Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Oct 2006

Vol. 184 No. 19

Ageism Policy: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Fahey)

We last discussed this issue in the Seanad last May during Say No to Ageism week, an initiative of the Equality Authority, the Health Service Executive and the National Council on Ageing and Older People. The importance of the issue is reflected in the Seanad's decision to schedule a further debate early in the new term. Preliminary figures from the 2006 census show us that Ireland's population is now at its highest level since 1861 and that the death rate is continuing to decline. The fact that people are living longer should be a cause for celebration and not a problem for themselves or for society.

Traxler defined ageism as "any attitude, action, or institutional structure which subordinates a person or group because of age, or any assignment of roles in society purely on the basis of age". Age discrimination can affect people of all ages. Unjustified discrimination on the age ground is not only hurtful to those who are victims; when directed at older people it also represents a dramatic waste of knowledge, experience and wisdom. At a time when employers are finding it difficult to recruit and retain competent workers, a prejudice against older people makes bad business sense. Progressive employers are identifying the advantages older people can give to an increasingly diverse workforce. The Government will continue to encourage and facilitate an increase in workforce participation by older people.

I refer to the legislative protections that exist in respect of discrimination on the ground of age, both in the employment area and otherwise. Ireland has one of the world's most advanced systems of protection against discrimination. As public representatives, it is one of our responsibilities to make sure the public, in particular, those in most need of such protection, is both aware of and capable of accessing it. The Employment Equality and Equal Status Acts outlaw discrimination on the ground of age. The provisions relating to age were strengthened in the Equality Act 2004, which gave effect to the EU anti-discrimination employment directive. The Employment Equality Acts are framed on the basis of a general principle that there ought to be no discrimination on the grounds of age, where the employee is willing to undertake or continue to undertake, or will accept or continue to accept, the conditions under which the duties are required to be performed and is fully competent and available to undertake, and fully capable of undertaking, the duties attached to the position.

Certain exceptions are provided for in cases such as the emergency services and Defence Forces. The Equality Act 2004 amended the exclusion in the 1998 Act from discrimination on the age ground in respect of persons less than 18 years or 65 years or over. No upper age threshold is provided for but compulsory retirement ages may continue to be set. In the former case, a provision based on the statutory age for school leavers is provided and employers may continue to set minimum recruitment ages where they do not exceed 18 years. Both provisions are intended to avoid the anti-discrimination code undermining State policy to discourage early school leaving. As I stated during the May debate, the Equality Act 2004 made two consequent provisions in respect of older employees to fit the equality provisions into the more general body of employment protection law. The first permits employers to offer fixed-term contracts to persons over the set retirement age, without being in contravention of employment protection law governing permanent and temporary employment and employees' rights in this context. The second provision extends the employment protection law governing unfair dismissals to persons, regardless of their age as long as they are still in employment.

The Equal Status Act 2000 prohibits discrimination on the ground of age in access to and the supply of goods and services and it has delivered benefits in protecting the rights of older people. Commenting on the case of Ross v. Royal and Sun Alliance, in which the equality officer found that the operation of an “across the board” policy of refusing motor insurance quotations to persons over 70 years in conflict with the Act, the Motor Insurance Advisory Board stated, “This decision means there is now a real deterrent to unjustified discrimination.” The general principle of equality not only requires people in the same situation to be treated equally, it also requires different treatment for people in different situations. We all recognise that older people can have special needs, for example, in the areas of health and housing. For this reason, the Equal Status Act specifically permits housing authorities to provide priority in housing of older people.

Legislation alone will not address all the issues facing people as they grow older. To combat discrimination, it is necessary to challenge attitudes, prejudices and behaviours. The working group on equality proofing was established under the aegis of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform during the lifetime of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and continues to work towards developing a system for the proofing of policies and services in the public sector to avoid an unanticipated negative impact on the groups protected under equality legislation, including older people, to ensure policy coherence and best use of resources.

There should be a continued focus on applying the equality proofing models developed by the equality proofing working group rather than creating individual proofing exercises such as age proofing. It is preferable to promote comprehensive equality mainstreaming covering all the nine grounds covered by the equality legislation which, in addition to age, include the grounds of gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, disability, race and membership of the Traveller community. It also recognises the many facets of each of us as individuals. As Senator Kett so eloquently stated in our earlier debate on this issue last May, this is an area which requires vision and leadership.

With the further renewal of its term of office in 2003, the Government asked the National Economic and Social Forum, NESF, to convene public consultations on specific policy issues, of which creating a more inclusive labour market and care for older people were identified as priorities. I acknowledge the contribution being made by the NESF in facilitating discussion and dialogue on policy issues connected with ageing and older people. This provides a valuable forum for individuals and members of the wider voluntary, community and other sectors to contribute to the social partnership process on a structured basis. The NESF has produced a wide range of influential policy reports in past years on these priority topics and on the implementation of equality policies for older people and labour market issues for older workers.

I welcome Senator White's research into ageing and age discrimination which she will present today. I congratulate her on the initiative and hard work that went into the report, which provides a useful and provocative addition to the debate on the participation of older people in our society.

The parties to the new framework social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, share a vision of an Ireland which provides the supports, where necessary, to enable older people to maintain their health and well-being, as well as to live active and full lives, in an independent way, in their own homes and communities, for as long as possible. To achieve this vision, the Government and social partners will work together over the next ten years towards the following long-term goals for older people in Ireland in the context of increased longevity and greater possibilities and expectations for quality of live of older people.

Every older person will be encouraged and supported to participate to the greatest extent possible in social and civic life, will have access to an income which is sufficient to sustain an acceptable standard of living, and will have adequate support to enable them to remain living independently in their own home for as long as possible. This will involve access to good quality services in the community, including health, education, transport, housing and security. Every older person will, in conformity with his or her needs and conscious of the high level of disability and disabling conditions among this group, have access to a spectrum of care services stretching from support for self-care, through support for family and informal carers, to formal care in the home, the community or residential settings. Such care services should ensure the person has opportunities for civic and social engagement at local level.

Overall, 46 priority actions have been agreed by the social partners to make progress towards these long-term goals. These priority actions, which include the commitment of adequate resources, cover pensions and income supports, long-term care services for older people, housing and accommodation, ensuring mobility for older people, ensuring quality health services for older people, and promotion of education and employment opportunities for older people. Specific funding targets have been set for many of these actions. For example, funding for the rural transport initiative, which is making a very important contribution to supporting community-based living, will be doubled by 2007.

I thank the House for the opportunity to participate in this debate on a topic which is important to us all. I will take on board the proposals, suggestions and views of Members.

