Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality debate -
Wednesday, 18 Nov 2015

Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2014: Discussion

Chairman

The purpose of this part of the meeting is to engage with some of those who made a written submission on the Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2014. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the witnesses and thank them for giving their time to come here. We are joined by Age Action Ireland, the Law Society of Ireland, representatives of the Irish Senior Citizens Parliament and some members of the public, so we will go through the introductions as we come to people.

A number of issues arise. I ask people not to respond until I call them as we have a recording system and we must give people the chance to activate the microphones. Do not touch any buttons either as this will be done automatically. If anybody has a mobile phone, please turn it off or put it on aeroplane mode as these interfere with the sound recording system. That goes for colleagues as well, so please ensure all phones are off.

I will invite groups and individuals to make a statement of approximately five minutes and I ask witnesses to keep to this as many people wish to contribute and we want to finish at a reasonable hour. There will be a question and answer session with members about points arising and perhaps there will be interaction between different groups as well. Before beginning, I draw the attention of witnesses to the position regarding privilege. They should note that by virtue of section 17(2)(I) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if witnesses are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of the evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members should also be aware under the salient ruling of the chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Justin Moran

On behalf of Age Action Ireland, I thank the committee for the invitation to speak here today. I will briefly introduce my colleagues. I am joined by our senior policy officer, Ms Naomi Feely, and one of our members, Ms Angela Gallagher, whose story was part of our submission to the committee. Mandatory retirement ages are deeply ageist and that they have been permitted for so long is a reflection of the ageism still publicly acceptable in Ireland. Whereas some people cannot wait to retire and are very eager to do so, there are others who want to keep working. There is a large and growing group of workers who realise that with retirement comes a major drop in income and for these people, the longer they can work, the more they can save. If Deputy Anne Ferris's Bill becomes law, older people who are willing and able to keep working would be able to do so. It would eliminate the growing problem of older people being forced to retire at 65, or even earlier, with years to go until they can claim the State pension. Like everyone else, we welcome the continuing fall in the unemployment figures but although there are schemes and programmes to help young people find work, what is there for a forklift driver forced to retire at 55 or the civil servant pushed aside on her 65th birthday?

Older people frequently tell us they feel they are invisible and undervalued. They see the media refer to them as bed blockers or as a burden on society. Against this backdrop, one would need to be very determined to go job-hunting as an older worker. With people retiring today expected to live, on average, for another 20 years or more, we need to have an honest debate about the role of older workers in Irish society, the kind of honest debate that led, four years ago, to the abolition of the default retirement age in Britain. The abolition of mandatory retirement in Britain was no less challenging, difficult or controversial than it would be in Ireland but the political will was there, the recognition of the rights of older people was there and the understanding that older workers have something to contribute to their communities and to the economy was there. It can be done and as the demographics in Ireland change in the coming years, it will be done. There should be no doubt about this. Mandatory retirement ages will be abolished in Ireland, so why not now?

I will ask my colleague, Ms Angela Gallagher, to add a few words on her own experience of mandatory retirement.

Ms Angela Gallagher

I am delighted to be here this afternoon and to have the opportunity to discuss the issue of mandatory retirement. I appreciate that the issue and its implications for employment law, for pensions policy and for many other areas is very complex. At the same time, it is also very simple. People should not be forced out of their jobs because they are a certain age. If we accept that basic principle, we can overcome the complicated policy issues thrown up by abolishing mandatory retirement.

People like me, who are able to work, willing to do so and capable of doing our jobs effectively should not be forced to retire because of our age. To me, this is simply ageism; it is discrimination against me and thousands of people in Ireland like me who are deemed expendable.

In my own case, the frustration of losing my job for no other reason than because I had turned 65 years of age was exacerbated by the financial hardship this policy of mandatory retirement inflicted on me. I was trying to pay a mortgage to the bank and a loan to the credit union at the same time. It was very difficult to keep going. I had to cut right back. I had to get rid of my telephone, television and anything I could to save money. I even had to cut back on my medication several times because the cost exceeded the maximum per month under the drugs scheme and I simply could not afford it. There were weeks and months when I did not know how I was going to pay the bank and when I worried whether I would even be able to keep my home.

The thing that annoys me most and the reason I am before the committee today is that none of this was necessary. I wanted to work and I was able to work. I liked what I was doing and I was good at my job. If I had not been forced out of my job I would have been able to work until I was secure. I would have been able to keep contributing to the economy as well. I urge committee members to recognise what older workers have to offer, in particular, the skills, experience and wisdom we have built up in our careers. I strongly support the legislation proposed by Deputy Anne Ferris. I thank the committee members for their attention.

Chairman

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. The representatives of the Law Society of Ireland are next to speak.

Ms Joanne Hyde

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposals from Deputy Anne Ferris, Deputy McFadden and Senator White.

Chairman

You have two colleagues with you, Mr. Loughlin Deegan and Ms Deirdre Malone. Is that correct?

Ms Joanne Hyde

I am the chairperson of the employment and equality committee of the Law Society of Ireland. I am accompanied by the vice chairman, Mr. Loughlin Deegan and another member, Ms Deirdre Malone. The employment inequality committee of the Law Society of Ireland is made up of a number of specialist lawyers in the area of employment and pensions. In making our submission I am keen to point out and make clear that we are not here to represent the interests of the profession or the interests of employment lawyers generally. Our submission serves to offer our expertise in so far as any legislation introduced is compliant with developments in EU law and does not contradict any existing provisions of domestic law.

From a legal perspective the context is that the current provision in the Employment Equality Act 1998 permits employers to set a compulsory retirement age. Certainly, it does not prevent them from setting a compulsory retirement age. It does not set out any requirement that such compulsory retirement age must be objective. While that may have been in compliance with the law in 1998, there have been developments at European Court of Justice level in the interim which indicate that setting a retirement age is potentially a type of age discrimination. However, those cases suggest that in certain circumstances where there are objective justifications, it may be possible to set a retirement age.

We have made submissions relating to Deputy Ferris's Bill and the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, both of which would ensure Irish law was compliant with developments in law at the Court of Justice of the European Union. The two Bills are incompatible, however, and could not be introduced together because they are conflicting. Our role and our submission serves to ensure that any legislation brought in is legally clear and from an operating perspective does not create any conflict with either EU law or any other provision of Irish employment equality law. My colleague, Ms Deirdre Malone, will comment specifically on the Bill.

Ms Deirdre Malone

The other Bill proposed relating to implementing the directive is the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2013. We have some comments in respect of the drafting. There is provision within the Bill for a fixed-term contract to be offered to someone over retirement age. We are seeking clarity around the drafting, especially in regard to section 6(3)(c) of the 1998 Act and the proposed amendment to section 4 of the 2013 Bill.

