Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Apr 2025

Vol. 1065 No. 5

Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Bill 2025: Second Stage

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Peter Burke)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Bill 2025. Before I go through the main provisions of the Bill, I will first give some background and context to the legislation. The Bill implements one of the commitments included in the Government’s response to the pensions commission recommendations and implementation plan. The majority of the Government’s commitments relate to significant reform of the State pension system and are being led by my colleague, Deputy Calleary, the Minister for Social Protection. The overarching objective is to ensure that the pensions system is sustainable in the face of demographic change, and that people relying on the State pension will have an adequate income in retirement.

In its terms of reference, the pensions commission was also asked to consider the issue of retirement ages in private employment contracts that are set below the State pension age. Currently an employer is permitted to set a retirement age for a worker. However, employment equality legislation provides that this can only be done where it is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

Following its extensive deliberations, the pensions commission’s final recommendation on this issue was for the introduction of measures that allow, but do not compel, an employee to stay in employment until the pensionable age; that is, the age at which people may normally first access the State pension, which is 66. This element of consent reflects the fact that many employees may want to retire at the contractual retirement age. The Bill will implement that recommendation. It will create a new employment right for employees who are subject to a contractual retirement age which is below the pensionable age. It will particularly benefit employees who do not have an occupational pension scheme, or those who have a modest supplementary pension, and who may experience a significant drop in their income if they retire before reaching pensionable age.

I am aware that while there is broad support for the measure, there have been some calls for a complete abolition of retirement ages. This option, among others, was examined by the pensions commission in its extensive deliberations. Ultimately, its final recommendation was to align contractual retirement ages with the pensionable age. Complete abolition of any mandatory retirement age would impose a potentially substantial burden on employers. It would restrict their ability to plan their workforces, including succession planning and providing promotional opportunities. It would also run counter to recent case law. The Bill implements the pensions commission’s carefully considered recommendation on this topic. I believe it represents a fair balance between the needs of employers and those of employees.

I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill. The Bill 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 and commencement provisions and necessary definitions. Section 3 provides that the Bill applies to employees with a contractual retirement age which is below the State pension age and who have completed their probation. This section also excludes employees with a retirement age set out in law, such as gardaí or members of 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 the new employment right operates. Section 5 provides that an employee 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 not greater than one year. An employer’s handbook may require a longer minimum notice period, but this cannot be more than six months. An employee also has the right to change their mind. They can choose to withdraw this notification and retire. However, they must give the employer notice in accordance with their contract or minimum notice legislation, whichever is the shorter. When an employer receives this notification, they cannot enforce the retirement age except in limited circumstances. If the employer does want to enforce the contractual retirement age, they must give the employee a written reply which sets out an objective and reasonable justification for applying the retirement age to that individual employee. This exemption 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 will 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 an employee can enforce their rights under this Bill. Section 6 of the Bill 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 Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, if their rights provided for in 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 equal to the greater of 104 weeks’ remuneration or €40,000. Section 7 makes technical changes to the Workplace Relations Act 2015 to provide for this complaint mechanism.

Part 4 of the Bill relates to penalisation and offences. Section 8 of the Bill protects employees from penalisation for exercising, or proposing to exercise, their entitlements. Section 9 of the Bill 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, this Bill aims to achieve a number of things. 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 forced to retire before they can access the State pension. It will improve adequacy and predictability of income for older workers. This Bill will further encourage and support longer and fuller working lives and facilitate older peoples’ engagement in economic and social life. I commend this Bill to the House.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

While I welcome the fact that at last the Government is acting upon the recommendations of the Commission on Pensions, which it established, and is introducing legislation to prohibit employers setting a mandatory retirement age for workers, I am calling on the Government to reduce the age at which citizens can access their State pension to 65 years old. People have not forgotten that this was abolished by the Fine Gael and Labour Party Government in 2013. It is my belief that Fine Gael may have its sights on even higher age limits in the future. We all know it planned on raising it to 68 by 2028. What a horrendous thought that would be for people in manual jobs, in particular. I am thinking of carpenters and brickies, service staff in hotels making heavy beds, the hairdressers on their feet all day and the kitchen staff.

Unfortunately, this current Government has set its face against lowering the age to 65, which is a longstanding Sinn Féin policy. What the Government is doing with this legislation is in line with what Sinn Féin has long proposed. My colleagues, Deputies Louise O’Reilly and Claire Kerrane, introduced legislation which would have had the same effect in the last Dáil. It is the legislation which will bring to an end the approximately 4,000 people being forced out of their jobs each year, not because they want to retire, have to for ill-health or for any other reason but simply because it states in their contract that they must retire. This legislation will hopefully end the cliff-edge fall off in income and the indignity suffered by workers who have been forced to sign on to the dole for one year until they can access their State pension. It will also enable workers to continue to enjoy the social aspect of working until they can access their pension. This will help ensure that workers do not experience isolation and poor mental health brought on by loneliness. All this is to be welcomed. Indeed, it is long after time for its introduction.

While Sinn Féin will not stand in the way of this legislation, we fundamentally believe that at the age of 65, a worker should have the choice to continue to work if he or she so chooses, or to retire and access their State pension. If we cast our minds back to the 2020 election, this was one of the pivotal topics. People then wanted the option to retire at 65 and I believe people still want that option now.

The programme for Government in 2020 established the Commission on Pensions in an effort to kick this issue down the road. The truth is that the Government squandered two entire Dáil terms and did nothing to stop employers forcing workers into retirement. It must be emphasised that the report of the Commission on Pensions recognises that, in the case of people who work in certain occupations, like hairdressers and those working in construction and retail, by the time they hit 65, they feel they have done their shift. Many do not want, nor should be compelled, to work past the age of 65. While that is contained within the report of the Commission on Pensions, the Government ignores it. The elephant in the room is the fact that the pension age still needs to be reduced. Sinn Féin would do this. It can be done. Deputy Louise O'Reilly, who will speak next, tabled a motion in this House in 2021, which would have done that. At the age of 65, people have a lifetime of work under their belts and they should be able to access their State pension.

The pension age ranges across Europe. In Estonia, it is 64 years and three months; in France, it is 62 years; in Slovakia, it is 63 years; in Bulgaria, it is 62 years for women and 64 years and six months for men; and in Austria and Poland, women can retire at the age of 60. Many other countries have flexible arrangements. Many of these countries do not have the economic prosperity which the Government so often boasts about. What is prosperity in a State if it is not used for the betterment of its citizens? I am taking this opportunity to call on the Government to enact this legislation but not to shirk its responsibility in respect of older workers and to lower the age at which people can access their State pension to 65.

Deputy Johnny Guirke

I wish Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett the best going forward.

Sinn Féin has long stood up for the right to retire at 65. We represent the voices of those who have worked hard their entire lives and deserve to retire at 65 if they wish to do so, rather than accepting the retirement age of 66 set by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. There are many complex factors that influence when individuals choose to retire. The decision to retire at pension age is not a one-size-fits-all situation. It varies greatly from person to person, shaped by a multitude of key factors. First and foremost, health plays a crucial role in this decision. For some, ongoing health issues may necessitate an earlier retirement, while others may find themselves in good health and capable of working beyond the typical retirement age. This dynamic highlights the importance of personal circumstances in the retirement conversation. Everyone’s situation is unique. We must recognise that health can be both a barrier and a facilitator in this decision-making process.

Additionally, the nature of one’s job significantly impacts retirement timing. For instance, those in physically demanding roles, such as block layers or plasterers, often cannot work beyond the age of 65. The physical toll of these strenuous jobs can make it challenging to continue working as people age. In contrast, individuals in less physically demanding roles who are engaged in light work may have the flexibility to continue their careers well into their later years should they wish to do so. It is essential to understand that the decision to retire is influenced by a combination of health, job type and personal choice. Each person’s circumstances are different and we must respect those differences as we discuss retirement policies.

Sinn Féin has long recognised these complexities. We previously brought a motion before the Dáil to restore the right to retire at 65 with a full pension. We firmly believe that people should have the option to retire at the age of 65 based on their individual circumstances, while also supporting the right to continue working if they wish. For far too long, many workers have faced mandatory retirement ages in their contracts. This means that even if they want to continue working or are still capable and willing to contribute, they are forced to leave their jobs simply because of their age. Not only is this unfair but it is also a violation of workers’ rights. Sinn Féin has been fighting for the removal of these mandatory retirement clauses for more than a decade. We believe that every worker should have the choice to retire at 65 or to keep working if they wish. It is about giving people the freedom to make decisions about their own lives and careers.

During the 2020 general election, we made it clear that restoring the State pension to 65 and getting rid of mandatory retirement ages were key priorities for us. Unfortunately, it is a complete failure of leadership that this Government has not delivered on this to date. After a lifetime of hard work, people deserve to make the decision to retire with their pension at 65 or to continue working if they choose to do so. Currently, workers are being forced out of their jobs and onto unemployment benefits long before they are eligible for their pension.

This can create a significant drop in income for these workers and their families, making it challenging to make ends meet amid the rising costs people face during this cost-of-living crisis. Moreover, we need to consider the social impact of forced retirement when workers are pushed out of their jobs. They lose not only their source of income but also the social connections and support that come from being part of a workplace. This can lead to feelings of isolation and can have serious effects on mental health. The legislation proposed in the past by Sinn Féin aimed to create a new right for employees facing a contractual retirement age below the pensionable age. This would mean that workers would have the right to choose whether they stay in their jobs or retire, based on their own circumstances and preferences. We in Sinn Féin will continue to advocate for workers' rights until we see real change. It is time for the Government to stop avoiding this issue and to commit to allowing workers to retire at 65, with their pension, or to keep working, if they choose.