Ms Terry

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and welcome the debate. I thank Senator White for her work in this area. Her booklet is of great help to us all. I called for this debate last week, as did Senator White, as a result of a number of articles that appeared recently in the newspapers which brought the issue to our attention once again. It is an issue I want to continue to raise in the House because it is about raising awareness and ensuring that we keep this issue at the top of the agenda. With a growing older population in Ireland, it is more important than ever that we keep it to the top of the agenda and address the issues we know exist and affect older people.

In Ireland today, there are almost 750,000 people aged over 55 and this will increase significantly in the coming decades. This raises many issues that must be addressed and many challenges, especially in the areas of nursing care, community care and hospital care. We deal with these issues when discussing health. In my contribution I intend to concentrate on ageism in terms of how we view older people and how I would like to have them participate more in our society. I will steer away from the negative attitudes many in society have about older people.

While I am not sure at what age one would be categorised as an older person, older people are an untapped resource of which we should make much more use. There are thousands of older people who are fit and able to contribute to society in many ways. Departments need to recognise this and we must make further changes to legislation and bring about new policies to support longer working lives and later retirement.

People are living longer and are far healthier than earlier generations. Increasing longevity is an indicator of social and economic progress and we need to reap the benefits of that longevity. We need to harness the wealth of experience possessed by our population. Age Action Ireland expressed this view when it stated:

[T]he state could easily encourage ‘at-home' work through the use of broadband internet. It is hardly beyond the wit of human beings to devise other ways in which knowledge and skills amassed over decades, can be used for the benefit of others. Useful, paid employment (for example telesales or monitoring) could easily become a feature of older people's lives.

We need to consider the retirement age and the United Kingdom's recent decision in this regard. Anti-age discrimination legislation reinforces the message that age is no longer a barrier to work. While there will always be those who, for health reasons or perhaps because of the type of hard physical work with which they were involved, cannot work beyond the age of 65 or even earlier, there are many more who would love the option to work beyond 65, either full-time or part-time. As Age Action Ireland stated: "the seventies should now be seen as mere middle age". I agree with this assessment.

Many would see their 60s and 70s as a time to do something completely different with new challenges. We need to provide opportunities for people to upskill as well as providing flexibility in the workplace and ensuring that employers do not discriminate against older workers. Older employees are often seen by many employers as being a valuable resource bringing with them a wealth of experience. They also have a better understanding of, and are more sensitive to, the needs of older customers.

In the retail sector, including banking and many other aspects of commercial life, older people often prefer being helped by staff who are closer in age to them, rather than by staff who correspond to their grandchildren's age group. Five or ten years ago, banks had an aggressive early retirement policy for staff, as a result of which one would hardly find a grey-haired person working in a bank. It was a retrograde step, however, because the experience of older staff members was lost. Older customers felt more vulnerable when they could not find a staff member of their own age group. Such a situation must be avoided in future and, thankfully, the position is changing. We are seeing less early retirement of people aged 50 or over.

Extending people's working lives, thus delaying their retirement, brings many benefits and helps to maintain a certain standard of living for longer. While we hear much about the problems of pensions there are positive things we can do in this regard, many of which I have promoted during debates in this House.

By deferring retirement for a number of years we could help people's pension provision. We could also have more flexible retirement schemes, combining part-time work with pensions. We need to examine the possibility of reforming the tax-free lump sum, for instance, which is given at retirement to workers who have occupational pension schemes. This tax incentive works against pensioners in that it depletes their pension fund by 25%. It really is a tax incentive abused by wealthy people at the expense of the majority of taxpayers. Changes were made to this aspect in the last budget and I am hoping the Minister for Finance will make further changes in this regard in the forthcoming budget.

I can understand why pensioners with small occupational pension schemes might wish to avail of the tax-free lump sum. Why should they not do so? However, I do not believe that is the purpose of their pension fund. We need to address that issue. If we want people to save for their pensions we should encourage them through tax incentives to leave their pension fund intact so it will be there for their retirement. Therefore, instead of giving them a tax-free lump sum we should give them a tax incentive to leave that lump sum in place. In fact, if they were given the same tax incentive to leave the lump sum in place many people would do so. That, in turn, would help their pension when they wish to draw it down. Such a system should be ring-fenced for those on small and medium pensions, and not open to abuse by wealthy people.

We also need to promote more positive attitudes to ageing. We live in a society that is obsessed with youth. Images that confront us daily in newspapers, magazines, billboards and on television feature beautiful young people. Meanwhile, older people are stereotyped as unattractive, inactive or a burden on society, which contributes to negative attitudes. Such stereotyping is most unfair and, as the Minister of State said, it is also hurtful to many of our older people. We should tackle such negative images in any way we can.

Older people's groups need to be resourced and supported to engage in community advocacy. Such groups can provide information, advice and support to older people who may be experiencing discrimination. In addition, they can promote awareness of relevant legislation and of ageism cases that have been taken successfully before the Equality Authority or at a tribunal. Such awareness enables older people to become active in their communities and in society at large.

Legislation, institutional change and new investment are required if equality is to be implemented for older people. That view has been already expressed by the Equality Authority. I agree with the comment in the Minister of State's speech that we need to do a lot of work in this regard. I also agree with the goals that he has set out for older people. However, the use of the term "long-term goals" bothers me because we need to tackle many such issues quickly. I would prefer to see them being regarded as short-term goals.

We have increasing problems with older people who wish to remain in their homes but who are not getting the services they require to do so. I realise that such services cost money but it costs far more to put older people into nursing homes. It is disturbing that, time and again, services are not available for people who seek them. Such services — including home help, a public health nurse or aids like proper beds, chairs or ground-floor accommodation — would enable elderly people to stay at home. It these services are not available, however, some families may decide that their loved ones should enter a nursing home, and that is a sad day. It is short-term thinking when we know it costs more to keep an older person in a nursing home than at home. The Minister of State may list all the things that need to be done but they should not be considered as long-term goals. We need to change that perspective because we want these goals to be short-term. They should be fast-tracked to ensure we have proper supports for families caring for elderly relatives.

Earlier this week I attended a meeting arranged by the Carers' Association. I am sure the Minister of State meets such people in his own constituency but it was interesting to hear the stories of those carers. They were complaining of a lack of support but it is not good enough in this day and age that we cannot provide such support for them.

Disability legislation currently provides for an assessment of needs for people with disabilities but legislation should also provide for such an assessment for older people. They should be entitled, as of right, to have the requisite services provided. People should not have to struggle to obtain rights for their loved ones. I would like to see older people being entitled to an assessment of their needs.

