Dáil Éireann

Vol. 892 Friday, No. 3 9 October 2015

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES DÁIL ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

09/10/2015A00100Public Holidays (Lá na Poblachta) Bill 2013: Second Stage [Private Members] ��2

09/10/2015H00100Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2014: Second Stage [Private Members] ��14

09/10/2015P01900Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2014: Referral to Select Committee [Pri- vate Members] ��30 DÁIL ÉIREANN

Dé hAoine, 9 Deireadh Fómhair 2015

Friday, 9 October 2015

Chuaigh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 10 a.m.

Paidir. Prayer.

09/10/2015A00100Public Holidays (Lá na Poblachta) Bill 2013: Second Stage [Private Members]

09/10/2015A00200Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

Molaim An Bille um Laethanta Saoire Poiblí (Lá na Poblachta) 2013. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leo siúd ar fad a chuidigh liom an Bille seo a chur le chéile agus a smaoi- nigh an coincheap seo a bhogadh ar aghaidh go dtí an Bille atá os ár gcomhair inniu. Tharla sé seo thar roinnt blianta. Ar eagla go mbeadh aon mhíthuiscint ann, deirim lom amach nach gcreidim go bhfuil saoirse an náisiúin ársa seo bainte amach go fóill. Ach ní cóir go gcuirfeadh sin bac orainn ar fad, fiú más as traidisiúin pholaitiúla difriúla muid, ceiliúradh cuí a dhéanamh ar chrógacht iad siúd a chuaigh sa bhearna baoil ag strachailt chun na Poblachta forásaí seo a bhunú, go háirithe iad siúd a d’fhógair an phoblacht, an tseachtain chinniúnach sin i 1916.

Níl i gceist agam go mbeadh ach Lá na Poblachta amháin ann. An coincheap atá sa Bhille seo ná go mbeadh lá saoire breise ann gach bliain as seo amach, chun an t-éacht, an chrógacht agus an fhís a bhain le hÉirí Amach na Cásca 1916 a cheiliúradh in imeachtaí cultúrtha agus oideachasúil in achan contae sa tír - is é sin sna 32 contae seachas na 26 contae amháin.

The purpose of the Bill is to have a new national holiday designated in law as Lá na Po- blachta on 24 April annually. The second, but probably more important, aspect, is to establish a bord Lá na Poblachta to organise events in commemoration and appreciation of the contribution to the Irish nation over the centuries by many who gave their lives and liberties in pursuit of the Irish nation to free it from the occupation of a foreign power. As part of its role, the board would raise awareness, encourage an understanding of, and create a discourse around the ideals contained in the key revolutionary documents of Irish republicanism, and of the events leading up to the declaration of the Irish Republic contained in the Proclamation of Easter week 1916, which Pádraig Mac Piarais read at the front of the GPO on 24 April 1916.

In recognition of the central role played by the Proclamation in encapsulating the ideals of Irish republicanism, a programme of cultural and educational events should be held in each county for both citizens and tourists. I foresee many events being organised among our nation’s 2 9 October 2015 citizens and supporters abroad. I have already seen much enthusiasm, for example at the recent re-enactment of the funeral of Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa, book launches and talks about 1916. There is nearly an insatiable demand among the Irish public for more information and events around the seminal event of Irish history.

Many nations have a day or event in their history which, for the present day citizens, cap- tures the spirit of the nation. In the many episodes of bravery, foresight and selflessness in Irish history, the 1916 Rising stands out and is, therefore, the appropriate day to celebrate and commemorate as Ireland’s national day. In the Bill, I have laid out the new public holiday, Lá na Poblachta, as a national day. It would fall annually on 24 April, the day on which the Irish Republic was declared. The Bill deals with practical issues such as what would happen if it falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, and I have also ensured it has the full meaning for workers of a public holiday as per the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. In setting out the functions of the board, I have set out how it would be funded, via ciste Lá na Poblachta, the rules govern- ing its appointment, meetings, terms and conditions, duties and responsibilities and even the discipline. This is not a single issue Bill.

The Government has shot down the proposal, despite the fact that when I raised it, in Feb- ruary 2013, at the all-party decade of commemorations committee meetings, I received the backing of the Government’s commemorations advisers, albeit for a single year’s public holiday next year. The Government is turning its back on an opportunity. Neither the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys, her predecessor with responsibility for commemorative events, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, nor the Government has had the vision to embrace the idea. This is despite the fact that Ireland has nine public holidays, fewer than the European average of 11. In September 2014, the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys, said it was something to which she had not given a huge amount of consideration. It is probably the same attitude she and her Government had to Moore Street, reflected in her shambolic launch of the Government’s 2016 centenary project at the GPO in November 2014. It could only get better. The public’s rejec- tion of the programme as not fitting forced the Minister and Government to rethink, call in the cavalry and look at and listen to the decade of commemorations committee, which had been in place for many years. More important, it forced them to listen to the hearts and voices of the people of the nation, who were demanding more appropriate commemorative events, not afterthoughts. Thankfully, the situation has moved on since that shambolic launch in November 2014. Regrettably, the Government is still obstructing ideas that are not its own. That is why the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Alex White, faked outrage here yesterday when I raised his role in refusing to grant permission to Sinn Féin to use the frontage of the GPO for a light show spectacular next year. He misled the Dáil when he said that I make things up as I go along. Sinn Féin has been in contact with the OPW, An Garda Síochána, An Post and the Decade of Commemorations organisation seeking the required per- missions to ensure that this event can happen. We also wrote to the Minister, having been told by Mr. George Moir, the OPW’s director of heritage, that granting permission for the use of the GPO is in the gift of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Who is making things up? Is it the Minister and his officials, or is it me? I am not making things up; I have set out the facts here. The Minister should apologise to the House next week.

It is interesting that it is a Minister of State from the Labour Party who was sent in today to bat for the Government, to be a mudguard once again. I remind the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, that the former leader of his party, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, when calling for an additional public holiday in September 2006, said:

3 Dáil Éireann Ireland continues to lag well behind European averages in terms of public holidays. With only nine statutory days off each year, the Government should move to introduce two additional public holidays to bring us in line with the EU average of 11. It is unfair that our workforce is expected to work longer hours than our European neighbours yet not be rewarded by employers with sufficient days off. The Government could help plug this gap by introducing these extra public holidays.

Here is the Labour Party’s opportunity to take one step closer to reaching the European average at least, albeit not on a topic that Deputy Quinn would embrace. However, his forefathers and his relatives in Newry would have seen the appropriateness of recognising those who fought against the Empire in a fitting way.

Some might question the wisdom of marking independence day as a national day when a nation is still partitioned or when freedom has not been fully achieved. However, a national day is a designated day, usually a public holiday, in most states in which nationhood is celebrated. It can be on the date of independence or a date of significance from history. Some countries have more than one such day - Pakistan, I am told, has three. Catalonia celebrates its national day on 11 September, Euskadi on 25 October, Cyprus on 16 August and Palestine on 5 November - they all mark their national days, despite not having been granted their freedom or continuing to be occupied or partitioned. Canada’s day is on 1 July and, interestingly, that came about as a consequence of the actions in north America of the forefathers of the men and women of 1916. Germany - which is hopefully suffering this morning, although not financially, regrettably, considering its attitude to our debts and banks - marks its reunification on 3 October with German Unity Day. Both the partitioned states of Korea mark Korea’s liberation from imperialist Japan on 15 August and, of course, the USA celebrates its revolution on 4 July and France celebrates its revolution on 14 July, Bastille Day.

I urge the Minister of State not to be afraid of the concept behind and proposal contained within this legislation, which was carefully thought out and was not just a whim on my part. I urge him to embrace it in the full understanding of what I am trying to achieve with this Bill. It is not just about an additional holiday. Its aim is to ensure that the vision of the Proclamation is considered and lived up to as much as possible or is, at the very least, the ideal to which we aspire. There should not be a problem with that concept, and we should ensure that all of our citizens understand that. All of our citizens should engage in a discussion on a vision for the future of Ireland, as well as considering their responsibilities as citizens as envisaged by those who declared a republic on the streets of Dublin just over 99 years ago. A new public holiday dedicated to the memory of the selfless men and women who had the vision and courage of their convictions is what this Bill proposes. I believe it would be appropriate to declare Lá na Poblachta.

Mar fhocal scoir, iarraim go leanfaimid fís na bliana 1916, ó thaobh díospóireachta seachas go míleata, chun an Phoblacht a bhí i gceist sa bhliain sin a bhunú i gceart. Ba cheart go mbeadh sé mar aidhm againn - i ngach uile ghnó atá á dhéanamh againn sa Teach seo, san Oireachtas ina iomlán, sa Stát seo, sa tír agus sa náisiún uilig - oibriú le chéile leis an dúshlán sin a chomhlíonadh agus na haidhmeanna sin a shroichint. Is féidir linn bheith bródúil as na daoine a chuaigh romhainn, a bhí de dhánacht agus de chrógacht acu ina lán bealaí seasamh leis an bhfís atá luaite agam i gcoinne impireacht ollmhór a bhí ann ag an am. Creidim gur féidir é sin a dhéanamh, i measc bealaí eile, trí Lá na Poblachta agus bord Lá na Poblachta a bheith bunaithe as seo amach.

4 9 October 2015

09/10/2015B00200Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Deputy Aod- hán Ó Ríordáin): Tugann an Bille seo deis dom eolas a thabhairt don Teach ar an dul chun chinn suntasach atá déanta ag an Rialtas chun Éirí Amach na Cásca a chomóradh an bhliain seo chugainn. Mar atá ráite cheana, tá sé i gceist ag an Rialtas go mbeidh an bhliain 2016 Ián le himeachtaí éagsula agus ilchineálacha. Beidh deis ag pobal na tíre seo castacht iomlán na 100 bliana seo caite ar an oileán seo a chíoradh agus a cheiliúradh. Is léir go bhfuil tacaíocht forlea- than ag cur chuige an Rialtais. Sheol an Taoiseach clár na n-údaráis áitiúla inné. Tá beagnach 2,000 imeacht pleanáilte ag pobail aitiúla ar fud na tíre. Tá sé seo mar bhreis ar an gclár suntasach a sheol an Rialtas i mí Márta. Is ceart a thabhairt faoi deara gur tríd imeachtaí shearmanais an Stáit a thabharfaidh saoránaigh na hÉireann aitheantas foirmiúil agus sollúnta d’Éirí Amach na bliana 1916, agus is ar Sheachtain na Cásca a leagtar an bhéim. Athródh an Bille atá os ár gcomhair an bhéim sin go huile agus go hiomlán. Ní fheicim go bhfuil aon tacaíocht taobh thiar den chur chuige sin.