Deputy Anne Ferris has drafted the other Bill. As we have said, we are neutral on which Bill would be enacted since both are compliant with the provisions in the EU directive. However, I wish to draw the committee's attention to some particular things. We wish to raise a concern relating to the potential costs. In particular, the 2014 Bill permits age discrimination and disability discrimination where an employer can demonstrate that treating the person equally would entail significantly increased costs. Cost alone is not generally an accepted appropriate justification for discrimination.

There is a question over the potential impact on unfair dismissals. We maintain that the Unfair Dismissals Act permits fair dismissal on the grounds of capability. We believe that the drafting in its current form may remove an employer's obligation to participate in performance improvement programmes and other managed processes whereby someone could be fairly dismissed. As currently drafted, the Bill would permit an employer or company to get a report from a doctor to the effect that a person is not fit to do the job. The ground of capability could be a fair ground to dismiss a person. Another aspect we highlighted relates to looking to establish whether a person was capable of doing the job. We take the view that there may be an increased cost to employers where they have to assess employees on a regular basis, for example, on a yearly basis, once they have reached a particular point.

We had concerns on the drafting and around the language used. For example, reference is made to significantly increased costs. How could that be shown? What other evidence would be required? There should be more clarity around the wording.

There is a potential conflict with section 16 of the 1998 Act dealing with disability and when someone cannot do a job. This is a new departure in terms of introducing disability on the grounds of age. The idea is to ensure that both are compatible.

Chairman

Thank you very much for that. We will move on to the Irish Senior Citizens Parliament. Ms. Hayes will speak next. You have colleagues with you. Is that correct?

Ms Máiréad Hayes

My colleagues include Ms Imelda Brown, who is on our executive committee, and Mr. John Walsh, who is the president. I am the chief executive officer. The Irish Senior Citizens Parliament welcomes the opportunity to address the committee on this issue, a critical issue for older people. We thank Deputy Anne Ferris for tabling the Bill. We urge the committee to take action in the term of this, Dáil, the 31st Dáil. I thank Senator White, Deputy McFadden and Deputy Seán Kenny for attending the hearing.

As the Age Action Ireland representatives have said, the Irish demographic patterns continue to be favourable despite predictions of changes in future. We reckon that the 2016 census will produce an opportunity to validate these predictions.

The Bill is brief but cleverly worded and simple in its construct. In September, Senator John Crown introduced the Longer Healthy Living Bill 2015 in the Seanad. The main focus of the Bill was to allow health professionals to continue to work after normal contract. Both Bills focus on capability and people being capable. One of our submissions has said that perhaps all the Bills could be brought together and we could see them in that context.

We welcome the desired intention of the Bill to abolish mandatory retirement ages for people who are able and willing to continue in the role for which they have been employed, as outlined by Deputy Ferris in introducing the Bill.

The element of choice is critical in respect of how long people wish to continue to work. The choice for the individual is made on the basis of whether he or she will have sufficient income in retirement. Some countries allow access to state pensions at an earlier age and also allow people who so desire to continue to contribute for a longer period. Uncle Sam in the US sometimes is not so good, but workers can get their pensions at 62 there and can continue to work. That is important.

At least 50% of people are dependent on a State payment in retirement. Many of them are working on contracts which require them to retire at 65. I bow to the Law Society in some of these matters. Since 2014 the effective age for receipt of the State pension has moved to 66 years. There are people who are retiring at 65 but will not get a State pension until they are 66. Effective from 2021, which is not that far away, it will be age 67 and from 2028 it will be age 68. A mechanism must be found which will ensure that if these workers wish to continue to work they are enabled to do so. Ideally we would seek that on the enactment of the Bill, a new contract would be given to each employee which would substitute the word “voluntary” for ” 65 years”. To be effective, the Bill must ensure that it is applicable and monitored in both the public and private sectors. We recognise that there may be some cost involved but it is important this should happen in the beginning.

Many in the private sector do not have occupational pension schemes and are solely dependent on the State pension. Late joiners to pension schemes and those with interrupted service due to caring or other duties, in both the public and private sectors, will have access only to small occupational pensions and many in this category are women. We are aware of people who are being forced by their employer to retire at age 65. They are then offered re-employment at a lower rate and on a new contract. These women - we have mainly had contact with women - are clearly capable of doing the job but their employers are getting the benefit of their experience at a lower rate. Their capability is beyond doubt as they are being offered re-employment.

Section 1 as drafted proposes the amendment of section 34 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 by the substitution of subsection (3) and the insertion of new subsection (3). We have a concern that the proposed amendment to the Act in subsection (3)(a) may not be robust enough to secure and achieve the intent of the Bill in its wording of "an employee who is doing a job for which he or she is employed". Our concern is that this qualification may not reflect the evolving nature of some jobs and we would welcome a comment from the drafters in respect of this matter. The wording presupposes regular engagement with employees in respect of the job for which they are employed. Our evidence is that this does not happen all the time in a lot of cases. We would also have a concern that manual workers in particular may be forced to retire early in such circumstances. Ideally we would wish to allow for a position where provision could be made for those with an acquired disability to be accommodated within the same employment but perhaps on a job for which they were not originally employed. That is one of the areas on which we would like some comment.

Where an occupational pension is part of a package for an employee, there can be conflicting dates with regard to the contract of employment and the so-called contract or promise to pay them a pension. We have been told on many occasions of difficulties encountered when the deed establishing a trust from which pensions are paid may have a pension payment date which differs from the retirement date. In some cases it is a requirement that access to a pension can only occur when the person leaves that employment. If they continue to work they will continue to pay superannuation costs but will accrue no additional benefit. It is vital that the possible conflicts between trust law and this Bill are fully investigated.

There are three important dates as people approach retirement: the date of the contract between themselves and their employer; the date at which the State pension will be paid; and, if they are in an occupational pension scheme, the matter of whether there is any impact resulting from changes to State pension payments on the amount they will receive from the occupational pension provider.

In conclusion, the Government has published a national positive ageing strategy and we know that, with some amendments, the enactment of this Bill will be seen as a move towards the achievement of positive ageing for all citizens.

Chairman

I thank Ms Hayes for staying close to the time. We have a number of other speakers and I ask all of them to stay within their five minutes. I invite Mr. Noel Conway to make his presentation.

Mr. Noel Conway

I am pleased to be given this opportunity to address the committee today. I fully support the Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2014, sponsored by Deputy Anne Ferris. I am delighted that my recent submission was selected for inclusion at today’s committee hearing stage. I am employed as a community employment supervisor. I am 63 years of age and have worked in this position for the past 22 years. Under current law I must retire in three years at the age of 66. I will still have two sons in third level education and I know my wife and I will find it very difficult to make ends meet. Can I afford to have my sons finish college?