If the Minister was listening to people, he would know that his constituents want the option to retire at 65. It was a significant victory for those who took part in the Stop67 campaign and those affiliated with it, particularly when we consider that Fine Gael previously supported raising the pension age to 68. The Taoiseach and leader of Fianna Fáil has previously committed to not raising the pension age beyond 66, but many workers fear that commitments from this Government mean nothing.

It is time to create a future where every worker has respect and a choice they deserve when it comes to retirement, having worked for most of their lives. For the Government to now increase the retirement age to 66, with a constant threat of increasing it further, is not good enough.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

I welcome the chance to discuss this issue. From my previous work experience, where I encountered people who came up against a compulsory retirement age, I genuinely believe workers want the right to make the decision to work on at 65, should they wish, up to age of 70, as provided for in the legislation that my colleague, Deputy Claire Kerrane, and I brought forward, or to retire with access to their pension at 65. This is not at odds with the recommendations of the Pensions Commission, as I am sure the Minister well knows.

While it can sometimes be a bit of a slog in opposition, we mark those victories where we get them. I welcome the acknowledgement by the Minister that the normal retirement age is in fact 65. I have argued this point here many times with the Minister's colleagues and they have attempted to contradict me, but there it is in black and white. This Bill will facilitate employees who wish to continue working beyond the normal retirement age of 65. Well hallelujah, that is the normal retirement age and it is the age at which workers should have the right to access their pensions, or to work on should they so choose. That is what this should be about; it should be about choice.

I am not aware of anyone advocating for the complete abolition of mandatory retirement ages, although the Minister mentioned it in his speech. I am not sure that is an ask of any organisation. In his speech, the Minister referred to the fact that the abolition of any mandatory ages would impose potentially substantial burdens on employers. The Minister did not say how that is going to happen because, of course, it is a piece of fiction. It does not impose any more burdens on employers. In fact, it gives employers the choice to ensure that they have more access to that experiential learning. It gives employers the choice to value their colleagues and to not be ageist. If somebody is fit to work, then they can work. If they are not, then every single workplace in the State has rules and procedures in place to deal with that. If a person if fit, willing and able to work, they should be allowed to work on. In my opinion and that of my party, they should be allowed to work on to the age of 70.

When framing legislation such as this, I request that the Minister consider the case of women, many of them forced out of the workplace through not fault of their own because they had to engage in the business of rearing their children and tending to their families. As they get older, many women will care for older relatives. At that stage, they will have to take time out of the formal workforce, leaving them at a substantial disadvantage. If they had the opportunity to work on and were able to do so, that would be a very productive use of the Minister's time.

I am disappointed at the limitations in this legislation. The Minister should go further. In line with the opinion of the Pensions Commission, I believe workers in physically onerous employments should have the opportunity to retire at the age of 65. I also think that women who are forced out of the formal workforce should have the opportunity to work on, should they so choose. This is about choice. There is somewhat of a paternalistic attitude in this legislation and, with respect to the Minister and his contribution, I think workers are big and able enough to choose. I said this when the Labour Party took that right away from them. We campaigned against it then and we stand against it today.

Deputy Mairéad Farrell

I have always believed that when it comes to those who are working and seeking promotion, if you are able enough, you are old enough. By the same token, I have always felt that when it comes to the matter of retirement, if you are able enough, you are young enough. Sinn Féin has long argued that there needs to be a choice. We have long called for the abolition of mandatory retirement, as we have always said that 65 is the age at which people should be able to retire, if they wish to do so. My party has previously tabled legislation to give effect to this. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions also supports this move. We need to recognise that, every year, workers are forced out of jobs because of their age. That might not be their choice. They may have no determining health issues and may well enjoy their job, which might give them a sense of purpose. However, because their contract states they must retire at a given age, they are required to do so. That is unfair and it is why I welcome this discussion on the Bill.

Given that we are talking about retirement and the adverse consequences that can arise, I will mention a case relevant to my home county of Galway. It concerns a significant number of psychiatric nurses who had retired but were asked to come out of retirement to help to deal with backlogs and other staff-related pressures. Despite being told that there would be no adverse consequences to their pension entitlements as a result of this, they are now being told there was a decision made and a circular issued which changed this position, but they were never told about it. One man who called into my clinic showed me the letter he had received. It says that he now must repay €26,000. The letter he received states, "If you are in a position to repay this in full, you may do so by cheque". This man is in no position to repay this in part or in full. He is extremely concerned, and he is not alone in that regard. He has colleagues who have also been receiving these letters. This has all arisen due to a new circular, namely, Circular 24/22. These people came out of retirement only on the basis of the assurances they were given that there would be no negative impacts on their pensions. To say they have found out the hard way that was not true is quite an understatement. Given that we are talking about the issue of pensions and changes to the system of mandatory retirement, I wanted to take this opportunity to highlight their case. I have raised it with the relevant Minister and it has gone on to the HSE but it is an issue of particular concern for those involved, who are being hit with these extraordinarily high charges and sums to be repaid simply because they were never told that the circular had been issued. They did not know and now they are being asked to repay huge sums of money.

Deputy Louis O'Hara

As we know, many workers who have a contractual retirement age lower than the pension age are being forced out of their jobs and this can lead to significant drops in income for workers. It is also insulting to people who have worked their entire lives to be forced out of their jobs before they can access the full pension. This has caused significant hardship for many older citizens. Many people find purpose in their work. They enjoy going to work every day and they want to continue contributing to society. They enjoy the social aspect of being in the workplace with friends and colleagues. Being forced to retire can leave people feeling isolated and suffering with their mental health. We know that older workers have a lot to offer, a wealth of knowledge and skills built up over a lifetime of work, and that should be recognised. As such, this conversation is very welcome.

Sinn Féin has previously brought forward proposals on this issue. We have long called for the removal of retirement clauses in employment contracts. Thousands of workers who turned 65 this year will have their working lives cut short and be forced into retirement because of delays in enacting this legislation. There needs to be urgency in implementing this so that workers have the choice to continue on, if they so wish.

The Minister must go further and restore the right to a full pension at the age of 65. After a lifetime of work, people deserve the right to retire on a full pension or to continue to work if they choose to do so. They should be given the freedom to make that choice. It is about choice, because people who have had a lifetime of working on their feet in hospitality or doing hard labour on construction sites simply cannot be expected to continue working into their late 60s and beyond. People who have worked hard and given all they can at the age of 65 should have the right to retire on a full pension. At the same time, there must be flexibility for workers who wish to continue working beyond the pension age, but it should be on their terms. That would be a fair and pragmatic approach. It would respect the right of workers to retire with dignity at 65 if they so wish, while also respecting the contributions of those who wish to remain active in the workplace. It gives maximum choice to workers, which would benefit the economy and society. That must be taken on board by the Government, which must listen to workers and treat them fairly.

Deputy George Lawlor

Abolishing the mandatory retirement age in Ireland presents numerous benefits that can positively impact individuals, organisations and society as a whole. The discussion we have today on this Bill must explore the various aspects of the issue, including the economic, social and psychological implications, as well as the challenges and considerations that come with one of the more significant policy changes since the introduction of the old age pension on New Year's Day in 1909.

The abolition of the mandatory retirement age is the key, giving people the choice to go at 65 or to continue to work. One of the most immediate benefits of abolishing the mandatory retirement age is the potential for increased labour force participation. As life expectancy rises and health improves, many individuals are capable of working, if they wish, beyond the traditional retirement age. This will help to alleviate labour shortages in various sectors, especially in industries facing demographic challenges.

Older workers often bring a wealth of experience and knowledge to their roles and, by allowing them to continue working, organisations can benefit from their expertise which, in turn, can lead to improved productivity. Experienced employees can also mentor younger colleagues, fostering a culture of knowledge sharing that can enhance overall workplace performance.

With more individuals remaining in the workplace for longer periods, there is potential for increased tax revenue and the associated supporting of public services and social welfare programmes, which are increasingly strained and will face even greater challenges as we face into the demographic time bomb as our population ages.

More workers contributing to the economy will lead to a more sustainable pension system. Abolishing the retirement age could lead to a more diverse workforce. Age diversity will foster innovation and creativity, as different perspectives and experiences come together to solve problems and deal with real-time situations. Organisations that embrace a multigenerational workforce are often more resilient and adaptable to change.

Many older individuals find purpose and fulfilment in their work. Allowing people to continue beyond the current 65, or 66 if they choose or wish to, will contribute to their overall well-being and quality of life. Work provides social interaction and a sense of identity so often lacking and diminishing in an ever-changing Ireland. This can be especially important for older adults who may otherwise face social isolation.

Abolishing the mandatory retirement age would help combat ageism in the workplace. By recognising the contribution of older workers, society would shift perceptions about ageing and work, fostering a more inclusive environment. This could also encourage younger generations to value the insights and experiences of their older colleagues. Removing the mandatory retirement age would empower individuals to make choices about their careers and retirement. People can decide when they are ready to retire, based on their own circumstances rather than a predetermined age. Such autonomy would lead to greater job satisfaction and personal fulfilment.