The surprising thing about the Bill before us is that it would move the focus of the 1916 commemorations away from the Easter weekend to the end of April. This would seriously dilute the traditional Easter Rising commemorations, and there is no demand for such a move. The Government put in place one of the most comprehensive public consultation processes ever seen in this country, with over 80 very well attended public meetings across the country, in every county. A new public holiday was not sought; nor was there support to move the focus of commemoration from Easter to 24 April. In this regard, I note that the Bill has been sold in the media as an opportunity to introduce an additional public holiday next year, but this is disingenuous. The Bill would, in fact, introduce a new public holiday in perpetuity, but there has been no discussion of the cost of such an additional annual holiday.

Next year will be a time for reflection, celebration and commemoration. It is not a year for singular narratives of the events of Easter 1916 but one in which we embrace the multiplic- ity of traditions on our island and celebrate our independence. The Ireland 2016 centenary programme is a fully inclusive programme. It contains formal State commemorations and a broad programme of events and initiatives planned in partnership with the national cultural institutions, universities, State bodies and agencies, local authorities, local communities and a number of other interested individuals and groups. That this programme is a cross-government, non-political initiative in which all citizens regardless of political background are encouraged to take part should not be underestimated. This is the key to ensuring broad participation in the events being planned for next year and is a sentiment which featured strongly in the various consultations conducted in recent months. Those who attended the consultation meetings did not want the commemorations to become a party political football.

There has been widespread support for the programme across the political spectrum and significant engagement at both national and local levels throughout the country and abroad. The programme was drafted following extensive consultation with a range of stakeholders and was welcomed by the expert advisory group on commemorations, chaired by Dr. Maurice Man- ning, and the all-party consultation group on commemorations, of which Deputy Ó Snodaigh is a member.

Only yesterday, we launched 31 individual local authority plans to commemorate the centenary of 1916. Local communities have taken the themes of Ireland 2016 and developed ex- citing and innovative plans for next year covering art, historical reflection, community events, events involving children and young people and a range of other activities, all of which have been designed to be inclusive and reflect the diversity of opinion on the events of 1916. 5 Dáil Éireann My colleagues, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Hum- phreys, and the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan, recently launched an extensive nationwide programme of activities for primary and post-primary schools, including research projects, competitions and awards as part of the youth and imagination strand of the programme. The Government’s “Flag for Schools” initiative has got off to a great start, with more than 700 flags already delivered to primary schools by members of the Defence Forces. We are also working with the third level institutions which have developed extensive and reflec- tive programmes for 2016. For example, only this week, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht launched the National University of Ireland Galway, NUIG, programme, which offers a range of activities for next year.

On Saturday last, I launched the Department’s Culture Ireland international programme, I Am Ireland, which is a key element of the Ireland 2016 global and diaspora strand of the Ire- land 2016 programme. It is a programme of celebration through contemporary arts which also reflects on Ireland’s cultural journey over the past 100 years. The Arts Council and national cultural institutions also have extensive programmes planned for next year. The diaspora will also be involved in events next year and our network of embassies abroad has developed a range of activities to engage with the diaspora and local communities. Full details of the programme were launched in June and it continues to grow.

The core of the programme will be the State commemorative events, including ceremonies at the GPO on Easter Sunday and events at Kilmainham Gaol and Arbour Hill. Many events will also take place at local level on an annual basis. Next year, a range of additional commemorative events will be held to mark the centenary of the Rising and the existing Easter bank holiday will provide an appropriate opportunity for a major public celebration to mark the end of the Easter commemorative events. This will build on the very successful Road to the Rising Easter Monday events in Dublin this year.

It is clear the forthcoming year will be a year of solemn remembrance, reflection and celebration. It will also be a once in a lifetime opportunity to re-imagine our future, reflect on the ideals of the Proclamation and use this learning as inspiration for this generation. The Govern- ment will continue to work with everyone to ensure the Ireland 2016 centenary programme is a success.

This Bill seeks to distract from the Easter weekend commemoration. It seeks to provide an additional public holiday in perpetuity for which there is no public demand and to use a singular narrative which could undermine the respectful and inclusive approach to all commemorations on this island which the House supports. Ar na cúiseanna sin go léir ní féidir leis an Rialtas glacadh leis an Bhille seo.

09/10/2015C00200Deputy Sean Fleming: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which proposes the introduction of a dedicated bank holiday on 24 April to celebrate the 1916 Rising. Most, if not practically all Irish people, would agree with this proposal for the centenary year of 2016. The Bill goes further and provides for a bank holiday on 24 April on a permanent basis. The least we can do, as an initial step, is agree to the proposal for 2016, the centenary year. The merits of introducing an additional bank holiday have been well argued, including that the number of bank holidays in Ireland is below the European average. The Bill facilitates a proper examination of this issue.

I am disappointed with the Minister of State’s contribution, in which he took a party politi- 6 9 October 2015 cal approach, specifically in his reference to parties being divisive. I had hoped the Govern- ment would not go down that route.

Next year, 2016, will be an incredibly important commemorative year and it should be celebrated with dignity and respect. Most other countries have an independence day, whether on 4 July in the United States, Bastille Day in France or the other dates to which Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred.

The Fianna Fáil Party is very proud of its direct roots in the rebellion of 1916. The first leader of our party was the most senior leader to survive the rebellion. Furthermore, the entire founding generation of the party was made up of people who risked everything for the cause of the country in 1916. We believe, however, that the commemorations do not belong to any group or party but to all Irish people and this must be respected.

I understand military tactics were the reason the date of Easter Monday 1916 was chosen for the Rising. The day was scheduled to be a normal bank holiday and, as such, people knew that many of the British forces would attend the races in Fairyhouse, meaning the military presence would not be especially strong. The decision to stage the Rising on 24 April 1916 was taken by the leaders of the rebellion for military reasons, rather than on the basis that it was Easter week. While the Rising was suppressed and many of its leaders executed, by any fair measure it was a remarkable success. A poor people with few resources was inspired to stand up in the face of overwhelming odds and the Rising subsequently received irrefutable democratic endorsement. What was achieved in 1916 was the very definition of a revolutionary event.

The modern and progressive vision of a republican Ireland, which is so wonderfully ex- pressed in the Proclamation, should be reflected on more widely. The Proclamation contains a message of friendship and unity between groups and rejects sectarianism and the types of aggressive nationalism evident in many other countries. It sets out a positive vision of a state which serves the people and demands that those who promote the Republic do not dishonour it by using illegitimate means. It also insists on the full rights of all Irish people, irrespective of gender, religion or privilege.

Ireland never gave in to the ideological extremes which caused so much tragedy in the 20th century. We have one of the world’s oldest continuous democracies and our democratic, republican Constitution was the first of its kind ever adopted in a free referendum. These many factors provide a direct and positive link to the events of 1916.

I have never spoken previously in this House about my family’s immediate and direct involvement in the 1916 Rising. It will be news to many people in Dublin that the first event of the Rising took place in Clonad outside Portlaoise. The countermanding order standing down the rebellion planned for the Easter Monday did not reach Portlaoise on Easter Sunday. The people in Portlaoise and surrounding areas went out on the mission they had planned as part of the lead-up to the event commencing in Dublin the following day. Their mission was to derail the train coming from Waterford through County Laois carrying reinforcements of Brit- ish troops to put down the rebellion in Dublin. The mission given to a small group of men and women in County Laois, including those on the look-out, was to take up the railway track to derail the train such that the train carrying reinforcements would not reach the capital. That was done successfully, but the train company spotted that the tracks had been taken up. It sent out a spotter train to see what was happening on the line. In that time, there was an exchange of one, two or three shots. I am not quite sure of the figure as there are different accounts, but in any 7 Dáil Éireann event the first shots of the 1916 Rising were fired in a place called Clonad outside Portlaoise, County Laois. I am particularly proud that it was my uncle Eamon - not grand-uncle or great grand-uncle, but my direct uncle - who was the officer in command of that mission. He was as- sisted by many others on the day, including his brother Patrick Fleming who went on to a major participation in the War of Independence. The event at Clonad has been celebrated over the past decade by a local committee and there is a significant monument on the side of what was the old N7 Dublin to Cork road outside Portlaoise. It is now bypassed by the motorway, but a significant event is held there every year. The people in Laois are proud of their county’s direct involvement in the Easter week events which were not just confined to Dublin.

My uncle Patrick was arrested several times during the War of Independence. Prior to that, he was imprisoned in Portlaoise Prison and went on extensive hunger strikes which ultimately threatened his health. They eventually released him. He went on hunger strike to get status as political prisoner and he was released to get him to discontinue that. He was subsequently rear- rested and eventually sent to Mountjoy where he led a famous escape over the prison’s walls which is written in folklore. One of the programmes in TG4’s “Éalú” series of the past two years which shows famous escapes from Irish prisons was dedicated to that particular event. A great many people have co-operated on a film being made locally in Laois to commemorate the event and it will be launched early in the new year. When my uncle Paddy was in Portlaoise Prison, the British authorities tried to force feed him during his hunger strike. They put him in a straitjacket because he tried to break out and damage the furniture. They had to remove the ceiling above his cell to make it a double-height ceiling on which they could place heaters to heat him against his will. He also broke those. Some Sinn Féin Members beside me were imprisoned in Portlaoise Prison in more recent years. Whenever I meet Deputy Martin Ferris and others, they talk about the famous history of Paddy Fleming and the Paddy Fleming cell in Portlaoise Prison. As such, it would be remiss of me if I failed to support the Bill.

I am a Member quite a number of years but have never spoken in the Dáil Chamber of my direct family history. My uncle Paddy went on to stand for Fianna Fáil as a candidate in the 1927 general election, but 1916 is not just about Fianna Fáil, it is about everybody. We played our part as did the other parties in the House. In the spirit of the centenary year, a special bank holiday to commemorate the actual date of the Rising is appropriate. The Irish people will support it.

09/10/2015D00200Deputy Michael Colreavy: In his response, the Minister of State said the 2016 commemoration will be “a once in a lifetime opportunity to reimagine our future, reflect on the ideals of the Proclamation and use this learning as inspiration for this generation”. There is a little village in north Leitrim called Kiltyclogher. Was the Minister of State in Kiltyclogher at the Seán Mac Diarmada cottage?

09/10/2015D00300Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: No, not yet.