While much work is being done to protect and enhance the lives of older people, a lot more needs to be done. As the population increases and older people become a larger percentage of voters, attitudes will change. If such changes come about only as a result of pressure, however, it will be a bad thing. I hope the changes will be made because they need to be, and I look forward to that day.

Ms White

I was delighted and honoured that the Minister of State commended my document in his speech. I appreciate that very much. I wish formally to thank the Leader, Senator O'Rourke, for allowing us to have this debate on ageism and ageing. In my policy document, A New Approach to Ageing and Ageism, I make a case on behalf of the thousands of older people who suffer unnecessary discrimination in Ireland every day. I launched my document in June and Senator Maurice Hayes kindly made a presentation on behalf of the older people in Ireland and in support of my document. This policy document is based on more than a year's research, on consultation with older people's groups, public meetings and attending conferences for older people.

Benefits for older people in Ireland are currently provided for on a year by year basis in the budget and are subject to budgetary constraints. Services for older people should be guaranteed in law. In 1965, United Stattes President Johnson introduced the Older Americans Act, which outlines the duty of the US Congress to older people. This Act spells out that in law older people are entitled to an adequate income on retirement; the best physical and mental health care science can make available; suitable housing at costs older people can afford; and efficient community services. More importantly, it put into law people's right to freedom, independence and the free exercise of individual initiative in planning and managing their lives. We need legislation such as an older Irish people's Act to prompt a paradigm shift in the minds of policymakers to ensure improvements in the areas of quality home care services, quality community support services and quality long-term care services.

The last census in 2002 showed that 15% of the population were over 60 years of age and 11% were over 65 years of age. Despite negative stereotyping to the contrary, older people are not helpless, a liability or a burden. All research shows that older people in Ireland feel capable of doing their everyday business without any difficulty but they are held back from realising their full potential by the outdated attitude of Government and society as a whole. In saying that I am not attributing blame to the Minister of State.

With the improvements in health care, standards of living and housing, the number of people over 65 years of age is set to increase dramatically in the coming years. The Central Statistics Office, CSO, projects that the number of people over 65 years of age will increase by almost 50%, from 430,000 in 2002 to 628,000 in 2016. Therefore, the response we make to today's positive challenges set by a healthier and more active older population will have far-reaching consequences for future older generations.

Life expectancy is increasing all the time. A man of 60 years of age today can expect to live to the age of 80 while a woman of 60 years of age can expect to live to the age of 84. As older people are healthier and live longer, they will have higher expectations for their quality of life. Professor Seamus Caulfield of UCD, who spoke at one of the public meetings I organised, said that a person can go to bed the night before his or her 65th birthday perceived to be an asset to the State but the next morning be perceived a liability.

A topic that has frequently arisen at my public meetings is the issue of mandatory retirement. The age of retirement at 65 was introduced in law approximately 100 years ago when the average life expectancy was 65 years of age, and it has not been reviewed since. I have experience first hand at my public meetings of the frustration and heartbreak suffered by men and women who will have to retire in the next two or three years on reaching the age of 65. Their hearts are broken because they do not want to retire. Not all employees want to continue to work after retirement age but approximately a quarter of employees who retire every year do not want to retire.

For many women, including myself, the mandatory retirement age of 65 is a double discrimination because they had to retire when they got married. It was not until the implementation of an EU directive in 1973 that married women were allowed to continue in employment. Men have raised this issue at my public meetings and I have had letters published in a newspaper to which people have responded. Some men who are due to retire in two or three years' time do not want to do so and the requirement that they must is upsetting them now. Many of them do not want to retire for financial reasons; they still have children in college and have to provide for them. However, many people want to retire at the age of 65 and many older people want to pursue further education, a point to which I will return.

The measures I propose can be implemented quickly and will have a positive effect on the economy and the quality of life of our older people. At their core is the provision of real choice for older people who wish to continue working, the choice of staying on in work, retiring or retiring gradually by reducing their hours. In my document I propose that the mandatory retirement age should be abolished and that continued employment should be subject to the same assessment of competency, ability and good health that is used by employers in the case of employees of all ages.

My second recommendation on the issue of retirement is that the Government should introduce a gradual or phased transition to retirement such that a person could chose to work one week on and one week off rather than his or her job being guillotined when on reaching the age of 65, and all that goes with that. A person's network at work is cut off when the person reaches retirement age.

It is a contradiction to force experienced people out of work while desperately seeking economic migrants to fill job vacancies. People are being forced into retirement while we are desperately trying to recruit people to fill job positions. A recent MRBI survey, commissioned by The Irish Times and published in September, found that more than half of people over the age of 50 do not want to retire before the age of 65 and that many wish to keep working beyond that age.

The UK introduced the UK Employment (Equality) Age Regulations on 1 October, which provide that it will be illegal to discriminate against employees, job seekers and trainees on the basis of their age. Our Government is to be congratulated on the enactment of the Equal Status Act, which led the field in many ways. However, the UK Act goes further than our legislation. According to the Department of Trade and Industry in the UK, its procedures will allow a constructive dialogue between employers and employees who want to continue working after retirement. Employers will not be able to retire employees before they reach the age of 65 without objective justification. Above all, these new UK regulations give all employees the right to request to work beyond the age of 65 and the right to have this request considered by management. I urge the Government to consider introducing similar legislation.

In regard to the health service, surveys consistently show that older people consider they are not treated equally and that doctors are reluctant to refer them to specialist treatments and preventative care programmes. Older people feel their health complaints are dismissed by health service workers as part of the ageing process. They have a right to parity of esteem in their access to services and treatments and care must be available on the basis of need, not on the basis of age. Old people must not die of treatable diseases. An example of ageist discrimination is the age limit of 64 on BreastCheck. Professor Des O'Neill, professor of gerontology in Tallaght Hospital, has told me that women are at the highest risk of developing breast cancer between the ages of 55 and 75. I acknowledge that the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, has accepted the need for an increase in the age limits, but the new strategy for cancer control only recommends an increase in screening age up to 69.

While the life expectancy of older people is increasing continually, Ireland is not at the head of the class, as I discovered last year when I started my research. Our outdated approach to health care for older people contributes to the relatively low life expectancy of older people in Ireland compared with life expectancy for older people in other OECD countries. To effect an improvement in these figures, we must change our attitude to older people's health by providing services on the basis of need, not age.

I have spoken on about ten occasions, in Donegal, here yesterday in the audio-visual room to older people from Cork, and elsewhere since I produced my document. I mention on every occasion how doctors talk down to older people, telling them their health problems are due to their age. They do not address the problem. They do not want to give aggressive treatment for the problem. It is abominable. Everyone in the room nodded. Doctors and nurses talk over their heads. They talk to their families about them. In the workplace we have had a very successful national action plan against racism. I propose, and perhaps the Minister could drive it in his Department, that we introduce a national action plan against ageism. We have role models such as our esteemed Senator Maurice Hayes who is an inspiration to me and to all of us in the House and is a role model for men and for women. Dr. Garret FitzGerald is also a role model. Even though he is a member of an Opposition party, I commend him. Dr. Whitaker and Gay Byrne are also role models.