There are also psychological benefits. Continued employment can provide older individuals with a sense of purpose and accomplishment. Many derive satisfaction from their work, and being forced to retire can lead to feelings of loss and disengagement. Allowing individuals to continue working would help maintain their mental health and emotional well-being. Older workers often engage in lifelong learning, whether through formal education or on-the-job training. This commitment to personal professional development has been proven to enhance cognitive function and adaptability, benefiting both individuals and employers. By maintaining a diverse age range within the workforce, older employees can serve as role models for younger workers, demonstrating the value of experience, resilience and a strong work ethic. This could inspire younger generations to take their careers seriously and to value the contributions of all age groups.

While there are numerous benefits to abolishing the mandatory retirement age, there are also challenges and considerations that must be addressed. Employers may need to make adjustments to accommodate older workers, including flexible working arrangements and ergonomic improvements. Organisations that invest in creating a supportive work environment for older employees can reap the rewards of their experience.

The abolition of the mandatory retirement age may require a re-evaluation of pension schemes and retirement planning. We, as policymakers, and the financial institutions must work to ensure individuals are adequately prepared for retirement, regardless of when they choose to transition out of the workforce.

Organisations may need to proactively manage intergenerational dynamics to ensure a harmonious workplace, and training programmes that promote collaboration and understanding between different age groups may help mitigate potential conflicts and misunderstandings. While many older individuals are capable of working, it is essential to recognise that not everyone may be fit to do so. Employers must assess the health and well-being of older employees and provide appropriate support to ensure they can perform their roles effectively.

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, supports this Bill, preferably with an upper age limit of 70, to ensure alignment with the 2018 change that gives public servants and government employees the option of remaining in their job up to the age of 70, if they wish up to do so. However, ICTU also recognises that this Bill is good for private sector workers. It is important that workers have a right to keep their job. This would allow the majority of private sector workers who only want to continue working for an extra year between the ages of 65 and 66, beyond their companies' retirement age of 65, in order to qualify for the State pension at 66. This would eliminate the lacuna between the ages of 65 and 66 that causes great difficulty for some retirees.

Employers and IBEC support the increase to 66 years because there is a growing number of applications for a right to remain until 66. Employers do not want to have to deal with requests on a case-by-case basis. From soundings that have been taken, this Bill is hugely popular with the public, who see the legislation as a very positive move. Age Action also welcomes what it describes as long-overdue legislation to address the Pensions Commission's recommendation to enable private sector workers to remain employed, if they so wish, until they reach the minimum State pension age of 66. Age Action describes the frustration of many older people at being effectively forced into unemployment for a year prior to their being eligible for the State pension. Following its analysis, Age Action states that the approach adopted in the Bill is inconsistent with the policy goals set out in the roadmap for pensions reform 2018 to 2023, which stated:

The Government is determined to alter perceptions around retirement age and support a positive ageing environment, where older people are, to the greatest extent possible, encouraged and facilitated in working, if they wish to, beyond the 'normal' retirement age. Greater flexibility around working and retirement decisions will empower older people. It will allow them to optimise their own arrangements in a way that can improve their financial retirement readiness. It will enable our society to continue to benefit from the skills and experience of our older workers and it will help sustain the viability of the wider pension system.

More broadly, Age Action recommends an end to mandatory retirement on age grounds. It says that imposing an age at which all employees must retire, irrespective of their wishes and capacity, assumes that our ability to contribute to the workforce declines with age when, in fact, it may increase. Mandatory retirement reduces older people's opportunity to participate in society, limits autonomy, insults dignity and rejects diversity. According to Age Action, it is the normalisation of ageism in the workplace.

Abolishing the mandatory retirement age in Ireland holds significant promise for enhancing economic productivity, promoting social inclusion and improving the quality of life for older individuals. By recognising the value of experience and the contribution of older workers, society can foster a more inclusive and diverse workforce that benefits everyone.

However, it is essential to address the challenges and considerations that come with this policy change. By creating supportive workplace environments and ensuring adequate retirement planning, this country can embrace the potential of an ageing workforce while promoting a culture of respect and appreciation for all employees regardless of age. The decision to abolish the mandatory retirement age can be a transformative step towards a more inclusive and dynamic labour market, benefitting individuals, organisations and society as a whole.

Deputy Grace Boland

I welcome the draft legislation coming before the House and thank the Minister, Deputy Burke, and Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, for their work on it to date. As other Deputies have said, the Bill, when enacted, will see the implementation by the Government of one of the key commitments in response to the pensions commission's recommendations and implementation plan. This legislation reflects an understanding of the changing dynamics and demographics of Irish society and the importance of ensuring all workers, especially our older workers, have the opportunity to continue to contribute to our society and economy if they so wish.

We are also living in an extraordinary time in which full employment is a reality and many employers struggle to find the experience and expertise they need. Once enacted, this legislation will establish a new employment entitlement, empowering, but not compelling, individuals to remain employed until reaching the State pension age of 66. It is a recognition that age is not a limitation but an asset and a resource to be celebrated rather than dismissed. Moreover, our population is ageing. As a result of the strong continuing investment in health and social care services and changes in behaviour, our people are living longer, healthier lives with a life expectancy now of 82 years, the fifth highest in the 27 EU member states.

Almost one in four people in Ireland is over the age of 60 and many older workers wish to continue in their roles, not necessarily out of necessity but because they have much more to offer and much more life left to live. Their decades of experience, institutional knowledge and mentorship skills are invaluable assets which enrich our workplaces and strengthen our economy. Yet, some employees, due to their employment contracts, are forced to step away from their careers before reaching the statutory retirement age. This is not only unfair; it is also short-sighted. It denies these workers the dignity of choice and deprives our society and economy of their contribution. To force experienced, knowledgeable people to resign before the statutory retirement age denies them the dignity of choice and robs society of their talent. It perpetuates a bias that diminishes the value of experience and wisdom, a bias we must work together to eliminate.

The timeline for enactment of this legislation was raised with me by several people from my constituency of Dublin Fingal West who will benefit from its enactment and are very supportive of its swift implementation. In progressing the Bill, we will ensure no one is forced out of the workforce before the age of 66 and we are sending a powerful message that Ireland values experience, celebrates diversity and believes in inclusion. We are saying that every individual, regardless of age, has a role to play in shaping our shared future.

Protecting the right to work until the age of 66 is not merely a matter of principle. It is a practical solution for sustaining a robust workforce in the face of full employment. The Central Statistics Office, CSO, provides compelling evidence for this. The employment rate for individuals aged between 60 and 64 increased from 56.3% in the second quarter of 2022 to 61% a year later. This is a clear indication of the resilience, adaptability and determination of older workers. These statistics tell a story of commitment and capability of individuals who continue to contribute to their workplaces, communities and our society. Age should never be an obstacle. We should see it as an asset. Older employees bring decades of knowledge, seasoned perspectives and mentorship to their roles, enriching our workplaces in ways the younger generation simply cannot reach yet. Their experience is the foundation of many successes we celebrate today.

I thank the Minister again for his leadership in bringing forward this important change and look forward to the Bill's successful passage through both Houses.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

This is one of those Bills on which there will be a large degree of agreement. It is work that needs to be dealt with. I do not think anyone agrees with the fact that people have been forced into retirement. Deputy O'Reilly stated that on some level this is about restoring the State pension to the age of 65. She was not the only one, but she stated that has always been her view, as it has been the view of my colleagues, Deputies Guirke, Conway-Walsh and many others. That is where the Irish people stand. We all remember that it was an issue in the 2020 election. People also realise that it is farcical that those in the private sector and elsewhere are forced into retirement when they do not want it. People are living longer lives. Many people have a lot to offer in the workforce. The previous speaker spoke about mentorship and other advantages there can be to those with huge levels of experience. It is about ensuring that those who want it have the choice. There is a huge difference between people working specific jobs, some of which are very physical and incredibly difficult and which, over a lifetime, can be somewhat debilitating, and many others who would much prefer to work. The idea is to free up those who need to be freed and ensure that, having put in a decent or what for many people can be a huge amount of effort into a working life, people are able to avail of a pension and those who want to continue in the workforce are allowed to do so.

With regard to pensions, a huge number of issues have remained anomalies. We need to look at many of them. I am sure many Deputies have, like me, received correspondence from school secretaries. A huge body of work and advocacy was done on school secretaries and the contracts they had. This is something that needs to be delivered on. The main complaint at this point is reflected in correspondence I was sent, which states "I am aware that auto-enrolment for pensions is in the pipeline, but what we want and deserve is the same pension as SNAs and teachers." That is not too much to ask.

I do not know how many times the CIÉ pensions anomaly has been brought up here. Unfortunately, too often it is like a hamster wheel in here. It is the same conversation time and again. We need to deal with these anomalies. When we talk about anomalies, we are talking about people's lives and the benefits and entitlements they should have. We are talking about a group of people who have seen public sector pensions and other pensions go up and they have not seen anything as regards what relates to them. That is not in any way acceptable.