09/10/2015D00400Deputy Michael Colreavy: He should visit. There is a beautiful little village in north Leitrim called Kiltyclogher, just outside which Seán Mac Diarmada was born. His original cottage is still there and is being very well maintained by the Office of Public Works. For over 40 years, a commemoration has been run on the Sunday nearest 12 May to reflect on Seán Mac Diarmada’s execution and ideals and on how Ireland today matches with the ideals of Seán Mac Diarmada and his comrades. The commemoration is attended by all, including Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Sinn Féin, people of no party persuasion and the community. People travel from far and wide to attend the commemoration. There is a small active committee which has organised 8 9 October 2015 the commemoration every year for 40 years and not one cent was ever sought or received from the State to run it.

The problem is in the words of the Minister of State - 2016 is being regarded as a once in a lifetime opportunity. Remembering 1916, its heroes and their ideas should not be a once in a lifetime matter. Every year, we should reflect on those who founded our nation and sought to bring about a free, independent Ireland. That day, year and quest for freedom does not belong to Sinn Féin alone. Of course, it does not. It is in the heart of every Irish man and woman. To relegate this to one year or one week of fanfare, colour, money and shiny buttons is not good enough. It is not about a once in a lifetime opportunity. There is a gulf of understanding between the legislation before the House and the mind of Government. The legislation is very simple. It proposes that 1916 should be commemorated not only in 2016 but in every year.

The Minister of State said in his reply that no thought had been given to what this would cost. He said there was no discussion as to the cost of such an additional annual holiday. Is this it? Spend plenty of money in one year, get the headlines, blow the trumpets, fly the flags and banners but only for one year because it might be wrong if the people began to question the extent to which the ideals of the freedom fighters of 1916 are met in modern Ireland. Run it for one year, take control of it, put money into it, wrap it up in a nice little parcel and close it afterwards.

I am disappointed with the Government’s response. It could have left this suggestion open for further scrutiny, but it will not do so. It intends that 2016 will commemorate 1916 and let that be the end of the matter so that, when the flags in schools become faded, people will forget. Do not encourage people to search for the idealism of 1916 because they might be disappointed by the lack of idealism in 2016. Put it in a box, put a shiny ribbon on it, tie it up and sin é.

I do not know how these Private Members’ Bills work because I have not been a Deputy for long enough and protocol is not one of my strongest suits, but if there is any way for the Gov- ernment to change its response to what is simple legislation and not a party political Bill, which is what the Minister of State seems to be saying, will it please do so? Will it please say that the next Government or Dáil or a committee in the next Dáil will examine the matter? Do not just say that the Government is doing a good job in 2016 and that we in Sinn Féin are naughty for doing our own thing, something that we should not be doing. Of course we will do our own thing, but we will actively participate in all of the national commemorations. I will be there on the Sunday closest to 12 May in beautiful Kiltyclogher for our annual commemoration, which has been running for more than 40 years, and so will hundreds of others from all parties and none. That commemoration will continue. The organising committee will not stand aside and do nothing just because the Government will organise a series of events as part of a national commemoration in 2016. The committee will continue doing what it has done for more than 40 years, namely, honour the memory of those who died for Irish freedom, learn from their idealism and promote that idealism in the Ireland of today. It does it every year. The Government should accept this Bill and hold a commemoration every year.

Following on from the small, simple commemoration in Kiltyclogher and with the assistance of Leitrim County Council, Maynooth University and the many good people of the Kilty- clogher Community Council, we run an excellent and thriving summer school that examines Irish history. This is the type of activity that is required. The Government needs to understand that. This should be more than a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It should be constant and a part of who we are. 9 Dáil Éireann

09/10/2015E00200Deputy Peadar Tóibín: Ba mhaith liom tacaíocht a thabhairt don Bille seo. The Minister of State raised a number of issues with the timing of the proposed Lá na Poblachta. The point of Deputy Ó Snodaigh’s Bill is to separate the celebration from the Easter weekend, which is a religious time for many people. Celebrating 1916 in a chronological fashion is logical. If the Minister of State sticks to his own dates, it will be the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, which changes every year, whereas commemorating it on the date that it actually happened makes sense.

It is also bizarre for the Government to claim that there will be Government commemorations and no others. The Government has a poor record in terms of these celebrations. It created a video that was full of celebrities but sanitised of the Easter Rising participants. It created a website in the Irish language that used Google Translate to populate the screen. Given the fact that the people of 1916 were also cultural revolutionaries, that was sickening from my point of view as a Gaeilgeoir. If we are to wait for the Government to be the only people in town as re- gards the development of anniversary events, we will end up with the lowest common denominator. Instead, the Government should empower all community organisations, be they political parties or elements of civic society, to organise celebrations. Sinn Féin encourages people to get involved in the State commemorations also.

In recent times, many members of the Government have stated that no one owns 1916 or republicanism. That is true, as 1916 belongs to the Irish people and no one has a right to com- mandeer it. In the same way, no one owns republicanism. Republicanism and 1916 are about three simple ideas: full Irish independence, equality and justice. If these are the Minister of State’s objectives and what he strives for, he can claim to be an Irish republican. Sinn Féin has a clearly defined strategy for achieving these. If others have realistic strategies, they should by all means get a move on. God speed and get to work. Many of the utterances about 1916 and commandeering republicanism have usually been made by Deputies who are increasingly defensive about the centenary celebration. The truth is that they want to cash in on the political kudos of Irish republicanism without having made the investment to further their ideals. The men and women who fought in 1916 did so for a thirty-two county Irish Republic. They did not die for partition. They did not die for the Minister of State opposite to claim that a product made in the North should not be allowed to call itself Irish.

09/10/2015E00300Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: Oh God.

09/10/2015E00400Deputy Peadar Tóibín: Some want to bask in the commemorative glow of Pearse and Connolly while hundreds of thousands remain on housing waiting lists and thousands more remain homeless. Some use the word “equality” and stretch it, but how can it be used when bil- lions of euro are being spent to repay unsecured debts while elderly people remain on trolleys? One in six Irish people live abroad. Tens of thousands of grandmothers use Skype to hear their grandchildren’s first words in an Australian accent, for their first days at school and for their first Holy Communions. Is this the justice that inspired the men and women who risked death in 1916?

Irish republicanism is a powerful objective and a realisable goal. It is a remedy to the mé féin sickness at the heart of this State. It is not the property of one political party, and is certainly not an elastic, meaningless tool for some spin doctor to rebrand decades of neglect and indifference. The goals of full independence, equality and justice cannot be achieved solely by my party or any other party. That will only happen when all political parties play their parts. Sinn Féin has held 1916 commemorations for nearly 100 years. We tended the graves of fallen 10 9 October 2015 heroes when others found no political profit in it. However, this is not a closed shop. It is open to all who hold these objectives true.

History often sterilises the humanity of the past, but it is important to remember that each of the men and women who were involved in 1916 were just like the Minister of State and me. They had the struggles, distresses and strains of life. They were gripped by fear and often lacked confidence and second-guessed whether their republic would be possible. Despite these frailties, they achieved something real and of lasting value. Another debate rages among the chattering classes as to how best to commemorate these men and women. The establishment has tied itself in knots trying to commemorate the people while ignoring the objectives of those same people. The truth that is the only way to commemorate these heroes is for this generation to complete their objectives. This is not a job for other people; republicanism is not a spectator sport. We all live under the same sky and are responsible for one another, and it is important that people do not let these commemorations pass without stepping up to the plate.

The Bill introduced by Deputy Ó Snodaigh simply allows for a day on which people can lay down their tools, be with their family and friends and focus on the sacrifice of the men and women of 1916, as well as on their political objectives. Earlier, the Minister of State made a strong effort to suggest that this was non-political, but 1916 is one of the most political actions in the history of Ireland. This was a movement of national liberation that produced a political document called the Proclamation, and for anyone to try to neuter or sanitise the politics of 1916 and the commemorations does an injustice to those same people.

09/10/2015F00200An Ceann Comhairle: Does the Minister of State wish to reply?

09/10/2015F00300Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: No.

09/10/2015F00400An Ceann Comhairle: I then call on Deputy Ó Snodaigh to reply. He has ten minutes.

09/10/2015F00500Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Tá a lán den mhéid atá le rá agam ráite agam cheana féin. Bhí mé ag súil go mbeadh Aire nó Aire Stáit anseo a léireodh go bhfuil tuisint aige nó aici ar an méid atá i gceist sa Bhille seo, seachas an tAire Stáit a tháinig anseo chun an cheist atá ardaithe agam inniu, agus le tamall de bhlianta anuas, a pholaitiú. Tá an tAire Stáit tar éis iarracht a dhéanamh rud polaitiúil a dhéanamh as rud nár cheart dó a bheith polaitiúil. Níor tháinig mé isteach anseo inniu chun iarracht a dhéanamh bua a fháil ar an Rialtas. Rinne mé iarracht i dtús báire an cheist seo a ardú sa bhealach cuí agus cóir. Tháinig an tAire Stáit isteach agus dúirt sé nach bhfuil mé go hiomlán dáiríre - d’úsáid sé an focal “disingenuous” - ó thaobh an bhealach ina bhfuil an reachtaíocht seo á chur chun tosaigh agam.

You accuse me - and the nerve of you to say-----

09/10/2015F00600An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry. Speak through the Chair, please. The Deputy knows the rules of the House.

09/10/2015F00700Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The Minister of State accused me of being disingenuous in his contribution. However, his statement is a most disingenuous response to an attempt by a Deputy to put forward something positive. Moreover, as I stated earlier, his former leader, Deputy Quinn, sought to have two additional public holidays. I did not simply come into the Chamber today, a few months before the 2016 celebrations, seeking to have a public holiday, but went to the bother of first raising this proposal with the Ministers in 2012, that is, three and a half years ago. I was mindful that were there to be a public holiday, that there would be a 11 Dáil Éireann cost associated with it and that it would be necessary to inform the business community and to prepare for it. I was not the one who delayed it. I have been a member of the decade of commemorations committee since 2006 and have raised many issues. I note that eventually, in January of this year, the State started to listen to me and to others who had put forward positive proposals of how the State should commemorate the events of 1916. I did not keep all the ideas to myself or among my party but encouraged everybody to join us. In 2013, I raised this proposal at a meeting of the decade of commemorations committee and had the support of the very same advisers - namely, Martin Mansergh and the group’s chair, Maurice Manning - whom the Minister of State had the nerve to quote back at me earlier. They agreed that at the very least there should be one day next year on which there would be a public holiday. Perhaps the Minister of State was not present at that meeting, because it took place in February 2013. I have stayed for the entire time and have raised the issue constantly.