Mr. Leyden

And the Pope.

Ms White

And the Pope, if the Senator likes.

Mr. Ryan

And me.

Ms White

What age are you?

Mr. Ryan

Sixty.

Ms White

That is nothing. The Senator does not have to retire.

The Minister could drive a national plan against ageism and have inspirational role models. Role models work. People can inspire others. There is no question about that.

People must retire from State boards at the age of 70. That is ridiculous. I was on the board of Bord Bia when, approximately five years ago, Mr. Hanrahan, the chairman of the Kerry Group, had to retire when he was 70. I was not into thinking about ageism then and I took it for granted. When I started on this document, I wrote to Mr. Hanrahan that I felt awful about not having made an objection. The chairman of the Kerry Group, one of the largest companies in the world, was told he was too old to be on the board of Bord Bia. The Minister brought figures relating to the improvement in the participation of women on State boards. I commend him on that and on his attitude to this issue. I suggest there should be an age balance on State boards as well.

I thank the Minister for referring to my document. I did my heart good because a huge amount of blood, sweat and tears went into it. We are all getting older so ageism affects us all in one way or another.

Mr. Fahey

Senator White is not getting older.

Ms White

I was 62 last Saturday. We were never told about the advantages of getting older when we were 21. The advantages are hidden.

Mr. Fahey

Do people look after themselves better when they are younger?

Ms White

They do not appreciate things as much. They are not as wise and not as sensible. There are many benefits to getting older that are never talked about.

I again thank the Minister. All the people in the Chamber at the moment, Senators Terry, Maurice Hayes, Leyden, Ryan——

Mr. Ryan

We are only youngsters.

Ms White

——are on a mission to help future generations. It would be very easy to abolish the retirement age of 65. Politicians do not have to retire. Senators and TDs are not bound by this law. That is a contradiction. It would be a dramatic move to abolish the retirement age. The bottom line is that 71% of people over the age of 50 voted in the previous general election. As a business person I see in that a niche, an opportunity. I am not being cynical. They are interested enough to vote.

There is a down side. Many groups represent older people but, unfortunately, they are fragmented. Older people are not a political lobby because the groups are fragmented. They have not made their presence felt, and they are the people on whose backs the Celtic tiger was built.

Mr. Ryan

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit agus roimh an díospóireacht seo. It is probably the day for advertising one's age. I turned 60 during the summer and I do not feel or notice any difference. I understand 55 years is the age at which one joins the ranks of the elderly. Such categorisation is ridiculous. I believed that as much when I was 20 as I do now.

I am sorry I was not here for the Minister of State's speech but I read the script. I do not want to be misunderstood but, while I agree with the Minister of State on the need to ensure the provision of adequate resources for pensions, long-term care services for older people, housing and accommodation, ensuring mobility and so on, what he said implies — and I am sure it was not his intention — that the elderly are a group in need of special care. We use entirely different language about children. We see them as a huge benefit in society.

It would be worthwhile working out how much society spends through public, not private, provision on children from the moment of conception when we provide a reasonably inexpensive care service for pregnant women through to childbirth and on into childhood and primary and secondary education. It would be interesting to work out how much that 25 years costs and compare it with what is spent on people who work till they are 60 and probably have a reasonable chance of living another 20 years. What is the net cost to society of a 60 year old living on a decent income until they are 80, paying tax on that income, and probably paying tax on many of their purchases and, if they have a decent income, paying the highest rate of VAT because they might be indulging in slightly more luxurious things, so there would not be a huge proportion of their income spent on food? Work out then the net cost to society of provision for up to 25 years where no income tax will be paid because most services will be provided. When we work it out we begin to get away from the single biggest hang-up of society, namely, that we have an ageing crisis. Of course there are some issues. Any well ordered society must look at demographic change and plan for it. However, we are hopeless at doing this.

Since the 1970s, successive Governments have been warned that we will have a significant bubble of under 15 year olds, yet we ended up with prefabs, crowded schools and under-provision. We still have problems. I thought about complaining about the advertisements for the census to the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland because they suggested we needed to assemble the information in the census to enable us to plan schools, hospitals etc. The overwhelming evidence is that we did not show a jot of interest in the projections or figures of previous censuses.

We need to address the issues. We have been told our age structure may shift within the next 40 years, but we must remember that this prediction is based on projections about population and childbirth rates, etc., which are drawn from the worst and lowest figures in terms of marriage and childbirth the State ever had. The circumstances have already changed and the figures produced five years ago are out of date. The story about the coming burden of an ageing population is not a burden; it is a change from a structure we had to another structure. If the structure was to change in the way projected, the single biggest element of our social welfare payments would be child benefit. If the country ends up with a dramatically different structure and with far fewer children and more older people, the payment of child benefit would obviously have to decrease. However, it is impossible to find anything in what has been written that addresses this and this is one of the reasons I would not dispute the importance of people making a provision for their future. Nevertheless, I do not see this in terms of retirement.

What we should consider is the number of years people should work in order to be able to enjoy the last third of their lives, rather than make provision for a dependent population. Do we believe that in an ideal world people should work as long as they are physically able at a level imposed on them from the outside? The level of activity of people such as Senator Maurice Hayes, for example, is what he chooses to do, not what he is coerced to do. I hope to be in the same position for the next 20 years. I do not want to sit in luxurious idleness for 20 years smoking my cigars in Cuba, perhaps, which is probably where certain people wish I would go. I do not want to do that.

We should look at the number of years people need to work in order to be able to live and enjoy the last third of their life — work 40 years for example. Perhaps they should be students for 20, work for 40 and then live for 20, not because they are not able to work nor because they are dependent or a burden, but because that is the way we choose to order our society. This turns all the arguments somewhat inside out.

Last Monday I was almost incandescent with rage to hear some bright young man from IBEC say the idea of defined benefit pensions was an old fashioned idea. What is the new fashioned idea? I accept restructuring is required to ensure people have a decent income when they are old. The suggestion from the young man from IBEC was that people should pay for the income they are to get when they are elderly themselves and that their employers should not have to pay and that they had no duty to their employees in this regard. This proposal uses a distorted argument about pensions to begin a process of gradually reducing the areas in which employers have any legal responsibility towards their employees. This is what the argument is about.

