In my policy paper of June 2006, A New Approach to Ageing and Ageism (available on www.senatormarywhite.ie), I drew attention to the fact that ageism remains an unacceptable prejudice in Irish society. The number of people over 65 is set to increase substantially and yet ageism remains prevalent in Government policy and society.

The issue I wish to address today is that of mandatory or forced retirement for most employees at the age of 60 or 65.

Forced retirement
Many employees, in both the public and private sectors, are forced to retire on age grounds, despite retaining the ability and desire to do their jobs.

The mandatory retirement age in the public sector, for people who entered their posts before 1 April 2004, is 65 years of age. This age limit was fixed at a time when life expectancy was around 65 years. New entrants to the public sector since 1 April 2004 can continue to work after 65, subject to suitability and health requirements. While this is a positive step, it does not cater for those longer-serving public sector workers.

In the private sector, there is no mandatory retirement age. However, an obligatory retirement age is usually set out in the employee’s contract and is generally between 60 and 65 years.

Improved lifespan
Today, with greatly improved standards of living and better healthcare, these requirements are obsolete. This does not deflect from the fact that many older people wish to retire at 60 or 65 years of age. I passionately believe that people should have the choice to continue on in work after 65 if they so wish. While campaigning on this issue, my purpose is to create flexibility and provide options for older people who desire to work beyond their 65th birthday.

Last year this issue was considered by the High Court when the State’s longest-serving garda lost his case, which was aimed at overturning the compulsory retirement age of 60 for assistant commissioners in the Garda Síochána.

Ageist claim
Former assistant commissioner Martin Donnellan, a Scott medal winner in charge of eight Garda units, was officially retired at the age 60. He claimed the law requiring him to retire at 60 was ageist, irrational and contrary to changes in life expectancy. His particular challenge was to a Government regulation in 1996 that altered the retirement age for assistant commissioners from 65 to 60.

In opposing the case, the State argued that the lower retirement age was necessary to ensure talented younger people could move through the Garda ranks. It also claimed that restoring the age to 65 would create a blockage at senior level.

The judge in the case was satisfied that the 1996 regulation was introduced as part of a policy aimed at motivating the force, freeing up positions in higher ranks for individuals whose ambition was to progress through the Garda and allowing senior management to promote particularly talented people earlier than previously might have been expected.

Needless to say, Donnellan was disappointed with the decision. However, he has continued his civil involvement. He was recently elected to the board of the Educational Building Society and will be an adjudicator for the soon-to-be launched All Ireland Inspirational Life Award, which is to be sponsored by The Irish Times.


Reasons for abolishing mandatory/obligatory retirement ages

• As the population ages, people will continue in employment longer and will remain financial contributors to the economy – a situation that the OECD argues will be of significant benefit to the economy
  
• Research has clearly indicated that individuals who remain in employment past the retirement age of 65 are healthier and happier as a result of their continued employment
  
• Forced retirement is a clear example of ageist discrimination and a violation of the spirit of EU Directive 2000/78/EC, which clearly states that ‘direct discrimination shall be deemed to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another’.