Moreover, there is a demand for it. I do not listen to Joe Duffy’s radio programme, but I know the Minister of State does. He should ask Joe. He featured this issue on his programme during the week; it was nothing to do with me, as I had not raised the issue on it before that. Moreover, 70% of those who took part in a 6,000-respondent poll said they would welcome and endorse a new public holiday. However, if the Minister of State is not worried about Joe Duffy, he should ask Deputy Quinn what precisely he meant in 2006 when he stated that as Ireland had fewer public holidays than the European average, it should have another two days. I am proposing the introduction of one such day and the Government can pick whatever one it wishes beyond that.

It is appropriate and would be ideal were the Government to consider the reasoning behind the date chosen, 24 April, because that was the day on which the Republic was declared. The Minister of State again accused me in his statement of trying to take away from Easter weekend by moving the holiday to the end of April, but then later stated that there was no support, when the public was consulted, for moving the focus of commemoration away from Easter. The reason for this is that the State had already declared that its commemorations and major commemorative events would be held on Easter Sunday. Consequently, why would the public try to change it? The Government had already declared it; it was a fait accompli. I argued at the aforementioned committee that 24 April should be the date until the Minister of the day, Deputy Deenihan, took the decision that it would not be on that day but on Easter Sunday, which is a religious holiday. I argued that the appropriate day, at the very least for next year, should be 24 April, and the record stands. I am not the one being disingenuous; it is the Minister of State.

As for making it a political football, as Deputy Tóibín noted, Sinn Féin has had continuous commemorations since 1916. However, within my family, I note that my father’s job in the National Museum was threatened because the State sought to politicise 1916 during the 1970s and did not want any commemorations. He spoke as a civil servant at an event on the history of 1916 and was threatened that he would be drummed out of his job for so doing. The Minister of the day was Mr. Donegan. That is an example of the State politicising the event, and it was politicised for nearly 30 years, during which the State did not hold a commemoration for one of the seminal events in 1916. The State commemoration for 1916 was re-established in 2006. The Minister of State should check the record. You might be too young to remember that in the 1970s, the State-----

09/10/2015F00800Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: That might have something to do with the Troubles and people killing one another.

12 9 October 2015

09/10/2015F00900An Ceann Comhairle: Again, would you please speak through the Chair? You know the debating rules in this House; you have been here for long enough.

09/10/2015F01000Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: These were addressed to me directly by the Minister of State.

09/10/2015F01100An Ceann Comhairle: This is what happens when you speak across the floor.

09/10/2015F01200Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: These issues were addressed to me directly by the Minister of State and I simply am responding to them. The State-----

09/10/2015F01300An Ceann Comhairle: Yes, but when you are responding, you respond through the Chair. Otherwise, we would have chaos in the place.

09/10/2015F01400Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I am stating that the State suspended its commemoration of 1916 for more than 30 years.

09/10/2015F01500Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: Why?

09/10/2015F01600Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: This meant, by that very action, that the State was politicising the ideals and commemorations of 1916.

In my document, bhí sé i gceist agam lá saoire náisiúnta a chur sa tsiúil. Is ait liom go bhfuil an Stát ag cur ina choinne. Bhí sé i gceist agam chomh maith bord Lá na Poblachta a bhunú. Ba é sin an príomhrud a bhí le rá agam níos luaithe. Ní raibh sé faoi mo réim, ná faoi réim an Stáit. Bhí sé i gceist agam go mbeadh an tAire in ann daoine a ainmniú chuig an mbord. Dúirt mé go mbeadh sé mar chuid de ról an bhoird sin díospóireacht ar na ceisteanna seo a chothú. Cén fáth a bhfuil eagla ar an Aire Stáit faoin gcuid sin den Bhille? Tá sé ag diúltiú ní hamháin don lá saoire, ach freisin don chuid eile den mholadh seo. Dúirt sé nach bhfuil sé i gceist aige an reachtaíocht a scaoileadh ar aghaidh chuig Céim an Choiste. Tá formhór an phobail go huile is go hiomlán taobh thiar de chomórthaí difriúla.

11 o’clock

Is féidir leo freastal ar chomóradh an Stáit, ar chomóradh Shinn Féin nó fiú comóradh Fhianna Fáil. Go bhfios dom, níl aon chomóradh eagraithe ag Fine Gael nó ag Páirtí an Lucht Oibre go fóill, ach b’fhéidir go bhfuil.

09/10/2015G00200Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: Níl clue ag an Teachta.

09/10/2015G00300An Ceann Comhairle: I gave the Minister of State an opportunity and he did not take it.

09/10/2015G00400Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: An rud a dúirt mé ná nach bhfuil a fhios agam gó fóill. Má tá comóradh eagraithe acu, chuirfinn fáilte roimh gach éinne freastal orthu ar fad nó freastal ar a rogha comóradh. Sin mar ba chóir a mholadh. Ba chóir dúinn ar fad daoine a mholadh chun féachaint arís ar na hidéil agus ar an fhís a bhí ann i 1916. Nílim ag caitheamh anuas ar Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre ó thaobh 1916 in aon chor. Táim ag rá go bhfuil dreamanna éagsúla ag eagrú comórthaí agus go mbeidh neart imeachtaí ar siúl. Is léir sin ón méid a chur an Rialtas os ár gcomhair inné. Glacfaidh a lán dár gcomhairleoirí páirt sa phróiseas agus molfaidh siad go mbeidh imeachtaí áitiúla ar fud na tíre. Ní hamháin go raibh baint ag Éirí Amach na Cásca le Baile Átha Cliath, bhí baint aige leis an tír ar fad.

The Government’s minuscule response is disappointing, as is the fact it was totally and ut- terly disingenuous. It is disgraceful that the Government is refusing even to contemplate the 13 Dáil Éireann Bill before it today.

Question put.

09/10/2015G00600An Ceann Comhairle: In accordance with Standing Order 117(1A), the division is post- poned until immediately after the Order of Business on Wednesday next, 14 October 2015.

Sitting suspended at 11.05 a.m. and resumed at 11.15 a.m.

09/10/2015H00100Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2014: Second Stage [Private Members]

09/10/2015H00200Deputy Anne Ferris: I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

I was a little taken aback as this Bill was scheduled for 12 noon.

09/10/2015H00300An Ceann Comhairle: No.

09/10/2015H00400Deputy Anne Ferris: It was listed at 12 noon in the agenda sent to us. The first Bill was at 10 a.m.

09/10/2015H00500An Ceann Comhairle: Somebody gave the wrong information to you.

09/10/2015H00600Deputy Anne Ferris: Some of my colleagues expected to be here at 12 noon, along with people in the Gallery.

09/10/2015H00700An Ceann Comhairle: On a Friday when there is Private Members’ time, two Bills are dis- cussed, with a maximum of two hours of debate for each. If the first Bill only lasts one hour, we immediately move on. I am sorry, but whoever gave the Deputy that information was wrong.

09/10/2015H00800Deputy Anne Ferris: It was on the agenda. The first Bill, from Deputy Ó Snodaigh, was scheduled for 10 a.m., and my Bill was scheduled for 12 noon.

09/10/2015H00900An Ceann Comhairle: No. We should not say that.

09/10/2015H01000Deputy Anne Ferris: I know, but it is what the agenda states. It should be made clear that if the first Bill collapses or ends sooner-----

09/10/2015H01100An Ceann Comhairle: That is not up to us. It is Private Members’ time.

09/10/2015H01200Deputy Anne Ferris: I know that, but this should be made known. I was in my office putting the finishing touches to this.

09/10/2015H01300An Ceann Comhairle: We were looking all over the place for the Deputy.

09/10/2015H01400Deputy Anne Ferris: I was watching the Ceann Comhairle scratching his head too. I am ready, but I was a little taken aback.

09/10/2015H01500An Ceann Comhairle: There is nothing we can do. This happens with every Friday sitting. The debate could take the full two hours or it could go for half an hour.

09/10/2015H01600Deputy Anne Ferris: Yes.

14 9 October 2015

09/10/2015H01700An Ceann Comhairle: People must take note.

09/10/2015H01800Deputy Anne Ferris: I will take this up with the Chief Whip.

09/10/2015H01900An Ceann Comhairle: Okay. It is important to note it is Private Members’ time. We want to retain that.

09/10/2015H02000Deputy Anne Ferris: Yes. These Friday sittings are very good.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Employment Equality Act 1998 to abolish mandatory retirement ages for people who are able and willing to continue in the role for which they were employed. The Bill provides exceptions for security-related areas such as An Garda Síochána. This is not a new idea. The legislation before the House today is based on similar legislation elsewhere, including in the US, where compulsory retirement ages have been outlawed for quite some time, and in the UK, where such age discrimination was banned in 2011.

Section 1 of the Bill provides a mechanism whereby an employer can provide a financial incentive to an employee to retire voluntarily, but the overall emphasis in this legislation is on the voluntary nature of a decision to retire. The Bill aims to change the position that arises in many workplaces across the country, and particularly in State roles, whereby people attaining a certain fixed age - be it 60 or 65 - are compelled to retire, often against their will. This Bill will also address the growing anomaly whereby people retiring at 65 may have to wait a year or longer to access State pensions. The idea of signing on for the jobseeker’s allowance after working for nearly half a century is abhorrent to many employees and is, frankly, an unaccept- able request by the State.

To most reasonable people, it sounds like basic common sense to allow a highly skilled 65-year-old to continue in employment. I would not like to be the person who had to ask President Michael D. Higgins, the Queen of England or the Pope to cease their working lives because it has suddenly been noticed that they are well beyond 65. Over the years, many experienced politicians have been elected to the Houses of the Oireachtas and other parliaments worldwide at ages well over 65. The newly elected leader of the Labour Party in Britain is start- ing his new job at the age of 66. Last month, The Daily Telegraph published an article entitled, “It is Jeremy Corbyn’s age that makes him seem fresh”. It offered the considered opinion that it is hard for an ageing society to respect younger leaders which, according to the newspaper, “all seem to come from the same shiny factory”. We are an ageing society but we are ageing well, and I say that modestly.

Thanks to improved nutrition and advances in medical science, we are living longer. How often do we hear that 50 is the new 40 or 60 is the new 50? Today’s celebrity role models are often women and men aged over 65 but as youthful in outlook as someone decades younger. The generations are blurring. In many respects, there is no longer a generation gap or not a discernible one anyway. The recent marriage equality referendum demonstrated a shared open-mindedness across several generations, but it is disappointing that this wider movement towards a more age respectful society does not seem to have embedded itself in the culture of employment, particularly in the State sector.

