is a significant step in improving the predictability of retirement income for employees and helping to protect workers when they are approaching retirement. Workers must still retire at 65 as per the contract if they so wish, but there is a cohort of people, as I have mentioned, who will continue to keep on working. In light of this happening today, I reached out to the nursing home sector, which, as we know, can really struggle getting staff. Those working in the sector said that this Bill appears to be positive and will support the sector with current labour shortages, allowing workers who are often more experienced to continue in hard-to-recruit positions.It will assist in the retention of senior, skilled workers in the nursing home sector. It will reduce recruitment costs, particularly when local workers cannot be sourced. Nursing homes are required to source candidates from abroad, which is costly. It will improve the continuity of care for residents of nursing homes and that is all we want for our loved ones.

That is only one organisation and I imagine there are plenty more. I expect there will be cross-party consensus on this. I am glad the Minister of State has said there possibly is. I am glad there was cross-party support in the Dáil as well. We need to enhance the rights of older people and this is one step towards that. Age is not lost youth but a new stage of opportunity and strength.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. We will support the passage of the Bill, as we did in the Dáil. In tandem with the introduction of this Bill, the Government should introduce legislation to enable access to the State pension at 65. I know this is a matter for the Minister of Social Protection but the genesis of all these matters is the Pensions Commission report, which is across a number of Departments. After decades of contributions, workers who choose to do so deserve the right to access their State pension. Many people choose to remain in work because of the value and sense of purpose that going to work brings to their lives. The sense of structure and the weekly routine are deeply ingrained in workers when they have spent all their adult life in the workplace. For many people, it is the social aspect of working which brings the most satisfaction. They enjoy the camaraderie with their workmates, the sharing of experiences and the collaborating on different projects. For many people, work is much more than the pay cheque at the end of the week; it is a huge aspect of their everyday life.

The wisdom and experience of older workers is of huge value to any workplace. As it stands, too many workers are being pushed out of jobs and into unemployment long before reaching pension eligibility. With that income gap comes financial stress and uncertainty, which has a negative impact on mental and physical health.

I welcome the provisions of the Bill which mean employees cannot be penalised for exercising their right to continue working. The decision regarding when to retire is a deeply personal one. It is influenced by multiple factors, including health, financial situation, the type of work one is engaged in and plans for the years ahead. We believe no worker should be forced to retire at any age simply because their contract stipulated so. This legislation enables flexibility between the employee and the employer and provides dignity of personal choice to the worker. For those reasons, we will support it and recognise the positive impact it will have on people's lives.

Unfortunately, this legislation only tells one side of the story. For many workers across the country, the thought of working into their late 60s and 70s will bring real hardship. I am thinking of carpenters and brickies, service staff in hotels making heavy beds, hairdressers on their feet all day and kitchen staff, as well as those with long commutes to and from work and people working two or three jobs to make ends meet as the cost of living spirals and the Government set its face against introducing any cost-of-living mitigations. It must be emphasised that the report of the Pensions Commission recognised that people working in certain occupations, including hairdressers and those in construction and retail, feel by the time they hit 65 that they have done their shift. Many do not want to, nor should they be compelled to, work past the age of 65. While that is contained in the commission's report, the Government has not yet made provision for it.

The elephant in the room is the fact the pension age still needs to be reduced. A colleague, Deputy Louise O'Reilly, tabled a motion in 2021 which could have done that. While we support the important right to keep working if that is what a person desires, we also firmly and clearly advocate for people's right to retire at 65 with a full pension. Citizens have not forgotten that this was abolished by the Government in 2013. There is justifiable concern that some of the Government parties have their sights set on even higher age limits in the future. Legislation introduced in the past by Fine Gael would have raised the pension age to 68 years by 2028. There are variations across Europe when it comes to pension age but workers in Estonia, France, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Austria and Poland can retire by 65. Many of these countries do not have anywhere near the economic prosperity of this State. What is prosperity if it is not used for the betterment of citizens?

There are many other aspects of workers' rights that the Government committed to in advance of the last general election but which have yet to materialise. There has been a reversal on the promises regarding introducing the living wage, paid sick leave entitlements, increasing the minimum annual remuneration for employment permits and automatic enrolment for pensions. These have all been kicked down the road. The Government will say it is being fiscally prudent at a time of global uncertainty. That is what the former finance Minister said. I am not sure what the current finance Minister's view on this might be but I hope it is more enlightened. I fear some of these rollbacks are ideologically driven and not decisions made on the basis of fiscal pragmatism.

The ordinary workers of Ireland did not cause any financial instability yet they carry the burden. That is not fair. Workers in this country have never worked harder just to stand still. The Government's housing policies have resulted in ordinary workers and families being priced out of the market. The number of minimum wage jobs advertised last year was double what it was in 2023. Real workers' rights are being eroded under this Government's watch. I call on the Government to enact this legislation but not to shirk its responsibility in respect of older workers and to lower to 65 the age at which people can access the State pension.

Nessa Cosgrove (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. The Bill at hand makes a focused and specific policy change. It is really significant and deals with big questions. Overall, we completely welcome it as a party. It deals with what is like to be an older person in the workplace and responds to the demographic realities of an ageing population. It touches on the need to give each and every older person the freedom and support they need to live their lives as they see fit with dignity and purpose.

The Bill takes a small step for the better by requiring an employee's consent to a contractual retirement age that is lower than the State pension age, but it could be so much more. There are real issues that are not addressed here. I am concerned this legislation will not unlock the many benefits of allowing older people to work beyond retirement age where they wish to. The Bill allows an employee to pose a question, but it provides employers with broad and vague means to decline the request. In that way, it is reminiscent of the Government's deeply flawed legislation on the right to request remote working, rather than the right to remote working. If an employer can show that an employee's retirement is objectively and reasonably a legitimate aim, they can decline the request to continue their working life. It is not clear if or how this stipulation will give employees greater rights than they currently enjoy under the Equality Acts.

Furthermore, the employee has to bring the request in writing to the employer three months in advance. An older employee may be unaware of this legislative requirement and may indeed be unaware that their contractual employment age is lower than the State pension age in the first place. This has happened to me many times in my own area. Surely it is the responsibility of the employer to proactively engage with an employee approaching the contractual retirement age and to begin the conversation on the worker's preferred path. The Minister of State has come to hear feedback and that is something that could be easily added.

Currently, many employees fall through the cracks when a contractual retirement age of 65 leaves them adrift for a year before receiving the State pension at 66. There is no doubt this Bill will help to address that problem. With greater ambition, we could have gone much further and allowed real flexibility and freedom for older people to choose their own path. By removing the barriers to remaining in the workforce after 65 for those who wish to work beyond that age by abolishing mandatory retirement altogether, we would not just give those individuals the dignity and purpose that comes with living life on their own terms but we would unlock economic benefits as well. Increased labour force participation, with the knowledge and experience of older workers, is invaluable in any workforce and leads to increased productivity. It also leads to increased tax revenue through more workers choosing to work for longer. As a consequence, it will ensure our pension system is sustainable at a time when we are under demographic pressures.

This Bill could tackle social isolation and ageism in the workplace by leading from the front and rightly championing the contribution that older people continue to make to the workforce. While the Bill takes a small step in the right direction, it is a missed opportunity to do much more for older workers. The Government could have showed more ambition and legislated for change to allow older people to exercise choice and agency over how they want to live their lives. Nevertheless, we will support the Bill.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for joining us in Seanad Éireann today and thank all those who spoke on the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Bill 2025. When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Ollie Crowe (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Next Tuesday.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.