The level of gross domestic product the country would need to set aside in order to guarantee its older people a decent income — roughly half to two-thirds of what they were used to when working — is not unaffordable unless we subscribe to a particularly brutal low tax regime or to erecting barriers to immigration or presume we will have the same low level of fertility as we had for the past 20 years.

I read a long article in the Irish Banking Review about the so-called pensions crisis. One of the minor benefits of being an engineer is that one is not intimidated by numbers, graphs or statistics. Therefore, I could look past the article’s nice lines which I know were written by economists who make the lines do what they want. The assumptions made in the article were that the economy would only grow 2.5% per annum over 40 years. That is way below the lowest average over 40 years in the history of the State. Second, the writer made the most pessimistic possible presumption about population structure and produced a projection on a graph for the year 2050. That graph was only as good as the assumptions, and they were wrong.

In terms of ageism, we must address the fact that we are not talking about a major change in life. The most fundamental change in people's lives comes when adolescents mature sexually, which is a profound change. Ageing is not like that for men, although women face another major life event which changes their lives. For men ageing is a continuum. This should be a continuum where people are supported to enjoy the best quality of life, whether working or not working. I have no problem with regard to defining a decent period for which people must work. I do not want to create a nation of lotus eaters. Neither do I subscribe to the idea that ageing and older people are a burden. Ageing is only a burden if we believe all people able to work should work until they are so ill that they cannot work any more. If we believe that, that is what we should debate.

On the other hand, if we believe the function of an economy is to provide a society in which people have responsibilities and duties and where society, in return, provides for people at every stage of their lives and if we accept the idea of older people as being among the beneficiaries of the wealth of a country, many of the issues of ageing will not arise. We will not have as many people needing to go into nursing homes. If we keep people alive and allow them be vital, they will retain their faculties in better order.

There is overwhelming evidence that older people will be more alert and less likely to suffer from the illnesses of ageing if they are intellectually alert and physically fit. They do not need this to be provided for them but simply need the income to be able to provide for themselves. They also need a cultural context in which they are not just tolerated but where it is regarded as good not to let our older people live in misery. Our job is to ensure that when people have worked for a decent period, if they have the good fortune to be in reasonable health, they have a further decent period in which they can enjoy the benefits of a decent income.

I am astonished at the failure of a market economy to recognise that there is an increasing proportion of people over 50 who have substantial disposable incomes. Unlike the giddy 25 year olds, people over 50 are not easily conned into buying things they do not need or want. They have to be persuaded that what is on sale is of some use or good to them. They are much tougher customers. There is a degree to which the market is infected with a form of ageism which overlooks them because they are far too crabbed, so to speak. They will not be fooled into buying electrical or consumer goods they do not need, yet there is market for services and provision based on real, intelligent and informed consumer decisions. Many of those trying to sell to the market have decided it is too much trouble and effort to sell to this potentially very lucrative market. This market does not require services offering Kruschen salts for constipation because they are people who have new and different needs which are just as positive as those of people in their 20s.

Dr. M. Hayes

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and thank the Leader for providing time for this debate.

I deeply regret Senator Ryan's address because it has made what I have to say entirely redundant and he has done so with great energy and elegance. My contribution will reiterate what has been said by Senators White and Terry. It is fitting that we pay tribute to Senator White for the efforts she has made in this field and for the accuracy of her research and the manner of its presentation.

This is a debate on the subject of ageism as defined by the Minister of State and not specifically a debate about services for the elderly which is a different subject. Ageism is about discriminating against people because of their age and specifically this debate is concentrating on the elderly end of the spectrum, although there are problems with regard to the age of consent for people at the younger end of the scale which the House will need to deal with.

This is not a case of providing for dependency. I will argue the case from the point of view of the economic, developmental and societal value. Age is a significant resource in society which can only be too easily cast aside and society would be very foolish not to make use of those assets. We are in danger of ignoring what is happening in society. Life expectancy is increasing dramatically, as is the health of people while they are alive at those ages. Limits which were set 70 years ago are no longer sensible.

Senator Ryan alluded to the demographic make-up and the shifting patterns of groupings in society. These used to be referred to as dependency ratios but I prefer to use another term. People no longer aspire to stay in the same job for all their lives. The days of a Guinness clerkship of the third class which Myles na gCopaleen used to talk about, which was permanent and pensionable forever, have gone. Jobs are cyclical in nature as technologies and developments overtake processors. Like Senator Ryan I do not think anybody should be forced to work and neither should anybody be forced out of work either.

Many of the special interest groups feared that when all the equality functions were pressed into one equality agency, there was a danger of some of the less vocal groups being overlooked. I worry a little about the idea of a general equality proofing because the cycle of activity over a lifetime needs to be considered or else it could be lost. While the Equality Act prohibits discrimination, it is time to put some flesh on the bones of the Act, and this is being proposed by Senator White.

The Minister of State said in his contribution that no upper age threshold is provided for but compulsory retirement ages may continue to be set. He explained why age limits are used at the younger end to prevent early school leaving but he gives no reason it is not possible to do away with the compulsory retirement age. The public service is in a position to do this and it should be the leader in this regard. Along with this should be a greater flexibility in the workplace and a greater ability to change from job to job or to step out for a while or to work for part of the week.

I work probably as much now as I did before I retired but it is in my own time. I can pick and choose whether to work. With due respect to Ministers, I am not depending on or waiting for a Minister. This sort of flexibility is desirable and if it were developed within the public service, it could easily be passed on to the private sector.

I started my life as a teacher at 20 years of age. I knew nothing except what I read in books and I was teaching boys who were only a couple of years younger than me. I have forgotten the books but I might now have something to teach people. A woman who has raised a family in hard times is in a far better position to talk about domestic economy to school students than a young college graduate of 20 or 22.

As a result of information technology, it is possible to work from any place and feed into information from anywhere in the world. The possibilities of IT to link people into the workforce should be examined in an imaginative way because this would enable them to continue to work. This may be a way of making the Government and the agencies concerned talk about other issues besides the elderly. It might be a way of getting them to discuss equal access to broadband services throughout the country. What are the fears of elderly people? They fear being alone and being mugged in their houses.

There is a range of issues related to security, the Garda, the Garda Reserve and various community supports. The objective should be to keep people as active as they can be for as long as they can be and in their own homes for as long as they can stay there. They should not need to worry about whether their homes need to be mortgaged. One of the most tragic things I have seen was the widow of a very good friend of mine who died last year aged 96. She was shifted from one nursing home to one that was not so good to a less good one as the funds, for which she had mortgaged her house, ran out.

