Enforced retirement is symptomatic of a wider view that people have a sell-by date – but we should not rush to put valuable professionals on the scrap heap.Martin Donnellan, former assistant commissioner of An Garda Síochána, writes:

There are few things in life that focus the mind in the way retirement does – and very particularly enforced retirement. Mandatory retirement does not rest easy with everyone and certainly poses acceptance problems for those who do not relish an existence away from the world they knew, contributed towards and helped to maintain in a significant way.

A great many people with mental and physical energy in abundance would call into question the wisdom of marginalising trustworthy and experienced personnel and putting them on the scrap heap of retirement. It is especially difficult to accept mandatory retirement at a time when the general retirement age is the subject of upward revision. It is strange to think of how the human capital built up over the course of a career can be regarded as valueless by the State, even as 68 is proposed as the eventual age of entitlement to the State pension.

Some who are reluctantly subject to enforced retirement have the added worry of possible financial instability being foisted on them, at a time when they are still perfectly capable professionals.

When it comes to retirement, there are, of course, those who think “I just can’t wait – can’t wait to lie on in the morning, to be my own boss all day long”. Such people are probably not greatly enamoured with their jobs in the first place – and good luck to them if that’s what makes them happy. But retirement can never be a case of one size fits all. For there remain many for whom retirement, and enforced retirement especially, is much more troublesome and possibly even traumatic in its implications.

There are many things said about age and it is not difficult to caricature those caught up in a situation where age is an important factor. But we do tend to have an overly negative attitude to ageing, and we all too often fail to see the benefits that come with experience. Perhaps former US president Ronald Reagan put it best of all in a brief but devastating counter-punch to his opponent, Walter Mondale, in the 1984 presidential election campaign on the question of age. Mondale had sought to hole the Reagan ship below the waterline on the nationwide TV debate by slyly taking a dig at Reagan’s senior years, but Reagan’s clever retort that he would refuse to “take advantage of his opponent’s youth and inexperience” was the message that registered best with those who would ultimately decide the election, which he won by a landslide.

The civil action I took in the High Court in 2008 to have the 60-year retirement age provision for Garda commissioners struck down was based on a number of grounds – but principally on the question of choice. I felt very strongly that having spent over 40 years in the force, on reaching 60 years of age, I and many of my colleagues should have been afforded the choice of staying on for a limited period not exceeding five years.

The background to this case was that the retirement ages of all members of An Garda Síochána were fixed in 1951. Members of garda, sergeant and inspector rank were fixed at 57 years of age; superintendents and chief superintendents at 60 years of age; and assistant commissioners, deputy commissioners and the commissioner were fixed at 65. This remained the position for 45 years until 1996 when the retirement age of assistant commissioners and deputy commissioners was reduced by statutory instrument from 65 to 60 without any consultation with the force.

I argued at the time that the statutory instrument was ageist, irrational and contrary to changes in life expectancy among the general population in the last decade or so.

The State countered that the legislation was necessary to ensure talented younger people could move through the ranks – an argument that ultimately convinced the court.

In the 2 ½ years that have passed since the rejection of my case in the High Court, I have had lots of time to reflect on that outcome. I took the case as much for others as for myself, although, no doubt, some will doubt that. My thinking was that the enforced retirement rule was unjust and sooner or later should be tackled. There was no shortage of discussion about this perceived discrimination but no organised challenge emerged.

Had someone else decided to take the case, I would have given wholehearted support, such was the strength of my conviction; naturally, I hoped for such support when the effort to bring the challenge fell to me. The colleagues who supported me have my enduring gratitude. Suffice to say at this stage that I am glad I took the case because I believed, and still do, in the need to bring justice to the unfairness of the existing retirement age rules.

Time has moved on and yet the case and all its ramifications crop up again and again on the airwaves and in the print media. That’s a measure of the deep-seated interest people have of what is at stake. It’s a live issue still in the minds of many and will remain so until resolved ultimately.

The Association of Garda Superintendents has taken a case on the retirement issue to the European Commission and an outcome is awaited.

The logic of the case I made has taken some time to seep through for those who were not as deeply involved as myself. It has been a source of surprise to me to find that the arguments I made are now seen to have been meritorious by people who were originally sceptical. People tell me so every day and not just gardaí and ex-gardaí, but the wider public too have grown to appreciate the ironies involved.

Seán Kelly, ex-president of the GAA, at his Béal na Bláth oration in 2008, made a reference to my case and to the question of ageism and observed that this was an issue that needed to be reviewed.

In my retirement life, I believe I have shown the kind of energy that I knew I still had for my Garda role. I managed to get enough votes to get myself elected on to the board of the Educational Building Society with the assistance of huge numbers of people who were disenchanted with some of the earlier activities of the EBS. Senator Shane Ross, too, ever willing to strike a blow for what is right, highlighted my efforts on the ageism issue and in the process also helped me get the EBS nomination. Such publicity has helped the public understanding of my case.

These days, I have taken to fresh pursuits as a means of maintaining my faculties. I have been working with a retired colleague in the provision of a range of services, including risk assessment, health and safety, and the preparation of expert witness at corporate level. This has become a very engaging and interesting field of activity for me.

Last summer I was appointed to the judging panel of the All-Ireland Inspirational Life Awards with former GAA president Nickey Brennan, Age Concern Northern Ireland chief executive Anne O’Reilly, Mary Nally of the Third Age Foundation and a number of other people.

This is a very commendable initiative aimed at honouring people over 55 years of age who have shown inspirational leadership in encouraging older people in leading active and fulfilling lives. The initiative is being led by Fianna Fáil Senator Mary White and Dame Joan Harbison. For details e-mail inspirationalaward@ireland.com.

Ireland’s population is ageing. One million people aged 60 and over live on the island of Ireland. An ageing population is a sign of a society’s success – success built through years of inspiration and hard work. Everybody’s resilience is now being called on to help to rebuild a faltering economy. We should not use the length of time some of us have been alive as an arbitrary measure of their usefulness in that rebuilding process. In the words of Martin Luther King: “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools”.

Source: The Irish Times