Large numbers of people like myself are working today in the community and voluntary sector with no retirement or pension entitlements to alleviate these fears when we reach the State retirement age. In light of this fact, the Labour Court recommendation LCR 19293 July 2008 stated that “an agreed pension scheme should be introduced for community employment scheme supervisors/assistant supervisors and the scheme should be adequately funded by FÁS as the recognised funding agency”. This recommendation was not honoured by FÁS or by the Department of Social Protection, which is the current funding body. As such, many of us face into a poorer and more stressful time in our latter years. Deputy Ferris’s Bill offers us, in these circumstances, an opportunity to remain in continued employment provided that the Department of Social Protection will continue the funding of our positions beyond the age of 66, which it currently fails to do.

An article from Age Action Ireland under the heading "employment and income" states: “the Government view access to quality employment opportunities as the best route out of poverty and social exclusion". Community employment employers - community groups mandated by the State to be incorporated company status - under the auspices of the Department of Social Protection fund and control the day-to-day operating procedures of each and every project throughout the State to such a degree that one wonders who the employer is. One very important procedural demand made by the Department of Social Protection in respect of today’s Bill is that the Department instructs all community and voluntary employers that no funding be given to any employee on reaching the State retirement age of 66. Employers in this scenario have no choice but to make those workers redundant, as these voluntary groups do not have the financial resources to fund the wages of any staff.

People today are healthier and fitter and thankfully are living longer. They are therefore much more able to continue working if allowed to do so. As an individual approaching retirement age, I feel that I should have the right to determine how long I wish to remain in the workplace. Retirement should not be dictated by the State. The Global Health and Aging report, in the "Living Longer" section, states: “the dramatic increase in average life expectancy during the 20th century ranks as one of society’s greatest achievements". It will be the greatest achievement of this Dáil to pass into law Deputy Anne Ferris's Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory retirement Age) Bill 2014.

Mr. William Quinn

I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter. I am almost 59 years old. I have 32.5 years of service with Dublin City Council. I am one of three area supervisors in the waste management services division, which provides cleansing services, with approximately 40 staff, for the north central regional administrative area of Dublin city. In addition, I deal with divisional attendance management issues and imminent staff pensions.

It is very important to change the existing legislation on the mandatory retirement age for public servants and other workers for a number of reasons. When the original legislation was enacted, life expectancy was only a couple of years more than the mandatory retirement age. That demographic has dramatically changed, and people now live much longer because of better diet, education, housing and medical knowledge. Many of the experts in this field contend that staying as active as possible is very important for our more mature citizens, and one of the ways of doing that is by continuing to work. It is inherently unfair to offer the option of staying on after the age of 65 or 66 only to those who came into public service after a certain date, namely April 2004, providing they are fit enough to carry out the full range of their duties. This is an option that should be equally offered to all public sector staff. Many staff will not want to exercise that option, but it should be available nevertheless. Otherwise, it appears that they are being penalised because of their age and excluded from a benefit afforded to others. Due to the major difficulties in the public sector over the last number of years, there has been an embargo on recruitment. We have lost a lot of very good, talented and experienced staff who have not been replaced. My own division has lost almost 50% of its staff and, if anything, the city has grown upwards, not outwards, and does business for far longer every day. This means we are now under pressure to provide more services with far fewer resources. The recruitment embargo is now slowly starting to lift in some public sector areas, but it will still be some time before the benefits unfold. Indeed, some sectors may never recover. It is very important, therefore, to ensure that we have enough mature and experienced people to pass on their vital knowledge to a new generation.

If the legislation is changed there will not be hordes of people in their 60s holding onto jobs at the expense of school and college leavers. Many people are very happy to shake off the yoke of work when their mortgage is paid and their children have moved on. However, it will help to prevent many public sector retirees born from 1956 onwards from having to sign on for jobseeker's benefit and allowances until they qualify for their State contributory old age pension. At that age, and because of the type of work they do, they would be unlikely to get a new job. It will help these people to stay healthier for longer because of their active contribution through work and thus they will be at less risk of becoming a burden on the State through long-term ill health. Furthermore, it will help the beleaguered public sector pension schemes, which were not designed to cope with today’s demographics. If the legislation is not changed then all public servants hired before 2004, if unsuccessful in finding alternative employment when forced to retire, will have to claim State benefits or allowances for between one and three years, depending on their grade, until they qualify for the State contributory old age pension. That is a horrendous prospect for many of us. I fully endorse the changes advocated by Deputy Anne Ferris.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Quinn for his contribution and for being so succinct. I now call Ms Kathleen O'Toole.

Ms Kathleen O'Toole

I have been working in my present employment for just over 17 years and will reach 65 years of age on 15 February 2016. I work in retail, have extensive experience and certified skills and am well able to carry out all duties assigned to me. I feel I am being forced to retire against my will. I have made a request to my company to continue working until pension age, which for me is 66, but the company is refusing to discuss this issue with me or my union representative, making it clear that the retirement age is 65 years. There is no retirement age on my contract of employment. I am sure I will be replaced by someone on a lower wage and with a zero-hour contract. This represents a cost reduction towards the minimum wage, part of a race to the bottom.

I find it difficult to understand why the Government, when changing the pension age to 66 years, did not introduce legislation allowing people to stay at work until pension age or longer if they so wish. Why would anybody want to leave a job that he or she is experienced and skilled in after 17 years and have to look for another job? I find it ludicrous that I will be forced onto jobseeker's allowance against my will when I could, through the transfer of payments, continue to contribute to society. This will also result in a substantial drop in my income.

Older staff have a major contribution to make, and age is irrelevant. Many employers recognise the contribution that older, experienced sections of the workforce have to offer. In the retail sector, Tesco and SuperValu are just two examples of such employers. The State pension is inadequate, as the recent economic crisis has left many people with substantial debts and in need of money. Other countries have greater flexibility around keeping older staff in employment. Retirement should be an option and should not be compulsory. Forced retirement because of age is discrimination. I fully support the proposal from Deputy Anne Ferris.

Chairman

I thank Ms O'Toole for being so succinct in her contribution.

Mr. Seán O'Reilly

I am a serving assistant governor in the Irish Prison Service. I have worked in the service for 35 years and am 55 years of age. My contract of employment states that I may retire after 30 years of service but that I must retire at the age of 60. It is unfair that at 60 I will no longer able to work as a servant of the State, despite the investment of large amounts of money by the Prison Service in developing my various skill sets, while elsewhere in the EU members of the prison services can continue to work until they are 67.