As Senator Ryan said, keeping people active is a great inhibitor of the diseases of ageing, particularly Alzheimer's, etc. As considerable research has taken place into the subject, we can state that fairly categorically. This suggests that we should keep people active and support them in order to get enormous paybacks because hospital costs would be eliminated. While care in the community is not cheap, it is considerably cheaper than hospital care.

I understand the question of pensions is rightly being considered more widely. We need to ascertain how the pension systems that have been developed can be adapted to emerging lifestyles and needs. The message from this debate should be that old people are not asking for charity. They are not presenting themselves as cases for care. They are looking for the opportunity to make a continuing contribution to the economy and to social life from their own vast experience and the wisdom they have accumulated over the years.

Carers require special attention. Given that people are living to 80 or 90 years of age, they are often being looked after by their children, who themselves are increasingly fragile in their 60s and 70s. Given the Irish culture, most frequently they are daughters. Those carers need particular help and nobody should feel trapped as the one member of the family who must look after the elderly parent because others have gone off or because the State is not providing sufficient support.

It is encouraging that the Minister of State is here today. While the aspirations in the plan until 2016 are fine, we would like to see them fleshed out. We would like to see a timetable and would like to see the actions implemented earlier rather than later. I would like the Minister of State to take Senator White's document and do what he can to implement its proposals.

Mr. Leyden

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey. I know he will give the same commitment to ageism as he gave to the Disability Act. He made a great contribution by introducing that very difficult legislation, which has meant so much to so many people. He earned great regard for his work in that area and this is another area to which he can direct his talents.

I commend the Senators who have spoken. Senator Maurice Hayes is an inspiration in the work he is doing as chairman of the National Forum on Europe, which holds its fifth anniversary next week, and all his other involvement in public life. It was a wonderful choice by the Taoiseach to reappoint him to the Seanad.

Senator White's work in this area is highly commendable. She has made an enormous contribution to public life by the work she has put into assisting older people and addressing ageism. The Minister of State should consider legislation and given that the Department is very busy I am sure that Senator White would be delighted to bring some of it through Private Members' time here. Some of the legislation should be straightforward and could be of great benefit.

I have domestic support on the issue of ageism. My wife, Mary, who happens to be in the Visitors Gallery today, is carrying out a postgraduate thesis on ageing and ageism, with particular emphasis on women and how it affects them. It gives me an extra insight into the issue, along with the work that Senator White is doing and the seminars she is holding.

Ageing is currently perceived as a problem rather than a resource. Although older people have a wealth of life experience, knowledge and wisdom, ageing is generally regarded negatively. Ageist attitudes have a negative impact on older people's lives at a practical level and are highly visible at a policy level with insurance and medical providers, and even at a State and semi-State level, where there should be no discrimination on age grounds. I was very pleased by the very positive comments of the Minister of State in this regard.

The health insurance provider, BUPA Ireland, has challenged the risk equalisation policy on the basis of costs. VHI which operates a policy of risk equalisation discriminates against people over 65 who seek travel insurance, which costs €49 per annum for those aged under 65 and costs €149 for those aged 65 and older. This threefold increase in costs is a grossly unfair form of discrimination. Many insurance companies refuse to quote for people aged over 65 or 70. The Minister of State referred to a successful case against an insurance company taken to the Equality Authority.

The breast cancer screening programme for women aged between 50 and 64 is not yet available on a nationwide basis. While it is being rolled out, it is happening much more slowly than we would have anticipated and is costing lives. This important screening service should not stop at the age of 64. Older women are the ones most prone to breast cancer. Stopping screening at the age of 64 suggests that women older than that age do not matter. I cannot see how this is allowed to continue. I am sure that Senator White has made this point strongly to the Department of Health and Children. Perhaps she should submit it as a matter to be taken on the Adjournment. There are no grounds for this discrimination. Specialist treatments should be prioritised on the basis of need and not age.

Only approximately 5% of older people require long-term institutional nursing home care. More older people are long-term residents, owing to inadequate community and home-based services. Once in institutional care elderly people are disempowered. They have no say in decision making for themselves. Considerable additional effort could be made in this area. For instance, older people in public nursing homes have no involvement in the management of the institution. There is no reason a consultative process could not be introduced into such institutions by the Department of Health and Children, allowing people to have a say in the services being provided. They are totally powerless. I have brought this to the attention of the new management in the Sacred Heart Hospital in Roscommon and I hope it will allow older people to have more of a say. For example, there are currently no shopping facilities and residents are not given the opportunity to play a role. That issue could easily be resolved but, as the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, is aware from his involvement with the Western Health Board, it is hard to foster change.

Recognition should be given to the wisdom and knowledge of older people. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, was wise to appoint a man of vast experience, Mr. Gay Byrne, as chairman of the Road Safety Authority and I commend my colleague, Senator Quinn, on his decision to actively recruit older people to work in Superquinn. Most other multinationals have since followed the Senator's example because older people are reliable and they enjoy the opportunity of playing an important role in the community. However, like many others, I was saddened to learn about the involuntary retirement of my favourite late night broadcaster, Mr. Val Joyce. Despite the fact that he was providing a great service, RTE decided to make him redundant because of his age. I regard that as a form of ageism.

Ageism is different from any other form of discrimination. Racists are unlikely to become members of the race they dislike but we will all grow older. Therefore, by being ageist, we discriminate against ourselves in the longer term. A nationwide information campaign would be worthwhile in terms of passing knowledge on the issue to younger people.

The efforts Senator White put into preparing her report brings credit to Seanad Éireann. If a commission was paid for the report, I do not think the Senator's imaginative proposals would be equalled. I hope each of her recommendations will be adopted by the Government. The report should be analysed by the Minister of State and his officials with a view to taking immediate steps on its recommendations, through legislation if necessary. It would be more convenient if the Minister of State rather than Senator White introduced such legislation because of the difficulty in finding time in Private Members' Business.

I thank the Leader, Senator O'Rourke, for allowing time for this debate, which allows us to concentrate our minds on the issue and to keep it before the public. We will not receive much media attention because the media themselves are sometimes discriminatory with regard to age, but the Minister of State may come up with new initiatives as a result of today's debate.

I was nominated to the Seanad by the Garda Representative Association, the members of which suffer discrimination because of the requirement that gardaí retire when they reach the age of 57. Even the most qualified and brilliant garda cannot remain on the force beyond that age. However, new reserve recruits, of whom I am not in favour, do not seem to face any such age barrier. Why not allow trained and qualified gardaí to serve until they reach a suitable age? The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is discriminating against 12,000 young men and women in this country because of this retirement age. If the Minister of State dispensed with the requirement, he would easily ensure that the target of 14,000 gardaí is met by the end of the Government's term in office.