There are real anomalies. I have spoken to the Tánaiste, as Minister for Defence, about one that needs to be dealt with. I do not wish to put it in the public domain at this point. When talking about school secretaries, it would not make any sense if I were not to bring up the issues of personal assistants who work in further education colleges such as Ó Fiaich Institute of Further Education and Drogheda Institute of Further Education in my constituency and others in Cavan. Fórsa has brought an issue to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, but unfortunately we have not had the complete follow through that is necessary for a good, up-to-date, 52-week contract for those who enable-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I ask the Deputy to conclude.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

-----those with disabilities and additional needs to stay in further education. An interdepartmental review is needed to inform this. I spoke to the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science who said that he would follow up with a meeting-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Thank you, Deputy.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

-----with personal assistants and that needs to be delivered on.

Deputy Sinéad Gibney

I welcome the opportunity to speak on today's legislation. I will set out some of they key principles that inform the Social Democrats' policy positions on retirement and pensions.

I had the privilege of working in this area a few years ago when I ran a digital literacy programme for older people in a previous job. People use that word "privilege", but I genuinely did find it a privilege to learn about ageing in that context. It really opened my eyes and it was quite transformational for me to see how much we hold on to these assumptions, stereotypes and negative concepts around ageing and how freeing and liberating it is on an individual level, as well as potentially on a societal level, to reframe our thinking around ageing and how we, as a society, support, value and cherish older people throughout our lives. Obviously, the world of work is just one of the ways in which I truly believe we need to do this.

The key points I wish to touch on today are that older people face major issues accessing the job market, but we reap the benefits of them when they are in employment. We also need to end this assumption that the age people can work until is a decision that should be left wholly to employers. Across industries, retirement gaps cause grave worry and real issues for workers. Several years ago, my own mum ended up in this one-year hiatus situation. In reality, most of us in this Chamber, and outside it, will know someone who has been in this situation of having this gap. We are living longer and if people want to work, then they should not be prevented from doing so. Helping people to stay in the labour market is not a substitute for a social floor. We have longer and healthier years and we need to take advantage of this situation as a society and public policy should address pension and retirement sustainability.

In the Minister's opening comments, the two priorities he put forward concerned the economic sustainability of a pension plan and supporting older people. I advocate switching these priorities around. It is our obligation as a State and as policymakers as well as the Government's to support older people into their older age when they do not have adequate income to support themselves. Of course, this must be economically sustainable, but even reordering those priorities is something the Social Democrats would welcome.

My first point is that older people are facing major issues accessing the job market. If we do facilitate them doing so, we will really reap the benefits of them staying in employment. It is difficult to start a new job at 65 when just one year away from a State pension. It is also difficult to survive without income for that period. It really brings about enforced hardship, which is what I would call it, without any objective reason. In 2023, for example, 20% of 50-to-64-year-olds were living in deprivation or consistent poverty. Keeping people who do not wish to retire in employment, where possible, does benefit us all. We have this double whammy where we get the income tax and we save on the social welfare payments at the same time in respect of people who otherwise would be getting them if not facilitated to keep working. We avoid poverty and deprivation, and this makes people happier and healthier. We also reduce the stress of making ends meet until people reach 66, which is such a horrendous thing to have to face when you are reaching the end of your working life.

Second, we need to end this assumption that the age people can work until is a decision that should be left wholly to employers. Ba chóir go mbeadh oibrithe iad féin in ann an rogha dul ar scor a dhéanamh dóibh féin. This is all about choice, and others have spoken about this aspect already. We really welcome this legislation as part of the picture of making choice available for people regarding when and how they retire. Obviously, this must be relevant to the particular area and nature of work people have been employed in. Age-based discrimination is a real thing. Again, my own experience in that programme helped me to learn it. One of the places we can immediately go to see age-based discrimination is a greeting card shop. What we see when we look at the cards celebrating birthdays of all ages is this negative attitude towards ageing. We all hold an essentially negative attitude towards ageing. People who work in this sector, however, will tell us again and again it is much better than the alternative.

We must challenge ourselves as a society to remember growing old is not a bad thing but a very good thing. It also does not mean decreased capacity. In the context of this issue, where I am talking about decision-making being within the ambit of the employer or, preferably, a more balanced one, objectivity is key. While employers may have a reason, this does not make it the only reason, and does not even make it always a legitimate reason. It is extremely important to have fairness in this process and to recognise the imbalance of power where there is an individual versus an employer. Again, I heard the Minister mention in his opening comments the increased threshold because this is individual rather class-based in terms of the Employment Equality Act 1998, and this is to be welcomed. This is, of course, a decision that has a much smaller impact on the employer than the employee. This is something else we must remember. It cannot be arbitrary.

My next point is that people are living longer and if they want to continue to work, then they should not be prevented from doing so. Mandatory retirement is often seen as a way to ensure a healthy and sharp workforce. We have, however, moved on from that as a society. This is because, once again, this view assumes incapacity in older people, which is simply just not acceptable any more. These are paternalistic measures not to people's benefit but to their detriment. Economic security in retirement is threatened by that gap in the last years of employment.

I also wish to bring a gendered lens to this area of policymaking, because, of course, it is gendered. We have the existing gender pension gap because of some of the archaic and sexist policies we saw in our past, including the marriage bar, where women in their older years now are either at risk of or in poverty because of that gender pension gap and the lack of ability they had to accrue their stamps. Even putting that aside, and it is something no longer perpetuated by existing policy, there still are gendered issues in the existing framework. This is because women are more likely to have taken time out of working life. Women, also, of course, have caring responsibilities they take on disproportionately. They have working roles that have a contractual retirement age, and this can mean less of a pension, fewer savings and further disadvantage. Employment gaps also mean that getting another job to bridge the gap is harder.

Helping people to stay in the labour market is not a substitute for a social floor. Níor chóir go mbeadh faitíos orainn dul in aois. Faraor, mar gheall ar ár bpolasaithe mar Stát, tá faitíos ar go leor daoine maidir le bochtanas agus iad ag dul in aois. Ensuring people can work if they wish to does not allow the State to abdicate the responsibility. Supports for older people are absolutely vital and in today's society, of course, many older people are renters in precarious housing and many are struggling with rising household bills in today's cost-of-living crisis. People, paid and unpaid, work hard all their lives. It is extremely important to acknowledge that much of the hard work that goes on in society is not even paid work. People care for families and loved ones. Sometimes they earn a living, but they always support their communities, their families and themselves. Important supports and services are there for people to thrive because people deserve the right to be secure and have their basic needs met. Again, this is not a privilege but a right. Older people should not be working past retirement due to the threat of poverty.

We have longer healthy years and we need to take advantage of this fact. Is rud maith é dár sochaí go bhfuil daoine ag maireachtáil níos faide agus go bhfuil siad níos sláintiúla. Ní cóir go mbíonn muid nó fostaithe ag rá nach féidir leo fanacht i bpost más mian leo. Ba chóir dúinn tacú le daoine ón gcliabhán go cré na cille. Life expectancy, and more importantly, healthy life expectancy, is higher than it used to be. It is important to address this fact in meeting the needs of everybody. We need a rebalancing of relationships. We cannot just use workers until they are all used up, or deemed to be all used up, and then discard them arbitrarily. We have positive duties on employers, and we need more of these, to provide reasonable accommodations. Age-based discrimination needs to be addressed throughout the system. There are many places where it still exists and it is simply not justified.

Public policy needs to address pension and retirement sustainability. Our tax base needs to be broadened. This is a message we are consistent with as the Social Democrats. We are a wealthy country but our economic model is simply unsustainable. If people are living longer, which we know they are, the intensity of work in different parts of life also becomes relevant. We need to explore things like a four-day working week and better social floors, including perhaps universal basic income. I say this because, essentially, instead of squashing it all into the current model of the middle of people's lives, we need to spread it out better so people can work longer into their older years. With today's technology and advancements, people's working lives should be getting easier and not harder.

We need our labour market and social protection system to adapt to an older workforce who should be accommodated. The threat of poverty should not be used as a tool for encouraging compliance with arbitrary retirement age. Our gross pension replacement rates by earnings are well below the OECD average, at less that 30%, meaning that people are expected to live on significantly lower income in retirement in this country. Oftentimes, people do not have the fallback of downsizing, selling their house and so on, because of the increase in the number of older people renting.

I have a couple more points to make. I endorse the Age Action submission on today's legislation, which I am sure the Minister has received. Age Action does a great job of tying the Bill back into A Roadmap for Pensions Reform 2018-2023. The Social Democrats believe Age Action is right to call for clarity around the disparity between public and private. The Malin judgment also needs to be dealt with, both in the legislation and the code of practice, there needs to be better appeal and redress mechanisms for people and when the Bill is passed it needs to be accompanied by a robust information campaign, so that everybody knows what is available to them.

To return to my first point, there has been a lot of what I would describe as head-in-the-sand discussion around retirement and pension age. The reality is that the retirement age was set at a time when life expectancy was significantly lower. We need to be more creative and more honest with ourselves, our voters and our constituents. Within that, of course we need to recognise that people engaged in manual labour and many other areas of the economy need to be considered and that retirement needs to be made available to them when they reach the appropriate age. However, we also need to recognise that many people choose to work further into their older years and we need to facilitate that as policymakers.

Deputy Barry Ward

I welcome the Bill. It makes a lot of sense and we have all been waiting for it. I note it is one of 21 Bills flagged for priority under the first months of the new Government. That is reflected in the urgency with which we are bringing it in, and I welcome it.