When I launched the Bill in April 2014, I quickly discovered the popularity of removing upper age limits from employment contracts. I was inundated with e-mails and letters from members of the public praising the Bill but also sharing with me their own stories of age discrimination. The number of people who have suffered both emotionally and financially through 15 Dáil Éireann being forced out of their jobs prematurely is shocking. In the past week alone, I have dealt with two cases involving HSE employees approaching the age of 65. It will come as no surprise to anybody familiar with the public sector that these workers are highly trained, having benefited from many years of continual postgraduate learning connected to their roles, I presume at great public expense. One of them occupies a key administrative role while the other is a trained medical professional. Both are youthful and energetic 64 year olds. These two women know more about their roles than any younger person who will replace them. The overall cost of replacing such key staff is outweighed by the hidden cost associated with plugging the skills and gap in the vacuum left by them, but people should try telling this to the HSE.

I was expecting to welcome Dr. Albert Mariani, an eminent consultant neurologist from the US to the public Gallery. He is visiting Ireland with his wife, Dr. Aurora Mariani. The debate would seem like something from the Middle Ages to them if they were here given that under no circumstances would fit and able health professionals be forced into retirement against their will in the US. Mandatory retirement was outlawed there in 1967. With respect, that was more than a decade before the Minister of State with responsibility for equality was born. What is becoming apparent is that while politicians are predominantly in favour of removing this form of age discrimination from the workplace, there are often layers of resistance within larger organisations, possibly because young employees are frustrated by their lack of career progression. However, two wrongs do not make a right. It is possible in a properly managed organisation to have progressive career paths for staff of all ages. We do not have to be fearful of older employees. In a public sector that has lost a disproportionately high percentage of experienced employees due to voluntary early retirement, we cannot afford to push out the remaining experienced employees against their will. It is not a big leap to make a connection between the diminishing numbers of people aged over 50 in the public sector and the increasing number of costly errors identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts. We need more young people to help run our public services, but we also need older, experienced people to mentor them. Otherwise there will be repeated reinventions of the wheel and mistakes that never become lessons.

Let us imagine the outrage in the Chamber if an employer advertised a job with a higher salary for men than for women and, furthermore, if that employer set as a job condition that the woman would be required to give up her post in the event of marriage. Such employment conditions seem unthinkable now but they were commonplace until the 1970s. Until then, it was perfectly legal to issue an employment contract that discriminated against gender. For much of that time, it was unusual not to discriminate on the ground of gender. Women were worth less in the workplace and married women were worth nothing to State employers. The ban on married women in the Civil Service was introduced in 1932 as part of an international trend to protect male employment. In 1934, the marriage bar rule was extended to primary schoolteachers, a profession that had included high numbers of married women for approximately 100 years prior to the ban. As if this was not enough discrimination against women in the workplace, the Conditions of Employment Act 1936 introduced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Seán Lemass, gave the State strong powers to limit the number of women working in industry. One could not make it up. Sadly, even though most other countries had dropped their marriage bar by the 1950s, Ireland cruised past the gender debates of the 1960s and into the 1970s before this Parliament finally removed the ban on women working in the public service. It was around that time that the legislative bar on women serving on juries was also removed.

The simple fact is Ireland’s accession to the European Community brought with it obli-

16 9 October 2015 gations to treat women equally. The first equality Bill following EU membership was the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974, which took two years to pass because employers strongly resisted the idea of women being paid the same as men for the same role. Finally, more than 40 years after the introduction of the marriage bar, it was abolished by legislation passed by the House in 1977, but not without years of debate about the effect on male workers of granting equality rights to females. History professor, Diarmaid Ferriter, one of the many experts who has commented over the years on the destructive effect on our society and economy of the marriage bar, has illustrated the point well by comparing the 5% of married women in employment in 1966 with the 50% employed in 2006. There are still barriers to women re-entering the workplace following time out to care for their families. We do not need to compound that by imposing limits on the duration of the working life of an employee, but, sadly, we do not seem to be learning from past mistakes. Perhaps, if a few more people from the marriage bar days were still working in the HSE and other State bodies, there might be a clearer understanding of the value to public service delivery of retaining experienced personnel.

I was shocked yesterday, given this Bill has been in the Oireachtas system for more than a year, to receive an unfavourable critique of it from the Department of Justice and Equality. Following my dealings with the HSE in recent times on the same subject, I should not have been surprised. I know by now that within every large organisational structure there are people waiting to progress through the mandatory retirement of colleagues. I expect that scenario also applies to a handful of people at senior level in the Department, but there are enough of them to cause significant resistance and ensure significant time barriers to the progression of the legislation. I am being told now more than 18 months after it was initiated that the measures may be legally flawed or even unconstitutional and that they might provide a barrier to the mobile younger people in the workforce. Independent analysis of the Department in the context of issues relating to An Garda Síochána identified cracks in the organisational structure. However, the path to improving any employment structure should not include the step of age cleansing. To remove any doubt about the legality of what is being processed, the Bill was drafted with the benefit of legal advice from one of Ireland’s leading lawyers. The question of unconstitutionality does not arise and I am somewhat amused that the Government is supporting the legislation against the advice of departmental officials who claim elements of it may be unconstitutional.

The last time I was in a situation like this, I lost the whip because my Government colleagues felt compelled not to pass Second Stage of legislation that might be unconstitutional. I suppose I can take comfort from the fact that the obstacles to the Bill will not come from politicians, except in one respect. Should the Taoiseach call an early election and dissolve the Dáil in the coming weeks, this legislation will not see the light of day. As with all much-awaited legislation not yet enacted, an early election will banish to the dustbin of history this proposal to give employment rights to over-65s. Tens of thousands of adoptees would also be disappointed by an early election as their long-awaited tracing and contact legislation would not be enacted during the lifetime of the Government. It might be easier for all of us to get re-elected before the winter sets in but we really do not have that entitlement. The citizens elected us to do a job and we should finish that job. I want to see this Bill enacted during the remaining life of this Government. It is quite clear we may not get the opportunity again for some time to rectify the serious wrong visited on people approaching retirement. It seems unlikely from yesterday’s correspondence that at least some of the officials in the Department would be rushing to draft replacement legislation of this type for a future Minister.

I thank the many well-wishers who have contacted me in support of this Bill, including La-

17 Dáil Éireann bour Party colleagues. History tells us that fears about equality are never justified and I hope I will get a favourable response from the Minister of State.

09/10/2015K00200Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin): The Government will not oppose the Employment Equality (Abolition of Manda- tory Retirement Age) Bill 2014 sponsored by Deputy Anne Ferris. I congratulate her on the work she has done on this issue and I look forward to discussion on the detail of the Deputy’s proposals on Committee Stage.

Age discrimination should not be countenanced. I am the Minister of State with responsibility for equality, and equality issues are dear to my heart and central to my reason for being in politics. However, there are serious policy issues in this proposal which need careful consideration. A simple change to equality legislation may not be the vehicle in which to capture all the nuances that need to be taken into account and all the legitimate interests that need to be balanced when we think about work and retirement issues. The Bill is presented as an amendment to equality legislation that would have the effect of abolishing mandatory retirement ages, save in specified security related employment. Those security related exemptions in respect of An Garda Síochána, the Prison Service, fire services and so on are welcome and necessary, and this reflects the position in existing equality legislation.

This would be a radical step and the issues that arise in considering such a radical measure as is proposed in the Bill are not fundamentally equality issues but have wider ramifications. The proposal in the Bill would involve setting aside the retirement provisions of most existing employment contracts on a unilateral basis and would have serious implications for public sector employment, pensions policy and labour market policy generally. It would appear from our reading of the Bill that the setting aside of existing employment contract provisions would operate on the basis that the employee still had a choice to retire at the contractual date whereas the employer would not have a choice. This arises due to the interplay between compulsory and voluntary retirement in the precise text of the proposed amendments. That seems to be very problematic from a legal point of view. State intervention in private contracts to abolish on a unilateral basis the retirement arrangements entered into by the two parties would be of doubtful legality and would need careful consideration following comprehensive legal advice. A one-sided abolition raises even more serious doubts as to its fairness and constitutionality. We will need to think carefully about the objective we are trying to achieve and whether we can find other approaches that avoid legal pitfalls.

It is important to note that EU equality law provides expressly for compulsory retirement ages. When the EU Framework Employment Directive 2000/78/EC, which outlaws age discrimination in employment, was transposed into law by the Equality Act 2004, reliance was placed on the wording of Recital 14 of the Directive, “(14) This Directive shall be without prejudice to national provisions laying down retirement ages”, to conclude that it was not necessary to amend section 34(4) Employment Equality Act 1998, “Without prejudice to subsection (3), it shall not constitute discrimination on the age ground to fix different ages for the retirement (whether voluntarily or compulsorily) of employees or any class or description of employees.”

However, case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU, has since established that national provisions laying down retirement ages could amount to age discrimination if they cannot be justified under the specific terms of the directive. In particular Article 6.1 entitled “Justification of differences of treatment on grounds of age” provides that:

18 9 October 2015 Member States may provide that differences of treatment on grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination, if, within the context of national law, they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

The CJEU has, in the course of a series of judgments, applied this test to national compulsory retirement schemes. The High Court, the Labour Court and the Equality Tribunal have applied this test in Irish cases. As a result, the text of section 34(4), which I quoted and which seems to give carte blanche to employers to set any age as a retirement age, does not reflect the law as it is actually applied.

The opportunity of the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2013 is being taken therefore to amend section 34(4) to reflect the law as interpreted by the CJEU. The new text as ac- cepted by the Seanad will read:

(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3), it shall not constitute discrimination on the age ground to fix different ages for the retirement (whether voluntarily or compulsorily) of employees or any class or description of employees if-

(a) it is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, and

(b) the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

The Bill has finished all Stages in the Seanad and is awaiting Dáil time. I am advised that this amendment, which focuses on the same section that Deputy Ferris’s Bill addresses, will go as far as it is appropriate to go in regulating retirement ages from an equality perspective. After that, the advice from the Department of Justice and Equality and the other Departments with central policy concerns is that the issue becomes too complex, with a range of interests and policy objectives to be balanced, for equality legislation.