In 2005, under the proposal for organisational change in the Irish Prison Service, an annualised hours' system for attendance was introduced. The aim was to eliminate the large amounts of overtime being worked by staff and to improve our work-life balance. Staff are liable to attend for a certain number of hours over and above their normal 39 hours of work per week. In my case this was set at 112 hours a year, which works out at an average of two extra hours per week. In my current role I am responsible for the human resources function for 700 staff in the west Dublin campus. As a result of my current conditions of service I must retire at 60, while a person in the Irish Prison Service headquarters carrying out a similar function may work until he or she is 65 years old. The reality is that if I wish to work beyond the age of 60 I will have to look for a job outside the service now, as the chances of getting something at age 60 will be greatly diminished. There is a provision whereby sanction can be sought from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to extend service on grounds of public interest, which is covered in Circular 13/752.

The grounds for forcing staff, particularly at the grade of governor, to retire at 60 no longer exist due to the changes in working conditions that I referred to earlier. Staff in the headquarters of the Irish Prison Service working in a similar role can continue working until they are 67 years old. There has been no recruitment in the Prison Service for the last ten years but approximately 850 staff are eligible to retire in the next three years, which is roughly one third of the total. This will result in the loss of a substantial knowledge base. In contrast to the Garda Síochána, there is a provision in the Prison Service whereby sanction can be sought from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, but this is at the discretion of the director of the Irish Prison Service.

To sum up, when a person has reach the required service age for pension entitlement the choice should be with that person as to when he or she retires, and not with the State.

Chairman

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly, for being so succinct and clear.

Mr. Patrick Meany

I thank the Chairman for giving me an opportunity to speak today. I also thank Deputy Anne Ferris for introducing this Bill.

People in Ireland today are living longer. Life expectancy has been revised upwards and people who have reached retirement age should have the option of remaining in employment. Life expectancy at the average effective retirement age can be as high as 18 to 20 years, about a third longer than it was 30 years ago. It is projected to increase further, so the retirement period will lengthen unless retirement itself is delayed. As we can look forward to living longer, we need to rethink what retirement looks like. As the population dynamics change, there are many potential advantages for all of us, including a stronger economy, higher living standards, less pensioner poverty, reduced spending on benefits, and improved national well-being and inter-generational cohesion.

The obvious solution is to embrace later-life working, helping to realise the potential of older workers who have so much experience and talent to offer.

This is not about being forced to work on but enabling and encouraging those who want a fuller working life. Older workers can play a vital role in future growth both for individual businesses and the wider economy overall. Employers need to adopt age-friendly policies such as flexible working, phased retirement, family care leave and even gap breaks. This can facilitate a new type of retirement in which people cut down rather than suddenly stop working, where health and well-being policies take account of older workers’ needs and where employers enable staff to combine work with caring responsibilities. Managers with the right skills are crucial to supporting older workers successfully.

Working in retirement offers many benefits. For example, not only can working delay the onset of age related diseases such as dementia, but keeping mentally and physical active helps one feel younger for longer. It is generally accepted by most people on reaching retirement age that they would prefer to continue working beyond retirement. Working also keeps one socially active, preventing isolation and providing a sense of purpose. Senior citizens who stay in the workforce are much more likely to retain their cognitive ability. Many senior citizens become isolated after retirement which can have widespread psychological consequences for anyone. Senior citizens who stay in the workforce are much more likely to stay up to date with technology, since technological changes have an effect on each and every workforce.

By simply working a few extra years, one can put oneself into a much better financial situation. Whatever a person’s circumstances, working into the second half of one’s 60s or beyond offers the prospect of a happier and more financially secure retirement when one finally does retire. The financial benefit from working is obvious. One keeps earning income. This regular income allows one to continue to pay for one’s life expenses without needing to turn to one’s retirement benefits for necessities. Workers generally have become healthier and more educated while jobs have become less strenuous. This means more people are willing and able to work longer. The definition of retirement has changed. Rather than retire altogether, many older workers are phasing out of one career and into another. On reaching 65 years of age, an employee should have the option to continue working. We must ensure older people’s skills do not go to waste. It is generally accepted by most that on reaching retirement age, they would prefer to continue working beyond retirement.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Patrick Meany for his presentation. I invite Dr. Enda Shanahan to make his opening statement.

Dr. Enda Shanahan

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak on the Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2014. I worked in the public hospital sector until I had to retire on reaching the age of 65 years, nearly two years ago. I did not wish to retire at the time as I was able and willing to continue working. There was no objective reason for my retirement. I was still rated fit for purpose by the Medical Council and was physically fit, as demonstrated by being able to run distances from 10 km to the marathon. Retirement was entirely because of a date in the calendar.

The forced retirement of experienced, able and willing workers is commonplace and represents an enormous waste of human resources. This is particularly acute in the public health sector where there is an ever-increasing demand driven by increasing numbers of people using services due to population increase, reduced numbers having private health insurance due to increased unemployment and premia, and an increasing number of older people who inevitably require health treatment. This situation is made worse by the great reduction in staff numbers in recent years and by difficulty in recruiting both doctors and nurses because of the terms and conditions offered by the Health Service Executive, HSE. As well as the loss of numbers, there has been a disproportionate loss of experienced workers.

If there were no mandatory retirement, many workers would work on which would alleviate skills shortages. There would also be retention of knowledge and experience built up over many years. It would be possible to provide mentoring to less experienced workers. These older workers would continue to contribute to society, both by their work and their taxes, and by either deferring or reducing pension payments, they would reduce demand on pension schemes.

The EU has legislation prohibiting discrimination on age grounds. However, the wording of the directive allows member states to interpret this more or less as they wish. The rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union tend to favour the member states. There is no doubt that age discrimination is treated far less favourably than other types of discrimination. The UK recently changed its employment law to ensure there must be appropriate and objective grounds for mandatory retirement. The United States abolished mandatory retirement in the 1960s and it has continued to have the leading economy in the world. It must be doing something right.

One of the objections made against retaining older workers is that this would reduce employment prospects for the young, a point touched on by the Minister of State on Second Stage. This idea is known as the lump of labour fallacy, which has repeatedly been disproved by economists such as the Nobel laureate, Paul Krugman, as well as by exhaustive research performed over many years and covering many countries by such bodies as the National Bureau of Economic Research in the United States and the Institute for the Study of Labor, IZA, in Bonn. There are multiple publications in peer-reviewed journals which confirm it is a fallacy to suggest retaining older workers interferes with the employment of younger workers. All the published work on youth unemployment asserts that education, training and motivation are the keys to dealing with it.

It is also alleged that retaining older workers impedes the advancement of younger employees. In the real world, promotion is based on ability and work performance, not on seniority in an organisation. It is known that as most workers age, they wish to reduce stress and tend to stand aside from the most challenging types of work. They also have more interest in having a better work-life balance, a point which they have in common with workers with young children. The National Health Service, NHS, in the UK is a model for how to retain and value older workers and it is benefiting greatly by this. All over Europe, businesses are making changes to retain older workers by reducing hours, having flexible working times, working from home, changing benefits, changing workplaces to meet workers’ needs and ensuring older workers retain skills and feel valued.