As the Minister of State will know, the purpose of the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Bill 2025 is to deliver a statutory provision which sets out that an employer may not enforce a commercial or contractual retirement age which is below the State pension age if the employee does not consent to retire. One of the points I planned to make is about the drafting. The State pension age is defined in section 2(1) not as 66 years but as having the definition that is applied in section 2 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, which is 66 years. One of the questions I ask consistently in these debates is why on earth we make it so difficult for people to track down what the Bill says when it becomes law. It should not be so difficult to insert the age of 66, rather than referring to other legislation. I will come back to that point.

The Bill will create a new employment right, specifically for employees who are subject to a retirement age in their employment contract which is set below the age of 66. This is about giving them the choice and option to continue work if they want to do so. We have heard a lot about this. This Bill is about choice, which is very important. It is also part of a suite of welcome rights the Government has brought forward in recent years, for example, increasing the minimum wage and also in the context of workers auto-enrolment in pensions. These important measures improve the rights of employees.

The Act also sets out the procedure that is to be followed. Between three and 12 months before a person is due to retire, he or she must give a notice in writing to their employer. I do not know if "in writing" needs to be defined. Does that mean an email is sufficient? I would have thought it does but I wonder if that should be clarified in the legislation. It places a burden on the employee to notify the employer, which I do not have a problem with. More important, it gives the employee the right to indicate to their employer that they do not want to retire at the age of 66. This is important, not just because it comes from the pensions commission report of 2021 - it has taken that long for the Bill to be drafted and get to the floor of the Dáil - but also because we know there is a gap between the ages of 65 and 66. People are often told they must retire at 65 and then find themselves in limbo before they reach the pensionable age at 66. This means, appallingly and disrespectfully, they are required to sign on as if they are unemployed and unavailable for work when, in fact, they had a job and wanted to continue to work but were not allowed to do so. This Bill will fix that, which is important. One of its primary aims is to fix it and reflect the recommendations of the pensions commission. Bridging that income gap has to be an important part of what the Bill does.

The Bill does not impact on the retirement provisions in place for certain public servants such as gardaí, members of the Defence Forces and other people who are in specific, high stress, high impact jobs. I have heard other Members speaking about this. The Bill does not place an undue burden on employees who want to retire. They should also have the choice to retire at their contractual retirement age if they wish to do so. They should not have to do so, however. That is a very important point.

The Bill also sets out protections. As I said, this is another pro-employee measure. It sets out the potential ramifications for an employer which ignores the statutory provisions or declines to involve itself with an employee when he or she notifies it, under section 5, that he or she does not want to retire.

To reflect what other Members said, this is also about the pension gap that already exists. The Bill does not really do anything to bridge that gap or address the unfairness against women who were subject to the marriage bar and found themselves exiting employment before they had a chance to accrue pension rights or those who have spent time out of employment for various legitimate reasons, such as having a family or caring for an older person, which is so often the case and disproportionately affects women. The Bill does not do anything to address that. It cannot do everything but it is important to note we have not made the progress we need to make in that regard. This is, however, a welcome Bill and I note that ICTU has indicated its broad support for it in the context of the rights it provides for workers.

Section 10 provides that "an employer who, without reasonable cause, fails to provide an employee with a reasoned written reply" will be guilty of an offence and "liable on summary conviction". I welcome that the section also provides for a corporate offence, so individual directors will not necessarily escape, even if they have not been directly involved, and the company itself, if the employer is a company, does not escape either. Creating this criminal offence that can be enforced is really important. However, it is also worth noting that in speaking about increased rights for employees, whether it is the minimum wage, pension auto-enrolment or this measure, which is not in the same category, we should also acknowledge that in establishing these rights, we also place a burden on employers, particularly small and medium enterprises which have to comply with the law in this regard. While I support these provisions, the State, the Government and the Oireachtas need to acknowledge that this places an additional burden on employers. When those employers are small and have low turnover or low profit margins, it can place a strain on the business and its survivability. Very often, these are local businesses providing local services in communities. They are important local employers but also important local providers. In passing legislation such as this, we need to put in place supports for such businesses to ensure they remain viable and have what they need to continue in the teeth of increased employee rights and increased burdens on employers. As I said, this legislation should not necessarily place further burdens or expenses on employers in that regard because we are talking about people in their mid-60s, predominately between 63 and 66, who are, for the most part, perfectly capable of continuing to work.

It is important to recognise that the age demographic of society is changing all the time. We are living longer and better. People into their 60s and 70s are perfectly capable of living productive employed lives and contributing in the way they want to. They should not be denied the opportunity to do that. The difficulty is that up to this point, the State has been telling people they have to stop working at a certain point. There has often been a substantial discrepancy between those working in the private sector and those working in the public sector. Where we have full employment, we should look at measures, exactly like those contained in this Bill, to ensure that people who want to continue working are allowed to do so. That is not to ignore the institutional memory that comes with people. The experience and length of service they have means they often know better how to do the job than somebody who is coming in. There are examples even in the public sector. In the Judiciary, for example, this will not change, although I am open to correction in this regard. At the moment, other statutory instruments require judges in the superior courts to retire at 70 years of age and judges in the District Court to retire at 65. Why do we insist on putting those measures in place? Why do we insist on placing these arbitrary limits on the ability of people to continue working?

Judges in the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court have an expertise that is unrivalled in many sectors. They have experience in those judicial positions that is of enormous value to this State and yet we have this arbitrary 70-year cut-off where they cannot work, even though many of them would be perfectly able to continue and it would benefit us enormously if they did. Let us not just be myopic about this and look at this in the context of contractual employment. We should also be looking at removing arbitrary age bars for those public servants who are in a position to continue to deliver beyond them. This does not mean there should not be a choice for those people but there should be the opportunity for us to review them. Not everyone can continue, or wants to continue, beyond that but we should be looking at a balancing mechanism which allows us to not lose the institutional memory that comes with it.

It is worth looking at other examples close to home. The United Kingdom, for example, repealed its default retirement age of 65 in April 2011, so we are quite far behind in catching up with them. In the UK, there is no state or default retirement age and employers are prohibited from implementing a compulsory retirement age, much in the same vein as this legislation. Germany has a statutory age limit for when an employee becomes eligible for a state pension which is between 65 and 67 years, depending on the date of birth of that employee. The statutory retirement age is not mandatory and employment contracts do not end automatically when a certain age is reached or at a time when the employee is entitled to the statutory pension. The receipt of any kind of pension does not constitute a sufficient reason for termination either.

I note this legislation talks about a good and valid reason or a reasonable basis for requiring a person to retire if they serve a notice to the employer. Does the Minister have any view on what constitutes a reasonable basis for such a thing? It is undoubtedly something that will ultimately be interpreted by the courts and there will be cases where it is borderline but has the Minister any views on what constitutes such a reason?

It is worth acknowledging at this point that so much of our employment legislation and employment rights legislation has been handed down to us from the European Union. We have benefitted massively from our membership of the European Union in terms of being informed as to how we should progress to make life easier and better for employees. This legislation certainly improves that and helps bring us in line with much of the legislation that exists across the European Union.

I said I would come back to points relating to drafting. One of points I frequently make in legislative debates is that we should be looking at passing consolidating legislation, particularly when we are passing an amending piece like this, which is very difficult to read. Two examples that spring to mind relate to section 6. Section 6 of the Act refers to rulings made under section 41 or section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, which is defined in the Bill. When reading this, you must go back to the 2015 Act, unless you are an employment lawyer, to find out what a ruling under section 41 or section 44 is. It seems to be a totally unnecessary burden to put on the reader that they must consult another piece of legislation but it gets worse in section 7, which amends the same Act of 2015. For example, if we look at section 7(a), it amends section 36(5) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. Really what it does is create a new paragraph in subsection (5) but it does so by way of three amendments. Section 7(a) states:

... in section 36(5) [of the 2015 Act],

(i) in paragraph (c) will be amended by the substitution of "National Minimum Wage Act 2000," for "National Minimum Wage Act 2000, or".

Instead of just taking the paragraph it wants to insert and rewriting it, it makes three amendments to change commas, add in or and change the list of provisions provided in section 36(5) of the 2015 Act.

The next paragraph does exactly the same for section 41(7) of the 2015 Act. It cannot be read in the absence of reading the 2015 Act and going through it in a careful way to ascertain exactly what is being said.

An Ceann Comhairle

Thank you, Deputy.

Deputy Barry Ward

Can we not pass legislation that is more easily read by people without reference to lots of other pieces of legislation?

Deputy Cathy Bennett

Fine Gael has a problem with retirement, older workers and how it treats those who want to retire in general. On the one hand, it contested the 2020 election on the basis of increasing the State pension age to 67 by 2021 and to 68 by 2028. As recently as three years ago, the former Minister, Heather Humphreys, described the current pension age of 66 as non-sustainable. On the other hand, it has taken until now to introduce this Bill which will abolish the mandatory retirement.

It is unfortunate it has taken Government so long to do so. In the intervening years, many older workers were effectively forced out of their jobs and, in some instances, they would have experienced undue financial hardship arising from the dithering and delays to do in part with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Fine Gael's problem with retirement is laid bare in the fact that while it was quite willing to rush to raise the State pension age, which was and remains wrong, it did not feel the need at the time to marry the wrongful proposal with the removal of the mandatory retirement.

