On behalf of the Labour Party, I, too, commend the men and women of Dublin Fire Brigade for their efficient, speedy and life saving response to the fire in Ballymun last night. There will be an opportunity for us to look in detail at the lessons to be learned about evacuation procedures and so on, but they worked well last night and nobody was injured or died, which is an incredible tribute to the emergency services. It is important the House acknowledges that.

There was a landmark decision yesterday at the Workplace Relations Commission when the national broadcaster, RTÉ, was found to have discriminated against a former employee, Ms Valerie Cox, on age grounds and ordered to pay her €50,000. The reason she took the case was concerns about ageism in employment. As people, thankfully, are living longer and healthier lives, many will want to look work longer. The age of retirement in qualification for the State pension has risen to 66 years and will rise again. However, many employment contracts provide for compulsory retirement when a person reaches the age of 65 years, as a consequence of which many older people will find themselves on temporary or uncertain contracts if they continue to work after that age. We have seen the creeping rise in the level of precarious work and it is essential that it be tackled for all workers in order that older workers who wish to continue to work beyond the age of 65 years will not be exploited. We will see more and more such cases. My former colleague Anne Ferris introduced a Bill in the Dáil in 2014 to bring to an end the compulsory retirement age in the public service. The Government is catching up and plans to address the issue with legislation, the heads of which were approved in December. There are many working in the public sector who, for many reasons, do not wish to retire at 65 years and who are more than capable of continuing to be valuable public servants and make a contribution for years to come. The public service is growing and recruiting again and important institutional knowledge should be retained. It will provide important benefits for our society as the population ages if older people can continue, if they so choose and it their wish, to work. It is important to stress that it would be voluntary. The legislation should be progressed as quickly as possible to provide certainty for those workers who are approaching the compulsory retirement age. Many are anxious and contacting all of us in the House. The current arrangements which are being implemented on an interim ad hoc basis, pending the passage of legislation, are neither attractive nor rewarding. I have two questions. When will the Government publish the legislation to abolish the mandatory retirement age for public sector workers? Will the legislation also end the use of compulsory or mandatory retirement provisions in the contract of workers?

Like the Deputy, I welcome the judgment of the Workplace Relations Commission and hope it sends a signal to the many people who find themselves in similar circumstances to Ms Valerie Cox. As the Deputy noted, the Government has agreed to increase the compulsory retirement age from 65 years to 70 for public servants who were recruited before 1 April 2004. It has also approved the scheme of a Bill to give effect to this policy change which is now to be treated as a priority. The Attorney General has requested the prioritising of the drafting of the legislation in order that the new compulsory retirement age will become effective as soon as possible. The drafting process is under way and an initial draft Bill is being prepared. The Bill is on the list of priority legislation for publication in the spring-summer session. It is not possible to determine the length of time it will take for it to be drafted and passed through both Houses, given the need for meticulous drafting, ongoing detailed policy considerations and the scheduling requirements of the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, as the Deputy noted, the Government has approved interim arrangements which will apply to public servants who reach the age of 65 years in the time between the Government decision and the commencement of the necessary legislation. I accept that is not ideal. People have come to me, as I suspect they have to the Deputy, who are coming up to the age threshold. We need to get on and deal with the legislation quickly. We appeal to other parties in the House to help us to do this quickly. It is a priority to turn what is a clear policy decision, with which I think everybody agrees, into legislation to bring clarity in order that people will not have to rely on what are not perfect interim measures but which are necessary to carry us over until the legislation is concluded.

I thank the Tánaiste for the clarity of his response. It is a view that is shared broadly across the House. Sinn Féin has also introduced legislation in this area, which I acknowledge. In truth, there are people who will miss the deadline and be forced out. Can we not have consensus that the legislation will be introduced this side of the summer recess and implemented with goodwill across the House? The Workplace Relations Commission has published a code of practice on the issue of longer working which is to inform best practice for employers. However, a code of practice is not enough; it will need legislative underpinning. Certainly, for those who are anxious, for example, those who might be in second relationships, have longer term mortgages or financial commitments about which they are very anxious, and capable of working for many years to come, they should not be forced out the door. I dealt recently with one case in which a driving instructor simply wanted to continue to work. Although there is a huge backlog and we are still trying to recruit and train driving instructors, he was forced out the door. That policy makes no sense. It should not be mandatory for the State and its agencies to push people out the door when they want to continue to work and are capable of working and the State needs their services.

We all know former civil servants in their late 60s who would be well capable of doing a really good job, but we are losing their expertise, knowledge and experience at a time when there is competition for skill sets in the economy and it is sometimes difficult to fill posts with persons with the skill sets we need. This is the right thing to do on many levels. It arises in a context where people want to work longer and have the capacity to do so, are healthy for longer and the State needs their services. In so many areas, because we can afford to do so, we are increasing numbers in the public sector. My Department is a good example in that we are dramatically increasing numbers in expanding our global footprint, opening new embassies and so on. We want people to stay longer and need to get legislation in place as quickly as possible to underpin that decision. I will reflect this commitment at the Cabinet meeting next week and we will try to accelerate it as quickly as we can.