Working past 65 years of age will not be for everyone. Those doing hard manual work, especially outdoors, and those in stressful occupations will probably welcome retirement. Those who have contracts with specified retirement ages should be allowed to retain these. However, those who are willing and able to work should be allowed in law to do so. There should be no age cleansing as a means to get rid of underperforming workers. There needs to be objective and independent assessment of suitability for work regardless of age. As someone who regularly runs with people of all ages and as a doctor of 42 years’ experience, I am aware that chronological age is not the same as biological age. One size does not fit all.

In Canada, for example, 12,128 physicians aged 65 and over are still working, comprising 15% of all doctors there. Another 25% of doctors are in the 55 to 64 age group. Most of them will continue to work after 65 because the Canadians deal with this by having an assessment of fitness to practise. They use a questionnaire for those who have been in practice for more than 35 years. If a warning flag is raised, such as in the case of a doctor who has been working for 35 years or more or a doctor who is working solo as a locum with not much contact with others, then there is a further review. It works well for the Canadians. Their experience of disasters in the health service is probably better than ours.

Any system for assessing fitness to continue in work should be objective and independent. Human nature is such that some colleagues may want to work and not to retire because they want to keep something that he or she has. Self-interest is very good at disguising itself as the public interest.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Shanahan very much for a very interesting contribution. There is more information which we can read and we will come back to him later.

Mr. Tony Kenny

Go raibh maith agat as an deis thairiscint dom chun aghaidh a thabhairt duit ar an mBille atá molta anseo inniu. I thank the joint committee for giving me the opportunity to make my contribution to this important draft legislation. I am here in a personal capacity. My interest in the proposed legislation is personal and also has regard to the broader policy implications. I refer to the article by Professor John FitzGerald in The Irish Times on 10 November 2015 in which he set out the economic policy argument in support of the proposition in a far better and more trenchant way than I could.

I am 66 years of age and fortunate to be in full-time employment. If the current situation continues - I see no reason it should not - I will be required to retire when I reach the age of 70 years. As the committee will have discerned, I work for a progressive employer who takes account of the contribution older employees can make. Even so, in a few short years I will be surplus to requirements. My mother worked until she was 73 years old and would have kept going but for the fact that the firm for which she worked closed down. Many well known people continue to work past normal retirement age, including President Michael D. Higgins and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan. This suggests the concept of “retirement age” is a societal construct which draws its legitimacy from our culture rather than from any scientific or biological fact. If I am able to continue to do my work in a capable manner that meets the expectations of my employer, what relevance does my age have to the decision on when I need to stop working? Apart from convention, I do not think it has any relevance.

For many working people, men in particular, their job is a vital source of identity and self-worth. If I am enjoying my work and performing well, why should I be forced to stop simply on age grounds? Many employees look forward to the opportunities retirement may bring and the Bill will not alter this in any way. While I may be in a minority in being less enthusiastic about retirement, it is an important equality consideration. The decision to retire is very personal and age is just one of the factors that should be taken into account.

Regarding the broader policy issue, the dependency ratio has been referred to by many speakers. It worries policy makers throughout the world. Professor John FitzGerald has pointed out that the Irish dependency ratio has been trending upwards since 2005. It seems to be an odd policy choice to require people to become dependent. For many older people, the State pension system is the only, limited, support they have to sustain a basic standard of living. Approximately 50% of citizens have no other pension entitlement. Where continued employment is a possibility, it seems perverse to require a person to depend on the State pension. Although there is no legislatively defined mandatory retirement age, there are a raft of regulations, contacts of employment and pension schemes that de facto legislate for it. While youth unemployment is a very significant policy concern, the shorthand connection drawn between the numbers leaving the workforce and the numbers wishing to join it, to which my colleague referred as the “lump of labour” theory, is very simplistic.

The Minister of State is not opposing the Bill, although he raised questions about how it might impact on employers’ contractual rights. It is the proper function of legislation to address this issue and it is the subject of the Bill. The proposed change would not disadvantage any sensible employer by allowing productive employees to remain working. While there may be differences of opinion between an employer and an employee about whether the employee is productive, there is a raft of legislation to deal with this issue. The proposed legislation would remove an important discriminatory barrier for a minority of employees. In doing so it would add to the progressive transformation of our society, sustained by the Oireachtas, in a small but significant way. Deputy Anne Ferris is to be commended on taking the lead on it.

Ms Margaret Haughton

I thank the joint committee for inviting me to discuss the Bill which should be passed to amend the Employment Equality Act 1998 to abolish mandatory retirement ages for those able and willing to continue in the roles in which they were employed. I will be 65 years old in January 2016 and due to retire, as my contract states. I am well and healthy and feel I could work for at least another three to five years. It is an absolute disgrace in this day and age that workers are being forced into retirement against their will when there are so many role models of older citizens working creatively and contributing so much to the economy.

I work as a dental nurse for the HSE. It makes no sense for a skilled, competent and widely experienced dental nurse to be asked to cease employment based on a mere number on the calendar. Given my knowledge and experience, my compulsory retirement would be particularly disadvantageous to the service. The age factor should be removed when considering suitability and necessity for retirement. The Government has already increased the retirement age in the public sector to 68 years, thereby recognising people's capability to perform their duties competently past the retirement age of 65. People of sound mind and body should be allowed to work for as long as they choose. Retirement should be voluntary. We, therefore, need to remove the age factor.

I fully support Deputy Anne Ferris and hope the Bill will be passed and enshrined in law before my retirement date. I do not know if that will happen, but it would be great if it did.

Chairman

I thank everybody who has contributed. The people present have given their personal stories which cannot be easy to do and for which I salute them. I have been Chairman of the joint committee for almost five years and almost 600 people have given evidence to us on topics including criminal law, insolvency, burglary, prostitution and missing persons. It goes on and on and we have sent 35 reports to the Government. The submissions made today have been some of the most powerful, sensible, well thought out and well researched I have heard and I congratulate those who have made them. While I usually speak last, I have been very moved by them. From what I have heard, unless I am persuaded otherwise, I will support the proposal. There are anomalies that could be addressed on Committee Stage and it must be done. Whether it can be done before the end of the year remains to be seen, as a raft of legislation has backed up. The delegates have put down a very powerful marker, on which I congratulate them. Given that it is her Bill, Deputy Anne Ferris will speak first.

Deputy Anne Ferris

I thank the organisations and individuals who have made very powerful presentations on their own stories. They are very moving and it is a very personal issue for them as they approach retirement age. I had not realised staff in the Irish Prison Service had to retire at the age of 60 years. When I introduced the Bill last year, many people contacted me to tell me their stories. I was delighted when the Bill was chosen. When one introduces a Private Members' Bill, it is included in a lottery to be given the opportunity to debate in one of the two Friday Dáil sittings per month.

