Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 142: To ask the Minister for Finance his views on abolishing the maximum retirement age of 65 for civil servants recruited before 1 April 2004 in line with the absence of such restrictions for civil servants recruited after that date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18889/08]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Public Service Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004 and the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Act 2005 introduced a number of important changes in relation to the retirement age of civil servants. These changes mean that there is no longer a compulsory retirement age of 65 for "new entrants" who joined the civil service on or after 1 April 2004. The changes also raised the minimum pension age to 65 years for most "new entrants" to the civil service, with the exception of "new entrants" to the Irish Prison Service, where different arrangements apply for operational reasons.

The removal of a compulsory retirement age means that, over the medium to longer term, as more and more new staff are recruited as "new entrants" for the purposes of the new legislation, an increasing number of civil servants will have the right to work beyond the age of 65, if they choose to do so. Clearly, in time, all civil servants will be working under these terms and conditions.

The legislative changes introduced also provide a mechanism by which existing civil servants can work beyond the retirement age if they wish. While a person who joined the public service before the 1 April 2004 must retire at 65, they can be reappointed through open competition to the civil service as a "new entrant", provided there is a break in their service of 26 weeks.

The removal of the retirement age for "new entrants" was based on a number of factors. Firstly, Ireland's demographic profile, with one of the Europe's youngest populations, allowed the 2004 Act to confine these changes to new entrants. In light of our demographics, there is no immediate financial imperative to introduce such a significant change to the terms and conditions of pre-2004 civil servants.

Furthermore, the increase in the minimum pension age and the removal of the compulsory retirement age for new entrants cannot be managed in isolation. Other civil service human resource processes must be adapted and developed to reflect the changes in the retirement age. The performance management system which has been introduced across the civil service will, in time, support the gradual transition to a situation where an increasing number of civil servants will be required to work until age 65 before drawing full pension and will have the right to continue to work beyond that age.

The issue of the removal of the retirement age for staff appointed before April 2004 was the subject of a recent claim by the civil service unions at General Council of the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme. The claim was rejected on the grounds that:

the cost imperatives which gave rise to the decision to change the retirement age arrangements for new entrants would not arise in the short and medium term, and

relevant human resource processes and practices would have to be adapted over time to address the issues that would arise from the new arrangements.

In light of these points, there are no immediate proposals to change the current situation whereby staff recruited before 1st April 2004 must retire at 65 and those recruited on or after that date have no mandatory retirement age.