The essential point is that our national retirement age regime must be considered in the wider context of national employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives and national pension policy. These extend across the whole of Government. In no particular order of importance, the relevant issues in respect of which there would be implications that need careful consideration by the relevant policy Departments are as follows. In terms of pensions policy and pension schemes, the immediate implications for affordability may be positive as persons expected to retire shortly choose not to do so, but there may be implications for pension contributions calculated actuarially which could have an opposite effect. In employment law, the retirement clause in existing contracts would be made void without reference to the wishes of the contracting parties. The detail of the Private Members’ Bill would allow an employee discretion to retire at the previously envisaged age but leave no choice for an employer. Voiding a contractual agreement in such a one-sided way may itself be legally problematic. In respect of labour market and employment policy, the consideration is whether a reduction in expected numbers leaving employment may reduce opportunities for young people or advancement opportunities for people at an earlier stage of their careers. Youth employment remains a priority challenge.

Older workers must be protected against discrimination. Our law and EU law allow for compulsory retirement ages, provided these can be objectively justified. Putting in place a clear national policy framework to help the State, employees and employers to know the appropri- 19 Dáil Éireann ate balance in specific circumstances requires us to consider the range of relevant objectives, including competing objectives if one looks at the problem of youth employment, for example. I look forward to the detailed examination of these issues on Committee Stage and to the contributions of other Deputies in the debate.

09/10/2015K00300Deputy Sean Fleming: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2014. Fianna Fáil will support the Bill and we compliment Deputy Anne Ferris on its introduction. We believe we should recognise the potential of our ageing population to contribute to and enrich our society in many diverse ways, given their talents, experience, wisdom and the many years of healthy life expectancy which most can enjoy. With that in mind, we believe it is time to abolish the mandatory retirement age in order that people can continue to work beyond normal retirement age should they wish to do so. I am concerned that some people would think we are forcing people who have had long and difficult careers, sometimes involving hard physical work, to extend their retirement age. This is strictly for people who choose to work beyond the normal retirement age. There is no compulsion in it, but it is important to say that in case some think we are trying to do something different today, which is certainly the direct opposite of what Deputy Anne Ferris is saying. Messages get mixed, however, and their original intention is transposed.

The position outlined in the Bill has been our position for some time and that is why we introduced the Employment Equality (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2012 in Seanad Éireann. Senator White has been campaigning on this issue for several years and has been very strong and stead- fast in her views. We are very pleased to be discussing similar legislation today. We sought to abolish the mandatory retirement age in Senator White’s original Bill. That is the essence of what we are discussing today. It is good that we are discussing it in the Dáil. The purpose of our Bill was to prohibit the compulsory retirement of persons over 65 years of age and, accord- ingly, to promote equality between employed persons. This is an issue of equality.

That Bill provided that the age ground for discrimination identified in the Employment Equality Act should include any scheme or contractual arrangement whereby a person is compulsorily required to retire at the age of 65, unless such age-ground discrimination is proportionate and contributes to a legitimate aim. That reflects the spirit of what the Minister of State said in his conclusion today. They might not be the same words but it reflects the spirit of what Deputy Ferris is saying. In his concluding remarks, the Minister of State said that our law and EU law allowed for compulsory retirement ages provided these could be objectively justified, and we all accept that. We cannot force people to work longer but there must be objective criteria where there is a mandatory age for retirement. That is the essence of the argument. Some people will retire and it will be appropriate that some people retire as the demands of a job will, in some cases, make it necessary. However, the decision must be objectively justified and people must be able to see a clear rationale. Where there are no objectively justified criteria, it should not apply and it would amount discrimination on age grounds.

Our Bill, which is similar to the Bill in the House today, provides that a person shall not be compulsorily retired at or over 65 years of age providing they meet the necessary health requirements for their continued employment. It also provides a basis upon which age-ground discrimination may be regarded as proportionate and as having a legitimate aim. In some cases it may be legitimate but the grounds have to be specified. It might be necessary because of training requirements and the age ground does not apply if there is a genuine occupational re- quirement for a jobholder to be of a particular age. The document published by Senator Mary M. White on behalf of the party in 2012 is broadly in line with this so we have no hesitation in 20 9 October 2015 supporting this Bill, in spirit and in practice, and will do so on Committee Stage. The Minister of State said there would need to be amendments and he said that other legislation currently going through the Seanad might be amended to deal with some particular issues. It is important that this legislation comes before the Dáil as well as we do not want a lacuna to be created as a result of the Bill not passing through the Oireachtas.

The majority of older people who have reached the age of 65 can look forward to many years of healthy and active life. Society has changed and people’s longevity has changed. Many people are living much longer than in the past because they are healthier and more active. I do not know if the Deputy said 40 was the new 30 or 50 was the new 40 but, as far as I am concerned, 60 is the new 40. People are more active and more conscious of their health and they are getting more careful. This is about choice for older people. They may choose to retire or they may choose not to. I accept the Minister’s point that this should not be unilateral and there needs to be an objectively justified basis for it as we cannot have a situation where one party to an employment contract unilaterally has an exit clause while the other side does not.

Many older people will want to continue working after pension or retirement age, not just because they feel fit and active and capable of doing so but for reasons of income. Many people still have significant financial commitments when they reach the age of 65 and if they are fit, well and active and able to do so they should not be deprived of that income. We do not want people living in poverty in their elderly years if they are in a position to continue to work.

There will be opposition to this legislation from some people. I heard the remarks of the Deputy on unconstitutionality but I just do not buy that. It makes no sense and I think that is a lazy response. Sometimes an official feels it is his or her job to find a reason not to do something and constitutional grounds are a hardy annual for this purpose. I do not accept the principle of that point. However, some people will say it is time for older people to move on. Young people in their 30s think they know it all and think people in their 40s or 50s should get out of their way and move on. That is a fact in every walk of life and we are all familiar with young people saying certain activities are a young man’s or young woman’s game. However, society is changing and there are more older people in society now. This has been illustrated by what happened in Wal-Mart, which was the biggest retail company in the world, though I think it was passed out last year by Amazon in terms of retail sales. We all know of going into a DIY shop and coming across a young person, male or female, who has no clue what we are talking about while an older person will know all about it and can explain. They have wisdom, knowledge and experience so one must ask whether it is more helpful to a business to get a young person in who just wants a bit of short-term work.

There has to be an option in this legislation regarding the number of hours to be worked. A person does not have to work the full 39 or 40 hours and it may suit many people to work 20 hours or two or three days a week as the case may be. Once mandatory age discrimination is gone, a level of flexibility will be required so that people can work hours that suit them on a family-friendly basis.

We must knock some of the criticism of this proposal on the head. Some people will accuse old people of being job blockers but that is exactly the argument that was used before the abolition of the marriage bar for women in the public service in 1973, following our entry into the European Union in that year. We were decades late in getting to that point and we are now getting the follow-through from that issue. In our constituencies we are all meeting people who retired early and do not have the PRSI contribution to get their full pension. In fact, one 21 Dáil Éireann could say those people who left their jobs on that basis have a case here. In 1992 we amended the legislation so as not to allow leaving on family grounds or taking time out for the rearing of a family to be used against people in calculating their average yearly contribution for PRSI purposes. People who had to leave early were caught in that way and that was a long-term knock-on effect.

Some people will glibly say older people are not up to it any more and cannot perform ad- equately. We say competence should not be evaluated on the basis of age. That would be a lazy approach. We ask people to be flexible in their approach and not to be lazy in their thinking. Just because a person reaches a particular age does not mean they cannot do something any more. If Deputy Ferris’s legislation is sent to Committee Stage, as the Minister of State said today, we should bring the legislation forward as urgently as possible. I respectfully point out that the Tánaiste is 66, the Taoiseach will be 65 soon and the Minister for Finance is 72. Their ages have not prevented them doing their job and if it is good enough for the national Parlia- ment it is good enough for everybody else.

09/10/2015L00200Deputy Peadar Tóibín: Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille tábhachtach seo, Bille atá tábhachtach do na mílte daoine sa tír seo. Tacóidh Sinn Féin leis an mBille agus le cúnamh Dé beidh leasuithe againn le cur os comhair an Tí ar Chéim an Choiste. Tá súil agam nach bhfanfaidh an Bille idir seo agus Céim an Choiste go deo. Tá súil agam nach mbeidh sé caite chuig an gcoiste agus dearmad déanta air. Tá súil agam go mbeidh turas tapaidh ag an mBille.

Má tá daoine breá folláin i meabhar agus corp, má tá siad cumasach agus i gceannas ar a gcuid oibre, ní cheart iad a dhíbirt as a bpoist. Leis an fhírinne a rá, tá an gnáth duine ag aois 65 láidir i dtaobh taithí, scileanna agus críonnacht. Mar a dúirt an Teacht Dála a chuaigh romham, tá neart samplaí de dhaoine mar sin sa Teach seo. Tá na tréithe sin de dhíth sa tír seo, go háirithe san earnáil sláinte, áiteanna eile mar sin agus sa gheilleagar.

Freisin, ní mór dom a rá go bhfuil go leor fianaise foilsithe faoi na buntáistí a bhaineann le saol gníomhach a bheith ag daoine ag an aois seo. De gnáth, coimeádann post an intinn géar agus an corp láidir. Tá sé an-mhaith don aoisghrúpa sin a bheith i lár an aonaigh agus ag meas- cadh le glúin níos óige. Tá buntáiste agus tairbhe le fáil as bheith i gcuideachta glúin níos sine don ghlúin níos óige freisin agus foghlaimíonn siad cuid mhaith ó bheith i dteagmháil le daoine níos aosta. Ní hionann an gnáthdhuine de 65 bliain d’aois sa lá atá inniu ann agus an duine a bhí 65 bliain d’aois 60 bliain ó shin. Tá an-chuid difríochta ann mar gheall ar a inchinn, a radharc iomlán agus a sláinte. Déarfainn nár mhar ach an chorrdhuine níos mó ná an aois scoir 60 bliain ó shin. Sa lá atá inniu ann, maireann formhór dóibh siúd a shroicheann an aois scoir beagnach 20 bliain níos faide. Cé go bhfuilimid i bhfábhar na cuspóra seo, caithfear a rá go bhfuilimid faichilleach freisin, go háirithe ar eagla go mbeidh Rialtas ann sa todhchaí a bheidh ag iarraidh airgead a shabháil trí mhéad an phinsin a laghdú nó an aois scoir a ardú go héigeantach. Má tá a lán daoine fós ag obair agus iad ina seachtóidí, b’fhéidir go shocróidh Rialtas an lae gur cheart an aois scoir a bhogadh amach go dtí aois níos sine. B’fhéidir go mbeidh siad sásta an pinsean a laghdú ós rud é nach mbeidh an bhéim chéanna á leagadh ar an bpinsean ag an aois sin. Ní rud maith a bheadh ann. Nuair a bhaineann cúpla duine an aoisghrúpa seo amach, ní bhíonn an cumas céanna acu. In earnálacha éagsúla, bíonn obair oiriúnach ar fáil do dhaoine breacaosta, ach is léir go bhfuil a mhalairt fíor freisin. Ní cheart go mbeadh aon bhrú ar dhaoine fanacht ina bpoist muna bhfuil siad ag iarraidh a leithéid a dhéanamh. Níl mé ag caint faoi bhrú dlíthiúil ach, mar is eol dúinn, bíonn brúnna éagsúla ar dhaoine san earnáil oibre. Ní cheart d’aon Rialtas cearta pinsin na ndaoine sin a íslú. Is gá cearta na bhfostóirí a chosaint freisin. Ba 22 9 October 2015 cheart go mbeadh an reachtaíocht soiléir faoi cad is brí le “cumas”. Ba cheart freisin forálacha a dhéanamh i dtaobh na slíte dlíthiúla a bheadh ann chun daoine nach bhfuil in ann a gcuid poist a dhéanamh a scaoileadh amach as na poist sin go dleathach. Más féidir le duine jab a dhéanamh ar chaighdeán ard, ní cheart go mbeadh éinne in ann é nó í a bhrú amach as a phost nó a post. Tá sé dochreidte sa lá atá inniu ann go mbeadh aon riail eile i gceannas. Fáiltím go hiomlán roimh an mBille seo agus guím turas tapaidh air.