I was over the moon when my proposal saw the light of day in the Dáil. That it has now come as far as Committee Stage means it will not die, as do the many Private Members' Bills which do not get a hearing. Even if it does not get through before Ms Haughton's retirement, it will, I hope, become law during the next Dáil.

I do not have any questions because the witnesses are preaching to the converted. I know all of their stories and am aware of the major anomalies that exist in this area. The delegates from the Law Society raised a number of issues that can and will be teased out. The Bill was drafted by a senior counsel who is now a judge. If there is a need for further clarity on certain provisions, it can be achieved on Committee Stage. The main anomaly under the current regime is that people are being forced to retire at age 65 and, because they cannot claim their pension until age 66, they are obliged to seek jobseeker's benefit and apply for jobs they do not want. The biggest culprit in this regard seems to be the Health Service Executive. This is not just a matter for the Department of Justice and Equality. It is a broader equality issue which the Department of Social Protection, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and others must take on board. If the pension age is pushed out to 67 or 68 and people are obliged to work until that age, then the whole area of pension provision will have to be reviewed.

I thank the Chairman for accommodating this debate. It is not often that a Private Members' Bill proceeds to Committee Stage so quickly after First Reading in the Dáil. I am obliged to the Chairman and committee staff for their efforts in this regard. A great deal of work has gone into these proposals and I assure the delegates that I will keep pressing the legislation. If the good people of Wicklow and east Carlow return me to the Dáil after the election, I will work on it further.

Chairman

The Deputy must be careful not to engage in electioneering. I congratulate her on bringing this legislation forward and I hope it goes well for her. To clarify, we are not dealing with Committee Stage today. When Second Stage of the Bill was completed in the Dáil, it was referred to us for public hearings and scrutiny. The next Stage will be Committee Stage in the select committee, where the Minister and members will have an opportunity to table amendments. The next Stages will be Report and Final Stages in the Dáil, after which the Bill will be referred to the Seanad. There are issues and complications that need to be ironed out but the will is there to move the legislation forward.

Deputy Gabrielle McFadden

I do not have any questions for the delegates but I commend Deputy Anne Ferris on bringing forward this fantastic legislation. Subject to clarification on some of the issues raised by Ms Malone, I cannot see why these proposals should not have the full support of members. I thank all the delegates for attending. As the Chairman said, the submissions were very powerful, moving and intelligent. I have an aunt whose age I will not give, because she would kill me if I did, who retired from the HSE in her 60s, although she did not want to. She opened a business 21 years ago and it is still going strong today, as is my aunt. She worked in that business for more than 12 years and still has an input into it. She made the decision to set up on her own because she did not want to retire. She should not have had to retire because she is a very capable and intelligent person. She should have been able to continue in her job until she was ready to leave.

Mr. Kenny spoke about the people, men in particular, for whom their job is a source of identity and self-meaning. That applies to women just as much as men. I congratulate all the delegates on their submissions and assure them the legislation has my complete support.

Chairman

Dr. Shanahan referred to the isolation some people experience following retirement. That is a very important point and he made it very strongly.

Deputy Alan Farrell

I join colleagues in congratulating Deputy Anne Ferris on bringing forward this Bill. The Chairman summed up the importance of proposals like these being brought before the committee. I apologise to the delegates for not being here in corporeal form but I was watching proceedings on my monitor. I had another meeting that ran late. I read most of the submissions and take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the time the witnesses have taken to make their views known.

Like previous speakers, I do not have any specific questions. I have some personal experience of the issues concerned in that my father was obliged to retire many years ago from the public sector at age 52. He still had a huge amount to contribute to society and that is what he did, for a further 20 years, by way of voluntary work for several charitable organisations in Malahide and further afield. The experience he garnered over 30 years in the public service was wasted to the sector when he had to retire due to downsizing. It was a personal choice he made not to return to paid employment. If he had been in a position to stay on within the public sector and provide his skills and experience, it would no doubt have been of benefit to those with whom he worked.

Reference was made to the fact that the pension age and retirement age are not aligned. It is outrageous to force individuals either to sign on or participate in schemes like JobBridge. Last weekend, at the Pavilions shopping centre in Swords, I met a constituent of mine who I have known for many years. When I told him he looked well and asked how he was getting on, he informed me that, at 65 years of age, he is doing a JobBridge scheme and that he had no choice in the matter. It is not appropriate that people who have been out of work because of the economy and who are somewhat discriminated against because of their age should be treated like that. Such people have a wealth of experience earned over a lifetime of working. The opportunity, particularly within the health service, to use one's skills and experience to nurture young talent coming through as to best practice and so on is extremely important.

In regard to social isolation, as referred to by the Chairman, that is a very important matter for us to consider in the context of this discussion and, indeed, when the Bill comes to Committee Stage. Allowing a person who has 30 or 40 years' experience working in a particular industry to continue is far preferable to putting them out to pasture. We must ensure people, particularly in the later stages of their working life, are valued for the important role they can play.

Senator Mary M. White

It gives me great pleasure to support Deputy Anne Ferris's Bill on the abolition of a mandatory retirement age. I introduced an Employment Equality (Amendment) Bill in the Seanad in 2012 on behalf of Fianna Fáil, which had the same objective. I brought that Bill to Second Stage but did not push it to a vote in case the Government chose not to support it. However, the former Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Phil Hogan, who was in attendance, indicated his support for the proposal.

In the past 40 years, the Oireachtas has introduced many progressive legislative measures to ensure people in the workplace are not discriminated against on grounds of gender, race or sexual orientation.

Chairman

I apologise for interrupting the Senator but I would prefer members to interact with our guests by way of questions, rather than making speeches.

Senator Mary M. White

I do not propose to make a speech. It is important to point out that I introduced legislation in 2012 with the same objective as the Bill we are discussing today.

Chairman

I understand that and am trying to be helpful.

Senator Mary M. White

May I give the meeting my-----

Chairman

I am sorry. Please hear me out. For years, it has been the agreement of the committee that members will ask witnesses questions to elicit information and tease out issues. If the Senator has questions later, I will be delighted to let her ask them then.

Senator Mary M. White

No. I am passionate about this issue.

Chairman

I understand. That is why we would like an interaction.