Fine Gael's solution was effectively, after a lifetime of work, to send those people on to the dole queue. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael now seek plaudits for a programme for Government commitment not to increase the pension further and for implementing this reform years after negative impacts of its pension age increase took effect. There are real negative impacts. People were worse off financially and there was also the social impact of forcing people out of the workplace.

Sinn Féin's position is clear. We welcome this Bill, which is in line with the legislation previously introduced by Sinn Féin. We also believe after a lifetime of work, alongside the choice to continue work if they wish to do so, people deserve the right to retire on a full pension at 65. It is a wrong yet to be righted. Worse still, it is a wrong the Government has yet to acknowledge.

While welcoming this Bill, I ask the Minister to acknowledge the increase in the State pension age was wrong. If the Minister does not acknowledge that, at least acknowledge the ham-fisted way the Government went about doing this without removing the mandatory retirement compounded the harm it did.

An Ceann Comhairle

I thank Deputy Bennett. We now move to the Independent and Parties Technical Group.

Deputy Brian Stanley

Anseo.

An Ceann Comhairle

Excuse me, Deputy Stanley. I could not see you.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I welcome this Bill. I want to be positive about it as it is only right. We have a situation where when people reach 65 years of age, most jobs say, "That is it, you are finished". There is the indignity of having to go to the local dole office. We need to end that and give people the option, if they so wish, to continue working. This Bill seeks to address this and while there are a few things I would go a bit further with, it is a good step forward.

On top of that, we have a well-known shortage of skills. Many people who are forced into retirement have certain skills we need badly, particularly in the trades. That knowledge needs to be passed on. People should have a right to work until 70 years of age if they so wish. The problem with forced retirement is that you are forced in this situation, in many cases, against your will and are forced into economic dependency. The worst thing is to have to go to a labour exchange and sign onto the dole. We cannot continue forcing this on people. We must give people the option. It is legitimate that we do so. There is no justification for continuing the way we are.

The unions broadly welcome this Bill and it will be well received. This will be easy enough to do in the public sector. It is already there and you can continue to work until you are 70. In the private sector, it may not be as clear. Some private employers, however, recognise the value of these workers if they have skills built up over many years. In some cases, people have worked for 50 years, having started working when they were 15 or 16 years of age.

While not applicable to this legislation, the Government needs to move on with the commitment to bring in the mandatory right to be represented by a trade union and the right to collective bargaining. We are out of sync with other EU states on this. We are currently only one of three or four who does not have it and we need to move on this. We have the quirky situation that you have a right to join a trade union - in some jobs you could be sacked for that - but you do not have the right to be represented by a trade union and the right to collective bargaining.

Many workers are being mistreated. We need to provide that protection for them.

In regard to the clause in Part 3 of the Bill enabling recourse to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, that redress is welcome. I acknowledge that.

I would like to mention a situation I have mentioned in the House before. People over 70 years of age who drive school buses are forced to retire. They cannot drive the school bus anymore but they can drive the big coach to the swimming pool or to Dublin for a tour or to Cork or Belfast anytime during the day. I ask that this be taken back. I say this to every Minister. In answer to a parliamentary question the relevant Minister, Deputy O'Brien, told me that there is a commitment to delivery of a skilled workforce to maintain and operate public transport vehicles, and said that the Department "has established a Public Transport Workforce Taskforce to identify options to assist with resolving these issues". With all respect to civil servants, when you start setting up interdepartmental task forces there is a problem. It is a straightforward problem. People over 70 cannot drive the school bus with ten or 12 kids on it. If they pass a strict medical test and an eyesight test each year, let them continue driving until the age of 75. That is an option. There is going to be a mighty shortage. The Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, will hear about this in Cavan-Monaghan in August. There is going to be a shortage of school bus drivers. It is already happening. People have finished in the past few weeks. I spoke to a person last night who was forced into compulsory retirement. They have been driving trucks and buses all their lives and never had an accident. We need to give these people the option. I ask the Minister of State to take that back and for the civil servants to take note of it.

The Bill is a positive step forward. We need to go further in separate legislation to bring in the mandatory right to collective bargaining and to be represented by a trade union. I will be supporting this Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Newsome Drennan is not here. If she arrives, we will come back to her with the agreement of the House, as we are somewhat ahead. I call Deputy Paul Lawless.

Deputy Paul Lawless

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I welcome the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Bill 2025, which essentially proposes to allow flexibility to employees regarding the ability to work on until they reach the State pension age. Aontú has raised this important issue on a number of occasions. Currently, as the Minister of State rightly recognises, the system is deeply flawed. It essentially forces people into an income gap from the age of 65 until they can receive their State pension at the age of 66. It is demoralising for people who have worked all their lives until the age of 65 to be told to join the dole queue. I am pleased that this situation will be addressed in this legislation. Age Action Ireland estimates that 4,000 people each year throughout the State find themselves in this situation. It is the most common case in the WRC under age grounds. We certainly welcome the Bill.

In regard to the outline of the Bill, I fully acknowledge that it provides a degree of flexibility to the employee where the employee is able to stay on, and that is a good thing. We have a skills shortage in many different areas. The case of school bus drivers mentioned by Deputy Stanley is just one instance. There is a huge shortage across County Mayo as well. I welcome the opportunity for people to be able to stay in employment. It is very welcome indeed.

I have a few questions about the implications of this. Will the individual will be able to continue to make pension contributions? Will the employer make the contributions as normal up to the age of 66? Will it affect the death in service payment?

While we are talking about pensions, I would like to mention another crucial aspect of pensions in the State. I refer to women's pensions, particularly women who stay at home and care for children or for elderly parents. The data suggests that when women retire, they receive on average 35% less than their male counterparts due to pay, career duration, career breaks, childcare and so on. Aontú believes women should not be penalised for doing wonderful work in the home, caring for the next generation of Irish citizens. The Royal London Ireland research centre suggests that the value of caring in the home and running the home is in the region of €57,000 a year. Yet the State does not recognise the contribution in the way it should. Women who stay at home are without question penalised during their caregiving years but also in terms of their pensions. I have some suggestions for the Minister of State and I would be grateful if she could consider them. It is time we introduced a scheme for caregiving years for women who take time out of their working lives to care for children. Those contributions should be made by the Department of Social Protection.

It is also important that we have more flexibility around pension schemes. We should allow carers the opportunity to contribute in a voluntary capacity when they are able and when they are back in employment. The catch-up opportunities currently are far too narrow. We need to broaden them and provide those tax incentives and tax reliefs for women.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is fine for time, but his remarks are not relevant to what we are discussing.

Deputy Paul Lawless

In fairness, we are discussing pensions and this is another important aspect of it. However, I take her point.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not out of time. I am just asking him to stick to the topic. He has another minute if he wishes to continue. I call Deputy Michael Collins.

Deputy Michael Collins

As this is my first time addressing the Minister of State, I welcome her to her position and look forward to working with her in the time ahead. The Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Bill 2025 aims to help employees who are forced to retire before the State pension age of 66. It allows employees to choose not to retire at the contractual age if it is below 66 unless the employer has a valid reason. The Bill also prevents employers from penalising employees who wish to continue working past retirement age. Its goal is to bridge the income gap for early retirees, encourage longer working lives and support broader pension reforms to ensure stable and predictable retirement incomes which we in Independent Ireland support. I propose that the retirement age be reinstated to its original threshold of 65 years. Additionally, individuals who are capable and willing to continue working beyond this age should have the right to do so.

However, the problem is that we have so many issues in relation to people who deserve respect at any age. I know a gentleman in my constituency in west Cork whose pension was withdrawn a few weeks ago. I raised this in the Dáil. He had an operation and his doctor advised him to take some time abroad if he could. He did and his pension was taken away from him. He is on a non-contributory pension.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is speaking about what is beyond the retirement age, just as Deputy Lawless was.

Deputy Michael Collins

I am talking about this gentleman who is beyond the retirement age.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, but-----

Deputy Michael Collins

Will the Ceann Comhairle let me talk and let me finish my bit of time?

An Ceann Comhairle

Keep it relevant.

Deputy Michael Collins

It is very relevant. In fairness to a person who has the pension and is trying to enjoy life at 75 years of age, that is unfair. That needs to be looked at as part of this Bill going forward. We certainly should look at that. We should look at Bus Éireann as well. Up until 2008 CIÉ pensioners were awarded increases to their pensions in line with pay increases to active staff.

An Ceann Comhairle

Clearly, the Deputy does not understand. The Bill is predetermined.

Deputy Michael Collins

No increase in pensions has been approved by the CIÉ board since 2008. The whole point I am trying to make is that this could also be brought in under this Bill. These are people who have not had a pension increase. They are in the Ceann Comhairle's constituency and in my constituency. Since 2008, for 16 years, despite repeated requests and representations the majority of CIÉ pensioners who are members of the 1951 scheme have no other income and do not qualify for the State pension because as public servants they paid class D1. They did not have a choice when they joined CIÉ - it was the only option.

Since 2008, the consumer price index has increased by 20.8%. The State pension has increased by 24% before adding the living alone allowance and the fuel allowance. Since 2016, CIÉ salaries for active staff have increased by approximately 30% while the increase for pensioners has been nil. That is the point I am trying to make. While this Bill is very important and we support it, other improvements need to be made. People in their elderly years need more respect but this is not being afforded to them. I listed a few of the issues there. Community employment workers are coming to me looking to see whether they can continue their work. They have been refused this. Local community and voluntary groups are desperate to keep these workers on board but they cannot do so. I would appreciate it if the Minister of State could look into these issues as well.