Older people are potentially the most influential voters in our democracy but they do not use the power they have to bring about change. It is to be hoped that the meetings being organised by Senator White will empower people to lobby legislators on making ageism illegal.

Mr. O’Toole

I commend Senator White on producing this report, which has fostered an important debate. I wish to discuss the losses to the economy caused by ageist policies and structures. The Shinto religion in Japan, which is the basis of much of that country's development, is centred on the experience of previous generations.

For a similar debate on this issue ten years ago, I asked some experts from Boston College and other institutions in the United States to examine legislation pertaining to age and retirement. I believe we have gotten it all wrong. I once met a senior employee with IBM who wanted to continue working but did not wish to do so full-time. That is a common feeling among people who approach what is referred to as the retirement age.

When people go from working full-time one day to doing nothing the next, they suffer negative impacts, their workplace loses an experienced employee and the economy becomes less productive. This issue has led to changes in pension legislation in the United States. In some Irish companies, once an employee begins to draw a pension, he or she is no longer involved with the company's operations. Take, for example, somebody who spent his or her career working in the ESB and who achieved a position in senior management before taking up a retirement package. The person knows all the secrets of the job, so the company should not want to lose him or her. However, because the ESB is prevented by law from continuing to employ a pensioned staff member, the person will go to work on a contract basis for Northern Ireland Electricity or Viridian. He or she continues to receive a pension from the ESB while selling his or her expertise to the opposition. That is just one glaring example of the anomalies we are creating. The United States has changed the legislation to allow a person earn a salary and receive a pension at the same time.

Someone who reaches retirement age and is entitled to a full pension may wish to work half time. He or she gets half his or her pension payment, because he or she is on half his or her pension, and half his or her salary as pay, because he or she is working half-time. On the amount a person is paid, he or she must pay normal taxes and continue to make a pension contribution. That is done in a flexible fashion. The man from IBM to whom I spoke does not like the weather in New England during the winter so he works six months of the year there when the sun comes out and the snow starts to melt. As soon as the fall ends, he moves like a snow goose to Florida and spends the next six months there. What is wrong with that? Everyone is a winner.

Our legislation must be changed to deal with such a situation. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs has very progressive ideas on some of these pensions issues and if he was let have his way at Government level, he would implement some of them. If we were to do that, we would all gain. I guarantee that if we are all here in five years' time discussing this issue, we will have reached, more or less, the limit of bringing women back into the workplace from domestic duties. We will be looking around for where we might find more productivity and expertise. We will find it among people of an older age. That will be particularly easy with a more IT-tuned society and generation. In many cases, people will be able to contribute from home by taking on project, consultancy and other work. We need to think differently and with flexibility. We also need to change the laws to allow older people to continue to make a contribution if they so wish.

I have retired three times and I would like to retire three or four more times before I am finished. I look forward to retirement but I do not believe I will ever look forward to not working. I am not a workaholic either; I am a "playaholic" as much as I am anything else. One wants to be able to move on and do different things. I would like to be planning my next project the day they lower me down under. I could never see myself doing anything different. Even if I am sitting in a chair, I will want to be doing something. There are plenty of people like that. If there is a contribution to be made, we should let people make that contribution to the economy and gain from it.

Previous speakers, and Senator Leyden, in particular, referred to nursing and retirement home support levels and so on. It is not a reflection on anybody or anything but every time one walks into a nursing home, there is a sense of loss. One wonders if people are getting the best care. That is nothing to do with the running of the homes but one wonders if people are making their fullest contribution. It is great if they are but if they are not, it is sad. We need to ensure people in nursing homes are constantly motivated, whether artistically or intellectually by way of discussions.

There are two elements to the State's support for nursing and retirement homes. It is not only a question of providing financial support to people who are living in such situations, which is hugely important, but in the same way as there is a curriculum in preschools and in primary schools, there should also be a curriculum in places where the elderly are institutionalised. In a democracy and a civilised society in which we talk about education from the cradle to the grave, that is not too much to ask.

The idea that education might stop at a particular point bears no resonance with reality. The truth is that we keep learning until the day we die. People may have ailments or disabilities which might stop that from happening but when we look at what is going on in various nursing homes and at how people are looked after, which is a matter of much debate at present, I would like us to look at the positive side of that. I would like to see a curriculum of activities, learning experiences and new experiences which would be available in those institutions.

Many speakers have made much more far-reaching and specific points on ageism but it is important to note that these benches ensured age was a ground for discrimination in the Employment Equality Act or the discrimination legislation. A long and positive discussion on ageism has been taking place in this House and I welcome this debate.

Mr. Hanafin

I commend my colleague, Senator White, on the publication of a new approach to ageing and ageism. It is a very professional and useful policy document which will continue to assist for many years ahead. There are many people who have reached a senior age and who continue to contribute hugely to society, for example, Nelson Mandela and, in our own country, Garrett FitzGerald, who is chancellor of the NUI, and Ken Whitaker who is still showing the way and leading an active life in his 90s. At a very senior age, the late Pope John Paul II had a schedule which would put the rest of us to shame. Those of us who attempt to work to the best of our ability could not hold a candle to his work schedule. In the past, we looked up to Ronald Reagan, David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir. History and the Bible are full of references to people who have reached a senior age and have led the way.

I am sure we can all refer not only to work or leadership experiences but to family experiences. I was fortunate to be partly reared by a grandparent and an aunt. That contribution to rearing and educating children is often underestimated. It was a huge benefit to me to hear about the Troubles, the economic war, the depression, how Ireland survived during the Emergency and to grow up in the 1960s and 1970s. Every generation must redefine and admit the benefit of that. De Valera did so in his time when he spoke of the wisdom by the fireside.

We need the ageing population to actively work in the workplace. The demographics show we need people to go back to work. It is unfortunate to have to say we need people to go back to work because nobody should, by necessity, have to go back to work. However, it is good to be needed. The baby boom generation, which turned 60 this year, contains the largest number of people to voluntarily give up work in such a short time. It is far larger than the generation which will follow it or any which preceded it. It casts a shadow over the companies it is set to leave behind. Japan, for instance, expects its workforce to shrink by 16% over the next 25 years. Europe will see the number of workers nearing retirement grow by one quarter. Some companies are already complaining of a shortage of skills even before they have started to dole out carriage clocks and fountain pens.

As previous speakers stated, when people are at their most productive and have reached a stage where they have got an expertise and understanding of their workplace it does not make sense for them to be expected to retire. I support every effort to exclude ageism. Perhaps senior company employees who have reached the top of their scale could have an option to be retained on a consultancy basis or have their pay structure re-examined.