Senator Mary M. White

I held a public meeting six or seven years ago on ageing and ageism. One of the most dramatic moments at my public meeting was a woman, not unlike Ms Gallagher, stating that she had to retire upon her marriage. She cried. She was approaching 65 years of age and had to retire again. I congratulate Ms Gallagher on her statement at this meeting. I am not allowed to state my reasons but I would like to put on the record the fact that if there was age discrimination in the Oireachtas, Senators Quinn and Ó Murchú and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, would not have been able to contribute their experience. Nor would President Higgins. I would love to express my reasons that I stated in the Seanad but I will give the killer sentence instead. The witnesses and those elsewhere who are approaching retirement know the heartbreak and trauma faced by people who go over the cliff's edge of compulsory retirement at 60 or 65 years of age. I would love to have had the opportunity to say everything but that is the bottom line. It is a cliff's edge. Many people's health deteriorates after they have had to retire. We are not forcing anyone to retire. If people wish, they should stay on in the job and negotiate the hours that they want to do. I am fully supportive of this Bill.

Chairman

Mr. Moran wished to contribute on a point.

Mr. Justin Moran

I wish to pick up on a comment made by the Law Society of Ireland. I also welcome members' responses and contributions. I will be brief. A term that keeps arising as we examine this issue is the concept of "legitimate aim". It is mentioned in the Employment Equality (Amendment) Bill 2013. Under the equality directive, age discrimination is wrong and should not happen unless it enables us to meet a legitimate aim related to employment policy or the labour market. This raises the quick question of what constitutes a legitimate aim. In 2007, the European Court of Justice found in Spain that it was legitimate to discriminate against older workers if it allowed younger people to get employment. In Ireland's Donnellan v. Minister for Justice, a Garda Commissioner was forced out of his job because doing so was seen as facilitating promotion prospects. There have been similar High Court equality cases.

Something that I admire about Deputy Anne Ferris's legislation is that the two little words "legitimate aim" are not included. It is not legitimate that older workers should be forced aside to make room for younger ones. As Mr. Quinn and Dr. Shanahan observed in some detail, there is no research to support that idea.

I thank the committee for inviting me to this meeting and the Chairman for allowing me to speak again.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I agree with the Chairman's remarks on the contributions. I commend Deputy Ferris on her work on this legislation and Senator White on her previous work. It is important that their work be recorded. I support the legislation. This is not an issue of equality in society but of common sense.

The Chairman will be delighted to know that I only have two short questions. I encountered something in the disability sector. I speak as a former chairman of the Dublin branch of Down Syndrome Ireland. Has any of the groups present ever encountered a complete breakdown in services for people with intellectual disabilities because people who have worked therein for years have been forced to retire? A major problem emerged, given the relationship between the older members of staff and adults with intellectual disabilities. As parents, we encountered this breakdown. Often, the role of senior citizens who work with adults with intellectual disabilities is not recognised in broader society.

Chairman

Who wishes to respond to the subject of the Deputy's question or other sectors?

Deputy Finian McGrath

I will focus on disability services but there are other sectors.

Chairman

We are referring to where services have been affected because people have needed to leave.

Ms Imelda Browne

I have seen this in general in nursing services. Many experienced people left over a few years. They used to mentor younger staff. We did not have enough people to mentor and help some of our young students and foreign national nurses, who were not only adjusting to a new job, but to a new culture. It was stressful for everyone. This problem will be repeated in the next few years unless we address the issue.

Chairman

I thank Ms Browne.

Mr. William Quinn

The wife of one of my best friends works with older people in various sheltered accommodation that is run by Dublin City Council. People are living for much longer, which means that older people are in these complexes for some time. They build relationships, in particular with the staff whom they deal with on a day-to-day basis. If one staff member leaves, it is horrendous for everyone. This is a major problem.

Deputy Finian McGrath

Even if there was not-----

Mr. Tony Kenny

I will make a brief point on that.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I am sorry. Go ahead.

Mr. Tony Kenny

To look at the issue another way, this is not so much about retirement as it is about the levels of service that many older people experience. My aunt died when she was 88 years of age. She had been looked after by a succession of care workers. She did not have the same care worker from one week to the next. It affected quality. I am sure that the cost was the same but the quality of the service that she received was poor. That cost does not show up in the books.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I accept that. It is important that the groups know that parents value many of those who work in the disability sector and, in particular, their relationship with young adults with intellectual disabilities. My second question is on the Canadian figures on doctors working beyond retirement age. I missed a few of them. Was it Canada that was mentioned?

Chairman

Yes. Would Dr. Shanahan like to respond?

Deputy Finian McGrath

Is it 15%?

Dr. Enda Shanahan

Would the Deputy like me to read the figures out again?

Deputy Finian McGrath

Just the highlights. There were four or five interesting figures.

Dr. Enda Shanahan

In Canada, there are 12,128 physicians who are aged over 65 years and still working, comprising 15% of all doctors in Canada. A further 15,555 doctors are in the 55 to 64 years age group, equalling 25% of all doctors working. It is not a problem in Canada because it has a means of assessing. Quebec has had it since 1970 and the other provinces followed suit. Canada does not target doctors until they are 70 years of age or older, at which point a questionnaire is taken. If that raises a red flag, for example, a doctor doing locum work solo or having been 35 years or more in practice, Canada follows up on it. This approach works. Does that answer the Deputy's question?

Chairman

Indeed.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I thank Dr. Shanahan.

Deputy Anne Ferris

Some 40% of all doctors working in Canada are over 55 years of age.

Dr. Enda Shanahan

It is a high percentage.

Deputy Anne Ferris

It is huge.

Chairman

Yet we are retiring doctors at a younger age. Did Deputy McFadden wish to ask a question?

Deputy Gabrielle McFadden

I have a general one. I do not know who wants to take it but I am curious as to the witnesses' opinion on a comment that is always thrown out when people who are older than 65 years of age stay in employment, namely, that they are taking jobs from young people. I do not believe that for one second.

Chairman

That issue arose earlier.

Mr. William Quinn

In terms of my employment at Dublin City Council, it is a moot point. We have an embargo, so there is no recruitment.

Dr. Enda Shanahan

There is a large amount of research on this matter in the published literature. The National Bureau of Economic Research in the US, which is a private, non-profit research organisation committed to undertaking and disseminating unbiased economic research among public policy makers, business professionals and the academic community, has repeatedly examined this issue in the US and various other countries.

It has found there is no link between employing older workers and reducing employment for younger workers. It also found that having older workers continue to work does not reduce the wages of younger workers. In the European Parliament, the Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union produced something similar in April 2013. The Journal of European Labor Studies, IZA, in Bonn has come up with the same findings. I have umpteen references on this.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Shanahan for that. Did Mr. Moran want to come in on that?

Mr. Justin Moran

On Dr. Shanahan's point, not only does the world of labour research show there is no link between younger people gaining employment and older people losing out, it actually shows a correlation between rising employment for both categories. The more older people are employed, the more younger people are employed. Four of the countries with the top ten employment rates for older people are also in the top ten for the employment of younger people. I suspect Dr. Shanahan and I have been looking at much the same research. An OECD report states, "It is important to dispel a number of myths in this area [...] the claim that fewer jobs for older workers results in more jobs for younger workers, though unfounded, is proving especially stubborn". This proves the Deputy's point; it is a stubborn myth but a myth nonetheless.