09/10/2015M00200Deputy Eric Byrne: I am only going to make a small contribution to this debate as it is a Friday and there are not many people around. I would like to put what I have to say on the public record. I fully support my colleague’s proposed legislation.

What struck me most in Deputy Ferris’s contribution was what she said about those who are compelled to retire at 65 in the public sector, and who will not be eligible for their pensions until they are 66. This struck a chord with me as there is a very fine lady in my constituency; I am sure she will not mind me naming her as Pauline Masterson. She rang me and complained as a City of Dublin VEC employee that she was compelled to retire. While she recognised the compulsion, what she found most offensive as a citizen of this State was being told that she could sign on the dole for the year between 65 and 66. The civil servants were telling her “look, we will not really be looking for you to go to work.”

That Irish double-think, finding a convenient way of dealing with an embarrassing situation, is outrageously offensive to those who, having put in a lifetime of work, reach retirement age at 65 and are being told with a nod and a wink to sign on for jobseeker’s allowance for 12 months as the Department will not come after them and is not really serious about them looking for a job. That is insulting and it is going to get worse.

We hear that everybody is living longer. We know people are living longer; if anybody has a chance to look at my website, ericbyrne.ie, they will see that I have written----

09/10/2015M00300Deputy Robert Dowds: It says that he is 107.

09/10/2015M00400Deputy Eric Byrne: I have done articles about people in my constituency. I am being asked to attend a number of parties for 90 and 100 year-olds - there is a person in my constituency who is 105. We are living far longer and the State recognises this on another footing, by compelling people to retire later. I understand the current situation is that we are phasing out State pension benefits up to the age of 68. If the State is recognising that people will be eligible for pensions much later in life, it is time we abolished the ridiculous concept of compulsory retirement at 65.

We mentioned the changing nature of Irish society. We only have to look around to see it. I trained as a carpenter many years ago and worked in construction. Who would have thought that in 2015 the construction industry would have female building workers, female electricians, female bricklayers - females throughout the industry? That is a change in attitudes. Who would have believed when we were kids that we would have brought in the equal right to marry for people of the same sex? That would have been unthinkable.

It is thinkable and recognisable that we are living longer. Those who do not want to retire at 65 should not be compelled. The World Health Organization and health authorities recognise we are going to live longer. The State is changing the rules about eligibility for pensions up to the age of 68. It may be a snide remark, but we should remember the horror of us Irish people looking at the Greeks negotiating their bailout, when we discovered they could retire at 55 and 56. What craziness. 23 Dáil Éireann Why should someone who has something to contribute be forced to retire? Such people will have accumulated knowledge, whether it is doctors, surgeons, lawyers, judges or whatever. It does not have to be just at the professional levels. It can be right down to the example I gave of the lady who was forced to retire at 65 who happened to be a special needs assistant in a school. She is perfectly fit and healthy and quite capable of continuing to work, and she wants to work.

Why are we pushing people out? There is a concept that life is finished at 65: “You are no longer required, we don’t want you any more, get out there and sit by the fire.” If it is a fellow he can smoke a pipe and look at the telly for the rest of his days. If it is a woman she can sit there and----

09/10/2015M00500Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: She can smoke a pipe.

09/10/2015M00600Deputy Eric Byrne: ----and prematurely age at home. Important issues have been raised by this Bill and I support it.

If I may sidetrack slightly, I want to address the question of when the election will be held. I mentioned it the other day when I was asking four questions on where our legislation was on various issues. The Minister of State might have a word with the Taoiseach and say “look, we are fighting a Seanad election.” We heard Deputy Ciarán Lynch talking about the banking inquiry this morning. Imagine if it was abandoned after the money, time, effort and political energy put in by so many Members. That would be the big scandal in the next election.

The case for holding off on the election is very strong. How could we insult intelligent people contesting a Seanad election by telling them that if they get elected in November, they will be the shortest lived Senators in the history of the State?

12 o’clock

I want to make the case for extending the length of time this Government remains in power and to support the content of the Bill.

09/10/2015N00200Deputy Robert Dowds: I am happy to support this Bill in the name of Deputy Anne Fer- ris. When I think of a subject such as this I think of the German Chancellor in the 19th century, Bismarck, who first introduced a widespread scheme of pension provision, partly to halt the rise of the Social Democrats there. His assumption was that people would live for three years after they retired. Clearly, we have got well beyond that. On average, people live way beyond three years into retirement. There is a real issue here. One could tie that in with the pensions time bomb. By far the largest spend in the Department of Social Protection is on pensions. If people are willing and able, it is important that they be allowed to work beyond the traditional pensionable age of 65 or 66, even though I recognise and voted for the legislation which is gradually leading to a higher pensionable age for people to begin retirement.

When thinking about the Bill, I had in mind politicians who worked well beyond pensionable age. The record is mixed. There are definitely people who did their countries great service beyond pensionable age, but there are also cases in which people hung on too long. One has only to think of De Valera. Even if one was an admirer, which I was never brought up to be, one would have to say he hung on too long as Taoiseach, until the age of 78. As against that, Churchill led Britain as a pensioner during the Second World War. While he did not do a good job in the 1950s, he certainly did a good job in the 1940s. In Finland the Finns diligently elected President Kekkonen because they knew he had the talent to prevent the USSR, as it then was, 24 9 October 2015 from encroaching on the rights of the people of Finland. He held office until he was in his late 70s or 80s. I said the record is mixed.

There is a point at which people should retire. It is hard to put a fixed age on it, as people age at different speeds. There are people, unfortunately, who want to work when they are incapable of doing the job they were once able to do. In our thoughts on this subject, we need to be sure it is possible to retire people when they are incapable of doing the job as well as they used to. It is important also to recognise the needs of younger people as they come into the market and to make space for them to get involved. That is, perhaps, an even more important point now. The world is changing so much because of the advance of technology that in many cases younger people are better placed to contribute on that front. A balance is required here. Clearly there is a need to allow people work beyond the traditional retirement age, but also we have to ensure that when people are no longer capable of doing the job properly they must retire. Most people will recognise that, but occasionally there are people who do not, and we have to ensure that is allowed for. In the broad sense, I support the Bill.

09/10/2015N00400Deputy Frank Feighan: I welcome the Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2014 and thank Deputy Anne Ferris for taking the time to put it before the House. The Minister of State is right when he says that age discrimination should not be countenanced. The Bill brings fresh air and open thinking into the debate. There is a need for balance in most legislation, but on this occasion the Bill is balanced and fair. I thank the Deputy for taking the time to bring the Bill before the House.

I am concerned about the Deputy’s statement that there might be people in Departments who are kicking this Bill to touch because they do not want to address the issue. I do not know the reasons or what is behind it. As politicians we get elected to come to this House to make decisions. People do not realise that when we leave as politicians there is a public service which does a very good job. However, it is politicians who need to highlight these issues and push Bills out of the darkness and into the light. Politicians are elected to make decisions, whether right or wrong. I am not casting aspersions on the public sector, but it is not elected. It does not take the risks that politicians take in putting themselves forward for election. While it does an excellent job and is competent and honest, sometimes politicians can make the difference because they listen on the ground to what people want.

In regard to age discrimination, I wish to speak on behalf of the private sector. I grew up in Boyle, County Roscommon. My family had a newsagent in which my mother worked 80 hours a week all her life. She retired at the age of 80. She was very valued in that business. When she retired - she is now 87 and still driving a car - the cost of replacing her by paying somebody the minimum wage for 80 hours per week would have been €1,000. She had expertise and was able to save money. That business did not survive. If the lady who retired at the ripe old age of 80 was paid the minimum wage, we would be millionaires. That is just an observation that there are people in the private sector who work in family businesses from the age of 15, and the abolition of the mandatory retirement age is something I want to highlight.

I agree that the security-related exemptions for the Garda Síochána, the Irish Prison Service and the fire services are necessary. Sometimes there are people who have many years of service who have to retire. We saw this happen in the case of many of the gardaí who retired with pension adjustments. We lost a huge tranche of expertise and work practices due to pounds, shillings and pence, effectively.

25 Dáil Éireann Once again I wish to speak about the next election. The national and local media are, perhaps, leading politicians. I wish to put on the record that I have a small wager with a major bookie who likes publicity. That bet is at 13/8 for a 2016 election and I am looking forward to going in before Christmas and cashing in that little wager with that bookie. I believe the general election will be in 2016 and that this is right and proper. The Fine Gael and Labour Party Government has been an excellent Government; of course I am biased. It has saved the country and needs another term. I believe there will be a general election in 2016 and I look forward to supporting my candidate in the Roscommon-Galway election. This speculation is not helpful to the Government and national and local media should have more to do and should talk about all the good things that have happened through the Government. I believe the election will be in 2016. I thank the Chair for her indulgence and look forward to supporting this Bill.

09/10/2015O00200Deputy Peter Mathews: I thank Deputy Ferris for bringing forward this Bill. In matters such as the working life of the people, it is important to keep issues under review in order that reality is reflected in practice.

In property law, the 21-year fixed rent lease is something that obtained for almost a century. This was because it reflected the reality of the time. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, leases were given to tenant farmers on big landed estates. The average life expectancy was 42 years of age and the age of majority allowing a person to sign a legal document and hold a lease was 21. If we do the maths, this allowed a fixed tenancy lease of 21 years and we had economic stability reflecting reality.