We must recognise the problems that exist and deal with them. I am certain that many older employees would jump at the chance to continue to work, as they have grown used to the lifestyle and, in many cases, have achieved a work-life balance. I consider it healthy for people to continue in paid employment for as long as they wish. Companies must adapt and legislation must be amended accordingly to ensure that we reform the policies and practices that constitute barriers to meaningful participation by older people.

We must eliminate disabling, negative images and stereotypes associated with retirement and older age and create an enabling environment to facilitate all older people to be involved in active ageing. We must have equality with due regard to difference. That does not require that everybody be treated exactly the same. It requires that there would be due regard to difference. It would not be appropriate to treat all older people in exactly the same way as younger people. A strategy for equality must respect differences and ensure that difference is not used unjustly to favour or to disadvantage people. The central question in this context is if there is a relevant difference. If that is the case then adjustments must be made to take account of and respect the difference.

We also need equality with due regard to diversity. We must recognise the diverse needs and aspirations of older people, including the needs and aspirations of groups within the older population who suffer or have suffered multiple discrimination. This has been the experience of groups such as older women, older travellers and older members of other minority groups. We need full, legal equality. That is an essential condition for, but not sufficient to ensure, equality of treatment. Older people must have full equality before the law. That will require some changes. Full equality must be underpinned by adequate implementation measures so that the framework of rights is complete and sustainable. There must be full equality of opportunity, participation and outcome as appropriate for older people to be involved in all aspects of society.

Age should not in itself be a barrier to involvement. Equality must apply in all areas such as work, education, training, health, voluntary activities, social, cultural, sporting and artistic activities. In order to enable older people to fully participate in society, their rights and capacity to do so must be facilitated by appropriate provisions for consultation and involvement in decision making for older people and their organisations and by the provision of necessary support to enable those organisations.

We need an integration of policy and services. A successful strategy requires that policies and services for older people be operated in an integrated manner. This means that there must be coherence between, for example, income maintenance and community care policies and between employment policies and education-training policies. The overall policies must be enabling and facilitating and be responsive to age, gender, cultural and other diversity.

We require intergenerational solidarity. Policies and practices must ensure fairness between the generations and encourage and facilitate activities which span the generations. We need mainstreaming and age proofing. All policy and public investment decisions must be analysed to ensure they do not adversely impact on the current generation of older people or provide incentives to any age group to make decisions that may adversely affect them in older age. It is also necessary to ensure these decisions contribute to greater equality for older people. Accordingly, this means there must be a systematic analysis of all policies and investment decisions to ensure they promote equality for older people and that the planning and implementation processes must be imbued with the equality agenda at every stage.

Mainstreaming a focus on age equality will require the assessment of impact of policy and resource allocation decisions on older people alongside clear, equality objectives for older people, the participation of older people's organisations in the impact assessment process and the monitoring of outcomes for older people. There must be a coherent mobilisation of all legal, financial, and organisational capacities in order to ensure a balanced relationship between older people and the rest of society.

This mainstreaming and proofing will be part of a wider mainstreaming of equality and equality proofing. There should be an involvement of all sectors of society. All sectors, including the State, employers and non-governmental organisations have a role in ensuring full participation of and equality for older people. The respective roles of these actors must be devised and implemented in partnership with older people and their organisations.

When Benjamin Franklin remarked that, "All would live long, but none would be old," he could hardly have known how apt a description of today's pensioners this would turn out to be. They are fitter, healthier and more in tune with the times than any previous generation. They are determined not to allow their age to hold them back. For the lucky few, including many baby-boomers, the first of whom are turning 60 this year, this means spending their golden years trekking in the Himalayas, dune-bashing in Dubai and generally showing us the lazy, unadventurous bunch we really are. For those who wish to go back to work, that is the minimum opportunity we, as a Government, should allow them.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Fahey)

I thank all of the speakers for their contribution to the debate. A number of interesting and stimulating ideas were put forward. More than anything else, the debate highlighted the great potential and positive contribution that can be made by older people.

There have been a number of significant developments, although I agree with speakers that there is room for improvement. For instance, there is no mandatory retirement age for civil servants who have been recruited after April 2004. We now have a number of important nationwide campaigns on the positive aspects of ageing and older people, such as the Say No to Ageism week and Age Action week.

The Department of Finance issued a statement to the effect that in making appointments to State boards, the merits of a board's appointees and the desirability that they have the appropriate skills and experience for their appointments should be the main consideration and that the use of quotas to achieve age equality might not be consistent with this. The question of ageism does arise in regard to insurance in the case to which I referred. Liaison is now taking place between the Health Service Executive, HSE, and the community and voluntary sector and much positive work has been achieved in this area. We would not be in favour of the statutory provision of funding for services for older people. Funding for community services is a priority in the budgets of various Departments and that is the way it should continue.

A number of Senators made positive suggestions. Older people have an enormous contribution to make to society. We will take on board the good examples given to us during the debate. Senator Maurice Hayes is a good example of a man making a wonderful contribution to many aspects of Irish life. I asked my colleagues about how old the Senator is, but it is probably not fair to do so.

Ms White

He was 79 years old this year.

Mr. Fahey

God bless him and save him if he is 79 years old. It is wonderful to see a man make such a significant contribution to politics, journalism and many other aspects of Irish life. As Senator White has said, Senator Maurice Hayes is a great example to people the length and breadth of the country of the types of contribution that can be made irrespective of age. He is probably the perfect example to us all to encourage older people to be active and involved. That a person has reached what used to be regarded as the retirement age is irrelevant.

The debate will help to further the issue of being positive concerning ageism and remaining active. It is significant that Ireland has an active retirement age group that is growing and does considerable work across the spectrum. When meeting groups that are actively engaged in all types of activity, including social, sporting and community activities, it is clear that they benefit from participation. For older people living in isolated communities or areas where they would not have much contact, the health benefits of such groups are significant.

Senator O'Toole's statement regarding how other countries' attitudes to older people and their contributions are different to our attitudes is relevant. The most important change we must make is an attitude change. I do not mind mentioning that a county development officer who has probably been one of Galway's finest public servants is being forced to retire by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment despite the recommendations of the board of directors. He wants to continue for another two years.

Ms White

Hear, hear.

Mr. Fahey

If the Government is serious about giving opportunities to people who want to continue working, Mr. Charles Lynch, the Galway county development officer, is a good example. If we highlight a number of the issues and cut out some of the bureaucracy telling us to follow old rules and regulations, it will be a positive step forward.

Today's debate has been good and I compliment Senator White on raising the matter. I thank the Senators who have contributed to the discussion. The Department will take on board the issues that have been raised, which will add considerably to the debate.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Leyden)

On behalf of the House, I thank the Minister of State for staying for the full debate.