Chairman

Would Deputy McGrath like to come in on the same issue?

Deputy Finian McGrath

It is the same issue but I may have to disagree with our two visitors because I have concerns about the research. I hope it is well-researched, as we say at the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, because I get a lot of people in their 50s coming to my constituency office who say they find it very difficult to get a job as some of the companies they go to say they can get a young man or woman in their 20s for half the price, from a salary point of view. The over-55s are telling me this. That seems to contradict what the witnesses are saying about their research. A private company, in IT, human resources or some other sector, can get a young person in their mid-20s or 30s for half the salary of this older person. It is an issue.

Chairman

I call Deputy Farrell on the same point.

Deputy Alan Farrell

On the same point, I was going to raise the issue Deputy McFadden raised but coincidentally, I was going to reference the fact that the report from the OECD, which I think was last year, had some interesting findings on the issue. That is not to say that I have not experienced exactly the same anecdotal, rather than empirical, evidence from constituents from time to time. It goes back to the example I gave of the 64 year old who is not in a position to find employment. I often find that is cyclical with the economic profile of the country being studied and that was the case in the OECD report Mr. Moran referenced.

Chairman

Mr. Conway wanted to come in on that.

Mr. Noel Conway

I want to come in on what I put forward and expand on it from the perspective of the community and voluntary sector, where we have up to 85,000 people working today. I fully support the Bill but its spirit will be devalued if the Department, the way it is operating currently, ceases funding for anyone reaching retirement age. Even though the Bill could be law tomorrow morning, if the Department does not change its policy in regard to extending funding beyond retirement age, which is 66 this year or next year and 67 in two years' time, it will be of no value to the staff employed in the community and voluntary sector. Community and voluntary groups do not have the funding to maintain salary and wages without funding from the State.

Chairman

With a rising demand for workers at the moment, where in some areas there is demand for more workers and skills, it seems to be a good time to look at this.

Ms Máiréad Hayes

There are different issues here. One is about activation of older people. At the beginning of austerity or the recession, the tendency was not to activate older people. We are now seeing that trend changing because there are more people employed. The skills of older people will again be recognised. We are seeing people in their 60s being activated, which we had not experienced at the beginning. We would always make the point that the skill sets they bring, as evidenced by the contributions here, are very important.

I wonder whether it is possible to put a question. I am not sure about the protocol. Two equality Bills have been brought forward by committees. There is the longer healthy living Bill and the other equality Bill. These Bills seek to do the same thing, namely, to allow people to work longer. This Bill is simple. That has been mentioned before. I know groups have been working in this regard because I have participated with some of the people from the law group, particularly Mr. Loughlin Deegan, and have had conversations on this. Is it within the power of the committee, along with other committees - I know there are different Departments - to push this as an objective before this Dáil finishes? That is what is important. There are a lot of things that can be worked around.

What the witness from the community and voluntary sector is saying is that there are so many community and voluntary groups which are going to have to disband, including our one, because they have no funding. That is a huge issue for people. It is about the principle. I am concerned that this would work particularly well for the public sector but not so much for Ms O'Toole's situation as she is in retail and may not have as much power. It should be a choice for everybody, not just for people in the public sector. I appreciate the scarcity of skills and that is very important. We are hopefully moving into a different era now, as 2016 looms. I would say to the legislators that they should make it an objective to get this through before the end of this Dáil.

Chairman

There are four weeks left before we break for the Christmas recess.

Ms Máiréad Hayes

I know.

Chairman

None of us knows whether we will be back after Christmas and if we are back, it might only be a week or two, so time is extremely short.

Ms Máiréad Hayes

If all the members work an extra couple of hours a week-----

Deputy Finian McGrath

I will be here.

Chairman

Unless anyone has anything else to say on this-----

Dr. Enda Shanahan

Referring to what Deputy McGrath was saying, I see age discrimination applying to all ages from a 17 or 18 year old right up to a 65 year old and older. I do not distinguish between them. Age discrimination is just that. I do not care what the age is. What the Deputy says is correct. People who lose their jobs in their 50s have great trouble getting into the workplace because they are considered too old. That is age discrimination and it should be made illegal. It is downright wrong and takes no account of the experience or the skills of that person. The Deputy is right in saying that the companies are probably employing younger workers because they can pay them less and treat them like dirt. It is not exclusive to what I was saying. All the research says - there is a lot of it and I can give the references to anybody who wants them because I have a lot of them-----

Chairman

Actually, if Dr. Shanahan could send those to the clerk to the committee, they would be very useful.

Dr. Enda Shanahan

I can give the references and members can see for themselves.

Mr. Tony Kenny

Very briefly, to echo Dr. Shanahan's point, discrimination is a very interesting concept at a societal level. Part of how we begin to deal with it is to name it. Age discrimination is still very sotto voce in our society. It is talked about but in whispers. I will give a short anecdote. A friend of mine lost his job at 62. He sent out 600 applications and got one or two responses. Somebody told him to take his age off his application and he got eight or ten responses from the next 20 or 30 he sent out. It is a live issue in our society but we tend not to talk about it. This Bill sends a powerful message from the Oireachtas and the people of Ireland that this should be an unacceptable practice.

Deputy Anne Ferris

We have to finish up now. I thank the witnesses who came here today. Senator White alluded earlier to the marriage bar that was brought in to force women out of their jobs when they got married years ago and was subsequently lifted.

There was a major debate on the lifting of the marriage bar. The argument was that men would lose their jobs or not get them if married women were allowed to work, but the sky did not fall in. The lifting of the mandatory retirement age is an issue of equality and concerns getting rid of discrimination at all levels. The age of 65 years is the new 55 and I am nearer to 65 than to 55. Believe me, we will do our best to have the legislation coming down the track enacted. I ask organisations such as the HSE that have people like Margaret Haughton who is due to retire to take another look at the issue of retirement age. In one year organisations will not have a choice because the legislation will have been enacted. I plead with them to look with compassion, honesty and equality at what they are doing.

Chairman

I second that proposal as it would apply across the public sector. All public sector organisations should look at this issue to see what they could do to retain staff with ability, energy, knowledge, wisdom, skills and experience. I join members in thanking the delegates for being here as it is very important that we hear the public. This is not a forum in which members should make speeches but for members of the public to engage and have their views made known to the Oireachtas, the Legislature and Parliament. That is the reason we invite groups and citizens to come before us because this is the parliament of the people. They are the bosses, not us.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.05 p.m until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 November 2015.