Women's pensions constitute a hugely important issue. Many women in retirement come to us. They have worked hard all their lives but have been left without a pension, which is very unfair. While this Bill is going in the right direction and we support it, other areas like women's pensions should be looked at. These women have worked hard and deserve this but have been refused this little bit of extra pension or even a pension at all, or much of their pension is based on their husbands' income. This has to stop. These women deserve respect but, unfortunately, they are not afforded it. These issues need serious attention. I am very concerned about a lot of women who worked very hard and got zero pension in some cases, which is not good enough for a State that prides itself in looking after its elderly. It certainly has not looked after some women who have come to me down through the years. I have found that they have been left wide open regarding any kind of pension. One cannot base a woman's pension on her husband's salary or pension. That has to stop.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

I note that the Ceann Comhairle has asked people to stick to the topic, which I will. I will highlight a few issues. I support the Bill. I support any Bill that will allow a person to get his or her pension either before or at retirement age. The retirement age is now 66. I believe the Government should honour a person with an employment contract that was completed before the legislation changed the retirement age from 65 to 66, instead of asking him or her to sign on for social welfare or go on his or her stamps if he or she has worked all his or her life.

I am one of 11 children. My father was 59 years older than me. I look at the health of different people in various age groups. I remember asking my father to race me when I was 11. He was 70 and said "sure come on so". He beat me down the road as if I was not even there. He was either very fast or I was very slow. He lived to the age of 98.

Bus Éireann drivers can drive up to the age of 70 but cannot drive after that. Yet, they can drop children to a school. Their brother, sister or friend at the age of 71, 72 or 75 can pull up in the same size bus, pick up the students, take them to the Oireachtas in Dublin and take them home. If someone is fit enough to work and wants to work, we should permit a yearly health certificate from his or her doctor or consultant to allow him or her to do that job, which we need at the moment. A lot of people before retirement age are not fit to go to work or drive but there are people who are fit to do these things after retirement age and I ask that this be facilitated.

I will finish up. When the Ceann Comhairle was on this side of the House, she was very good at changing the subject. I would like to remind her on the record that she was very good at doing it.

An Ceann Comhairle

On the record, that is not the point.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

The Ceann Comhairle, in the position she is in at the moment, is pulling us for something she was well able to do in the past. That is a point of humour, rather than a criticism. I support any Bill that will help people in this respect. I suggest to the Minister of State that I would like to open up negotiations for people outside the current criteria. This would allow us to move forward, look out for people regardless of their age and work with those who are over or under the current age.

Deputy Paul Nicholas Gogarty

On one level, this is a very straightforward Bill. I will try to stick to the topic, although the Ceann Comhairle might give me some leeway. I have read that this is an updated version of the earlier touted Employment (Restriction of Certain Mandatory Retirement Ages) Bill 2024, which was here before I was elected in November. The Bill delivers a statutory provision that sets out that an employer may not enforce a contractual retirement age that is below the State pension age if the employee does not consent to retire. It is essentially a way of bridging the income gap for people who are forced to leave work before they reach the age of 66. I apologise if the Minister of State is getting bored because she would have heard a lot of people say that and has probably has it learned off by heart. It is such a simplistic Bill in that sense.

As Ministers have pointed out, this is one of the Government's key responses to the Pensions Commission's recommendations and implementation plan, going back as far as 2021. It allows but in no way compels an employee to stay in employment until the State pension age of 66. It is worth referencing - I am not sure if others referenced it - that it differs from the 2024 Bill in that it clearly enables the prosecution of individuals and bodies corporate. For the purposes of this Act, two employers shall be taken to be associated if one is a body corporate of which the other, whether directly or indirectly, has control or if both are bodies corporate of which a third person, whether directly or indirectly, has control. Insofar as it does not compel employees to keep working up to the age of 66 but allows them to do so if they wish rather than being forced by an employer, it is a worthy piece of legislation.

Why then would bodies such as Age Action Ireland call it a weak Bill? They do so because it fails to address many of the fundamental challenges facing older people in the workplace in the modern age. Others who have spoken on this legislation echo my opinion that this Bill fails not because of what is in it but because of what is not in it. That is why some Members may have stretched the leeway in terms of talking about other issues but there are some direct things that are not in the Bill that are relevant. Unless someone is self-employed or is otherwise in a position to make demands by dint of a job shortage or some special skill that makes him or her indispensable, once he or she hits his or her 66th birthday, he or she is deemed surplus to requirements. This is separate from the debate on whether we can pay for future pension needs and whether the retirement age needs to be increased as a result. That is a very controversial debate that we probably need to have again.

The deficit I am talking about relates to whether there should be a mandatory retirement age where the person is shown to have continued high performance allied to invaluable professional and lived experience and is contributing in a meaningful way. At a time when we are at or near full employment and need to import workers in many sectors, there is an argument that we should not set an arbitrary age ban. We know that so many older people lead active and healthy lives way beyond the current retirement age. We know that forcing people to leave something fulfilling and meaningful that provides a social outlet can have many negative consequences for physical and mental health. This is before we look at the damage caused by the financial aspects. To quote Age Action Ireland:

Mandatory retirement is based on gross and insulting stereotypes about ageing. It is experienced by workers as a humiliating and dehumanizing injustice. It takes away our autonomy and our control over how and when we retire, which is a major life event. People who had no choice in retiring report poorer mental health, life satisfaction, health status, dietary habits, marital satisfaction, self-efficacy, and income adequacy, even years into their retirement.

The quote is a little verbose but it lists a lot of meaningful knock-on effects of leaving work.

I am often inspired, for want of a better word, when I go into the local Woodie's, for example. One often sees people who have been working all their lives who have gone back to work. They might only take a part-time job. I will make a point that is anecdotal and I am not criticising young people at all - we had a discussion on crime, which I will not get into, where we spoke about how some young people between the ages of 13 and 18 are involved in crime but most of them are model citizens - but they do not have that life experience. I am thinking of the general, “How are you? How are things?” and the bit of chattiness that people like when they go to the till or the helpfulness they get when asking about something. That built-up life experience can help in a major way. If employees are doing a fantastic job at the age of 66, why should they be told, “Sorry, your time is up now,” when the people themselves may feel they are making a better contribution than their peers?

As others have said, the Bill is fine as it stands. I cannot see myself voting against it but I would be interested to hear the views of the Minister of State on what amendments might be possible to what is a very limited Bill or if a commitment be given to look at the wider aspects relating to people who want to work and are capable of working beyond retirement age.

Finally, I will address the bus driver angle. Taxi drivers between the ages of 70 and 75 can drive a taxi, as many people have noted, but if they want to add to the service to transport kids to special schools, Bus Éireann does not let them. I know it is within Bus Éireann’s remit to look at that but maybe we should issue guidelines. We have the workforce ready, willing and able to provide a service that is clearly needed. I call on the Minister of State to please let the people who are capable do the service and give them a bit of meaning in their lives.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now move to a Government slot. We do not have anyone for the Government. Deputy Mark Ward should be next but if it is Deputy Newsome Drennan, that is no problem.

Deputy Natasha Newsome Drennan

This is welcome legislation from the Government. An increasing cohort of workers opt to work past their planned retirement age, some into their late 60s or even into their 70s. While this is fundamentally a personal choice for many, it would be naïve to ignore the external factors which put workers into a situation where they feel they have no choice but to keep working. These factors are direct results of failures by this Government and its Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael predecessors - failures that include the cost-of-living crisis, sky-high energy costs, chronic underinvestment in housing and a healthcare system that is bulging under the pressure. This Government has constantly failed to grasp the severity of the cost-of-living crisis. Grocery prices have risen by one third in just three years. Staples like chicken fillets have seen a staggering increase of 120%. How can older people enjoy a decent standard of living in retirement when the State pension fails to keep pace with inflation, let alone these outrageous price hikes? Every Member of this House knows a pensioner who has faced extraordinary energy bills or older people forced to leave their heating off for fear of the next bill. On one side of the crisis we have vulnerable pensioners, while on the other are energy providers like Electric Ireland, a major State-owned company posting record profits.

Under Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, Ireland’s energy costs have gone from being among the most affordable in the EU-----

An Ceann Comhairle

Again, it is about relevance to the Bill.

Deputy Natasha Newsome Drennan

I am getting to it. It is the cost to them. Now, Ireland’s energy costs are the most expensive in the EU. The consequences are stark. Research carried out by ALONE shows one in three people over 65 are at risk of poverty. This is a national disgrace. After a lifetime of contribution to society, a third of our elders face possible poverty. Is it any wonder so many feel compelled to work past retirement age? I recently met a 69 year-old man who was forced to retire at 65, as per his contract. His reasons were simple and genuine. Despite his children holding full-time jobs, they struggled to save while renting. He returned to the workforce as a self-employed worker, not for himself but just so that he could help each of his children equally to get their own home. He told me he would love to retire like his friends but must put his family first. His story is not unique. It is the Ireland of today. We cannot let Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael dictate the narrative on retirement, with the mindset that you must work as long as you are fit to do so. After a lifetime of contribution, people deserve the right to retire at 65 with dignity, to enjoy that time, go on new adventures, take up new hobbies and spend quality time with their children and grandchildren. This legislation is a start but we must address the causes of financial insecurity for older people.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now move to other Members and Deputies Mattie McGrath and Nolan. Deputy Nolan is first.