After the Second World War, we had the arrival of fast-moving commercial businesses. Certain types of businesses, such as steel and textiles, had heavy fixed assets, tended to be longer living businesses, existing through two or three generations and whose owners tended to buy their premises and machinery. However, commercial life became even faster moving following the Second World War and businesses changed organically in regard to the types of assets, employee numbers and skills they needed to conduct business. The 35-year lease became a reality and lawyers introduced laws to adapt to the reality of the changing businesses.

With the loss of price stability, we need to reflect reality and have reviews every five or seven years. It is important therefore to consider legislation that examines and questions the realities of people’s position in gainful employment. I therefore thank Deputy Anne Ferris for bringing forward this legislation. In some areas of work, experience and length of service are hugely important, for example, in the courts. How can judges in their mid-40s have the experience and wisdom to determine a case being heard before them? Have they sufficient life experience, expertise and familiarity with the law to arrive at a fair decision and judgment in a case where there is to be a penalty or award? If a person has worked through to his or her 70s and is blessed with an active mind, significant experience and a fair view, his or her peripheral judgment of life is a better skill set to bring to bear on the work he or she is doing. This is just one example of a certain calling in life where an extension of time is valuable.

The same applies in the science area. I met a vice president of the European Parliament, a Spanish professor of science aged 71 whose name I cannot remember at the moment. He has colleagues and collaborators in nuclear science and physics who are Irish based and who had to retire from their professorships at university at the age of 65. He named professors I did not know who had to retire and said it was a tragedy they had to do so because they had so much more to give. It is absurd that these people were forced to retire at 65 and that is another good reason this legislation is welcome. 26 9 October 2015 I would like to touch on an issue other Members have mentioned, and the Minister of State smiled tongue in cheek at the mention of it, namely, the election. Imagine if someone about to do university examinations put all his effort and preparation into project work in preparation for a May examination, but the student then got the jitters and said he thought he would go for the repeat examination in September. Would that not be cowardly? Would it not be cowardly of the Government to make a similar change to its plans? Would it not be cowardly to stop short, like pulling up Arkle with one furlong to go in a steeplechase? It should do its job. It promised to do the job over the full term. It should not be afraid but be courageous.

The people will respect that courage. They are not fooled. Do not get jittery, do not get the political yips, just do the job. There is legislation to be enacted. The Government should tell the people it intends to run the course and carry through the Bills in the schoolbag. Be men and women and bring them over the line. Do not be like nervous teenagers and call the election in pursuit of a more solid mandate before Christmas before bigger jobs need to be faced or avoid- ed. Do not do that. The Government should remember also that it has staff who have commit- ted to it for five years. Political and advisory staff were told there was a big job to be done and hard decisions to be made. The Government should do them rather than talk about them and distract from them. That is the challenge for the Government, but that is what leadership is.

Deputy Wallace has spoken out on the NAMA issue and Deputy Catherine Murphy has spoken about IBRC. The Government should investigate and do the root canal work. On the hos- pitals and health front, it should get in there, examine the trolley issue and start to do something to involve management instead of allowing the representatives of the midwives and nurses get panic attacks because of the number of people arriving into accident and emergency units. It should also deal with issues such as CIE. These are the hard jobs that need to be done and the Government should not avoid them. Next Tuesday, there will be a budget. The Government must make it fair. If there are any last-minute adjustments needed, the Government should make them. It should not mess around with the people.

09/10/2015P00200Acting Chairman (Deputy Joanna Tuffy): Although I have allowed a certain indulgence, the Deputy is very much off topic.

09/10/2015P00300Deputy Peter Mathews: I am totally on topic. I am nearly 65, and I expect to be able to work beyond the age of 65. Although Deputy Eric Byrne looks like he is only in his mid-40s, he is probably a month or two older than me.

09/10/2015P00400Deputy Anne Ferris: That makes me 27.

09/10/2015P00500Deputy Peter Mathews: Deputy Byrne has energy.

09/10/2015P00600Deputy Eric Byrne: I am not ashamed to admit that I am 68 years of age.

09/10/2015P00700Deputy Peter Mathews: Are you that young?

09/10/2015P00800Deputy Eric Byrne: Absolutely. I plan to live to 110.

09/10/2015P00900Deputy Peter Mathews: The Deputy is less than 10% older than me, which is immaterial. These are important matters. The Government must get rid of all distractions and focus. This is what the team managers do before the matches, such as the one we won last night. They focus. They do not think about playing a defensive game and hope to get a lucky goal in extra time.

09/10/2015P01000Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: That is exactly what happened. 27 Dáil Éireann

09/10/2015P01100Deputy Peter Mathews: The Government must put the bit in its teeth and energise. How many Bills are there to be dealt with? Was it approximately 38? If the Government is serious, it can get many of those dealt with instead of saying it would like to have a surer term. Life does not work like that. Life is about what is in front of us. If one does what one can do today well, the rest will look after itself.

The Bill, which is excellent, asks for a sharper focus and a clearer view of where the people stand in terms of their contribution in the work areas of life. There are many types of work and they do not end at 65. There is no lowest common denominator. The Bill is a timely reminder that there are still five months to go, and that the Government should get down and do the work. This is what the Government said it would do and it has a mandate. It should not mess around like a group of students saying they think they might have a better go at the exam in the autumn.

09/10/2015P01200Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality(Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin): I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate and also on the “When Will the Election be Held?” Bill 2015. Or is it 2016? As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we are making an important amendment to the retirement age provisions in our Employment Equality Acts and another Private Members’ Bill is due to come before the Dáil from the Seanad as soon as a time slot is made available to us. This amendment reflects the evolution of EU law as interpreted by the European Court of Justice and the jurisprudence of our national courts, and will go as far as appropriate in regulating retirement ages from an equality perspective. After this, a national retirement age regime must be considered in the wider context of national employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and national pension policy. These extend across the whole of Government, including pensions policy and schemes, employment law, the labour market, and employment policy in the context of major unemployment, which remains a priority challenge.

Wider work on retirement policy issues was previously taken forward in a working group on working and retirement under the aegis of the Department of Social Protection. The Depart- ments of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and Justice and Equality were also represented on the working group. The social partners were also involved in the working group. Further consideration of the range of policy issues must be addressed in a cross-departmental way in consultation with the social partners. We have had such discussions about strengthening Oireachtas oversight in pre-legislative scrutiny in the Oireachtas, taking the initiative in consulting with society at large on policy issues so as to inform the decision-making process.

While I would not wish to instruct any committee on how it should go about its business, I agree that there would be a very useful role for the relevant Oireachtas committee to take the lead on further analysis and consideration of the wider context in which retirement age questions must be examined. This could be done by undertaking further consultation with all stakeholders before the detailed examination of the Bill to ensure the detailed examination is fully informed by the views of all relevant stakeholders. My Department and other Departments with lead roles in the relevant policy areas will be very happy to support the committee system in that work. Again, I thank Deputy Anne Ferris for introducing the Bill. There are important issues which we need to consider in detail, and the Oireachtas is well placed to initiate consultations in a wider context with all those who have an interest in retirement age and work-life balance issues.

In terms of the potential for a forthcoming election, there is plenty of work I would like to proceed with during the coming months, including the international protection Bill, the misuse 28 9 October 2015 of drugs Bill, the family leave Bill, and amending section 37 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 on Traveller ethnicity. There are many matters I would like to knuckle down to and get over the line.

09/10/2015P01300Deputy Peter Mathews: Go for it, Minister.

09/10/2015P01400Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: It will take months rather than weeks to get it done.

09/10/2015P01500Deputy Anne Ferris: I thank the Minister of State for his two contributions, the Depart- ment officials for the assistance they gave him, and all the Deputies who made contributions, especially my comrades Deputies Eric Byrne and Robert Dowds. I also pay tribute to Senator Mary White, who, as Deputy Sean Fleming mentioned earlier, has been working on the issue for a long time. I spoke to her briefly yesterday about it. In my contribution I mentioned the Department, and on reading it subsequently, I felt I was picking holes in it. As Vice Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, I would not like anybody in the Department of Justice and Equality to feel miffed at me or feel I was attacking them, which I was not.

I ask myself whether the Department of Justice and Equality is the right place for the Bill. Although it is employment equality legislation, the Minister of State mentioned labour market and employment policy, employment law and pensions policy and pension schemes. These issues do not fall under the Department of Justice and Equality. Many Departments, including the Department of Social Protection, will have to be involved. It should have fallen within the remit of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation rather than the Department of Jus- tice and Equality. As Vice Chairman of the justice committee, I am pleased it will come before us, however, and I urge that it be sent to the committee as soon as possible. Then we can hold hearings and have the experts in to answer questions on the related issues. The Bill was stud- ied by a very senior legal counsel who is now a judge in either the High Court or the Supreme Court. If the “When Will the Election be Held?” Bill does not pass before Christmas, I hope this will come before us before Christmas.

Deputy Mathews’s remarks on judges apply to Deputies. When I hold my clinics, many people say they would have gone to another representative but felt I was of an age to understand. It is a question of life experience. Many people cannot afford to retire at 65. They may still have mortgages or may have remortgaged their homes in order to help out their children over recent years.

09/10/2015P01600Deputy Peter Mathews: They may have a split mortgage.

09/10/2015P01700Deputy Anne Ferris: They may have a split mortgage. They may want to work as long as possible, as long as they are healthy. There is legislation to deal with people who are not doing their jobs properly, no matter what age they are. Next week is budget week and we will hear speeches from Ministers and Deputies who are well past the age of 65 but who are doing a tremendous job. I compliment them. They would not like - no more than President Michael D. Higgins, the Pope or the Queen of England - to be told that once they reach the age of 65 they can no longer do their jobs.

I am glad the Bill got a hearing today. The Friday sittings are fantastic. It is a new departure which gives people such as me the opportunity to speak on our Bills. I thank the Minister of State for his patience. He took both Bills here this morning. I thank the Department of Justice and Equality officials and everybody who has worked on the Bill. We will get it to Committee 29 Dáil Éireann Stage, hopefully soon, and it will be debated before the election next spring.

Question put and agreed to.

09/10/2015P01900Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill 2014: Referral to Select Committee [Private Members]

09/10/2015P02000Deputy Anne Ferris: I move:

That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality pur- suant to Standing Order 82A(3)(a) and 118 and paragraph (8) of the select committees’ order of reference.

Question put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 12.30 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 13 October 2015.