Deputy Carol Nolan

I wish the Minister of State well in her new role and look forward to working with her on a number of issues. The Bill before us is in response to the Pensions Commission’s recommendations and implementation plan, published in 2022. Many aspects are welcome but there are also many concerns. The Government subsequently committed to introducing a range of reforms to ensure the pensions system is sustainable and that people relying on the State pension have adequate and predictable income in retirement. However, I note that I have concerns with the Bill as drafted and particularly the level of ambiguity around the objective and reasonable justification that an employer may use to deny a request from an employee to remain in employment. From the employer’s perspective, there are also issues around the burden created for the employer when it comes to individually justifying retirement age for an individual worker and not as a general class of worker. I know this aims to prevent blanket policies but there are issues of how practical it may be, particularly in small workplaces. I am also concerned about the limited scope of application and the complexity of the notification process for the employee. While I believe that we are moving in the right direction, the Bill as it stands is too limited.

Again, I note that if a new regime is brought in, the employer must be capable of justifying the retirement age for the individual worker as distinct from a general class of worker. While I have expressed my concerns from the employer's point of view, it does seem like the kind of flexibility I have sought for many years in the context of the mandatory retirement age for school bus drivers. We need greater flexibility in that regard. Bus drivers and bus operators have contacted me on this. There is a huge shortage of school bus drivers for this coming September and we need to look at this issue. There are moves to encourage people to stay on in the workforce if they so wish but I have been contacted by many frustrated people. There is an injustice. If they are medically fit and have passed medical tests, I cannot see why they cannot be allowed to remain on as school bus drivers. We have a situation whereby they can drive a bus to Mayo or Donegal to bring children to matches or whatnot but they cannot bring children down the road to a local school. It just does not make sense. I am again calling for practical common sense to be put in place quickly and for it to prevail on this matter because there is a huge shortage of bus drivers again this year.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I hope there were not too many bus drivers bringing Offaly supporters or Tipperary supporters to Páirc Uí Chaoimh last Sunday because we all came home disappointed. Fair dues to Cork and, indeed, to Port Láirge freisin.

Once enacted, the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Bill 2025 will deliver a new employment right.

It will allow, but not compel, an employee to stay in employment until the State pension age of 66. I want to also congratulate and wish an tAire Stáit nua, Deputy Niamh Smyth, the very best and offer her my co-operation in her position. Hopefully her door will be open to us as well. I know it will. The Bill delivers a statutory provision which sets out that an employer may not enforce a contractual retirement age which is below the State pension age, if the employee does not consent to retire. The Bill implements a key commitment included in the Government's response to the Pensions Commission recommendations and implementation plan. It is very timely and appropriate that it is one of the first pieces of legislation this new Government is enacting. The anomaly was there for decades. People who had worked up 40 years' service, many of them State employees as well as everything else, were being forced then to attend at the local labour exchange gach seachtain. It was highly unjust and unfair and undignified for them. All respect to anybody who goes to the labour exchange but people who always wanted to work and did work were forced to sign on for the 12 or 15 months or whatever it was.

I know this Bill cannot include everyone, and I will stick to the Bill as the Ceann Comhairle asked. However, I am also asking for the situation regarding the teaching assistants in the ETB and elsewhere, who have been up here many times to meet us, to be addressed. The Minister of State will be aware of them. I ask for them to get the recognition. I know it is gone to the WRC now but those people deserve to have the same standards. We cannot have yellow-pack workers, or a situation where we have the múinteoirí and the others, like ourselves, we are called the others at the moment, I do not know what we will be called next. I do not like that terminology. I do not like that being done to anybody. They should be entitled to the same pay and conditions. The pay is one thing but the conditions are also crucial, holiday pay and sick pay, annual leave and everything else.

Many people have found themselves in the unfortunate position of having to retire from their employment at 65 when they do not want to, and then go on jobseeker's benefit until the age of 66. That is not fair to them. It is important that this is not made in any way compulsory and that no person will be compelled to work beyond 65. It is important that they would have the choice to do so if they wish, and would not find themselves seeking employment or a social welfare payment at 65. Indeed, many want to work beyond 66 and the Bill will not go far enough in that regard. All the speakers have spoken about this and we must be mindful. I should have declared that in my own company we have up to 25 employees, many excellent workers, some of them of great longevity. It is hard at the moment to find staff in any walk of life and to get people. We have a wonderful workforce and I want to praise and thank them. Without them, the company would not function. I am not speaking personally but just declaring that I have an interest in the employment situation myself.

The situation of the small employer, na daoine beaga, small businesses, must be nurtured. They are coming under serious pressures and bureaucratic pressures. This legislation will no doubt add to that but it is necessary. The Ceann Comhairle will know this herself as she has a business background. If you have five or six employees now, not to mind 25 or 26, you would need a secretarial position to manage all the paperwork for at least every five of them. It is just enormous and it is growing and expanding, from health and safety to HACCP, you name it. Many things are very necessary but small employers especially are burdened down. They may be family-run businesses, maybe just a fear agus a bhean chéile or maybe sometimes just a man or woman on their own, small business owners. They are completely overburdened with bureaucracy, plus all the costs that are in business as well.

Many of our older citizens provide very important services to our community and are happy to do so. They are being penalised by being forced to retire. We see a very common problem, as has been mentioned already. Bus Éireann will not allow 70-year-olds to operate a school bus despite them being fit and able to do so. This has been raised here for the last four years. I have raised it with three different taoisigh, Ministers for Transport and everybody else. I do not know why it is still there. There is an acute shortage of part-time drivers for people to go to special needs schools and also school runs. The ironic part about it, I will not repeat it as it has been mentioned, but they can drive people to matches and everything at the stroke of a pen, if they have been medically certified. They are willing to be medically certified even three times a year if necessary. Road safety is paramount, especially with children. This anomaly must be fixed. Most small companies are unable to fulfil the routes they get. They tender for them and get them, and then they are short of drivers. That is not through any fault of their own but it must be changed.

I accept that not everyone wants to work beyond 65 or 66 but many who have worked all their lives want to remain in active employment and we must respect their right to do so. If the Ceann Comhairle will allow me, community employment schemes are a vital part of our communities. I am cathaoirleach of our own scheme, the BN&B scheme, in Newcastle and Ballymacarbry in Waterford and Tipperary. We are short now five or six places and cannot get employees. We are the best of people. We have the Aherlow Fáilte Society at the moment, and the wonderful Glen of Aherlow tourist office. A woman there is being forced to retire. She wants to continue working. She is playing a vital role in the community. It is good for her, the community and everything else. We are pleading with the powers that be. Thankfully since Covid, the people in social welfare have given rollovers and extensions to our members. Long term, it is not feasible. The schemes will not stay going. The community work will not be done. It is very important work; it is not all cutting grass. There is a lot of work in schools, on GAA pitches, in all kinds of services for the elderly, daycare facilities and all those centres. They need those people to be able to continue, if they want to continue. If they want to retire, fine, but we must look at that anomaly. The workforce is limited. Where we have people who enjoy their work, love their work and are well involved and able to do their work, we should leave them where they are happiest, keeping occupied and also providing an excellent service. I commend this legislation and wish it well on its passage through the House.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Niamh Smyth)

I thank everyone who has contributed in such a meaningful way to the debate this evening. There were some technical issues raised by Deputy Barry Ward. I will ask the officials in the Department to go back to him directly. His remarks were quite technical. I have some notes here but since he is not in the Chamber himself, it would be important and useful if the officials could revert to him directly. Directly Lawless raised some issues on gender and I am ably assisted by the Department here with a note to say that it is not in the scope of this Bill. We would address the carers and PRSI contributions can be claimed from the Department of Social Protection and can be a significant benefit for the contributory State pension. I do not know if that answers Deputy Lawless but I will ask the officials again to respond to him specifically on that.

The Bill implements the recommendations of the Pensions Commission on the matters of contractual retirement ages. It implements a recommendation that has been the subject of substantial debate, public discourse, research, analysis and consultation involving all relevant stakeholders. In addition to the Pensions Commission's public consultation process and stakeholder forum, this proposal was discussed extensively at meetings of the labour, economic and employment forum, and officials separately held a number of meetings with key stakeholders. That will put everyone's mind at ease in today's debate.

I am satisfied that the Bill we are discussing here today is a robust and well balanced legislative provision. It will facilitate any worker who wants to continue in employment until they first access the State pension. It will also make necessary the provision for limited cases where a lower retirement age may be required. It is a positive step in improving adequacy of income for older workers and reaffirms all our outstanding policy to encourage and support longer and fuller working lives.

I acknowledge two other points that were raised by Deputy Mattie McGrath around the personal assistants. I wholeheartedly support everything he and others have raised today about those particular workers especially.

They deserve the recognition and the State supports those in every other walk of life get, particularly in our education and training boards, ETBs, and further education.

One of the other points raised was that we have a huge shortage of skilled workers, of people with experience. It is a big opportunity to keep people who want to continue to work. "Want" being the important word. This Bill goes a long way in achieving that. I thank all of the Members for their contributions as well as the Ceann Comhairle.

Question put and agreed to.