Retirement age review brought forward
Monday 13 July 2009
Latest in UK Politics
Related articles
On Facebook
From the blogs
Disclosure: We’d never even been to a club when we made our first single
For most of us, reaching eighteen years of age opens up a new world for exploration, spontaneity and...
Top of the posts: Drunken rants, the Western Fail and misogyny pushers
The most read blogs this week, as determined by stats.
Sepp Blatter: Penalty shoot-outs must remain, they’re football’s great leveller
As England supporters, we should scorn at any such deciding factor within football. On so many occas...
Why do some men consider the street as a female meat market?
Pronouncements on sexual inequality in the UK are normally met with an eye roll by my generation. As...
A review of the so-called default retirement age, which allows employers to require staff to retire at 65, is to be brought forward by a year, the Government announced today.
Ministers had previously pledged to look again at the measure in 2011, but it will now be held next year to respond to "changing demographic and economic circumstances."
Pensions minister Angela Eagle said most people retired before 65, with 1.3 million choosing to work beyond state pension age, and many more saying they would work past 65 if their employer permitted it.
The minister said it was time to look again at the default retirement age, adding: "Some people prefer to take early retirement, others prefer to keep working. We want to give older people flexible retirement options.
"The Government is responding to the changed economic landscape. The different circumstances today - for businesses, and for individuals coming up to retirement - suggest that an earlier review is appropriate.
"As Britain's demographics change, it is sensible that we have the debate on what works for business and individuals. The retirement laws need to reflect modern social and economic circumstances."
TUC general secretary Brendan Barber welcomed the announcement, adding: "It cannot be right that an employer can sack someone simply for being too old. Employees should have choice - neither forced by employers to give up work, nor forced by inadequate pensions into working longer than they should.
"A key challenge as we live and stay active longer is developing the right kind of jobs, support and training for older workers."
Michelle Mitchell, charity director for Age Concern and Help the Aged, described the move as a "step in the right direction," but said it was not enough.
"The Government should immediately put a stop to an arbitrary and unfair rule which stops people from working, simply because of their age.
"Older workers make a huge contribution to the economy and will have the skills and experience needed to boost recovery as we come out of recession.
"Many older people want to be able to continue to work beyond 65. For some this is because they need to boost their pensions or simply pay the bills, but for many it is because they love their jobs and see no need to stop working when they can still do them well."
Katja Hall, the CBI's director of human resources policy, said the Government's announcement was "disappointing", especially at a time when so many businesses were under pressure.
"Having a default retirement age helps staff begin the process of deciding when it is right to retire, and helps firms plan ahead with more confidence.
"At the moment, anyone can ask to work beyond the age of 65, and their employer must consider their request.
"Our research shows 81 per cent of these requests are accepted, showing companies don't want to lose good people, whatever their age.
"Some people can happily work in their existing job beyond the age of 65, but this is not possible for all occupations, and companies with small numbers of staff have particular problems adapting jobs to the needs of older workers."
Denise Keating, chief executive of age campaigners the Employers Forum on Age, said: "We are absolutely delighted that the Government has finally listened to reason and taken action to tackle an archaic system which allows the enforced retirement of people simply because of their age."
- 1 Mark Zuckerberg saved $111m by selling Facebook shares before stock slumped
- 2 Osborne adviser leaked budget information to Murdoch's man
- 3 Brazil rocked by abortion for 9-year-old rape victim
- 4 Schoolboy spiked brownies with cannabis in cookery class
- 5 News in pictures
- 6 Britain's waste: Now it's coming back to haunt us
- 7 Lawyers told Hunt to stay out of Sky deal
- 8 In pictures: The bewildering face of China
- 9 UK plans for euro-immigrants surge
- 10 Is Ridley Scott the most macho man in movies?
- 1 Mark Zuckerberg saved $111m by selling Facebook shares before stock slumped
- 2 Osborne adviser leaked budget information to Murdoch's man
- 3 Brazil rocked by abortion for 9-year-old rape victim
- 4 Society: The only way is Finland
- 5 Schoolboy spiked brownies with cannabis in cookery class
- 6 Fat? Really? Olympic hope laughs off official’s jibe – but others aren’t amused
- 7 'Hello mum, this is going to be hard for you to read ...'
- 8 African monkey meat that could be behind the next HIV
- 9 Coke reveals its secret: It may need to carry a cancer warning
- 10 French in uproar over oral sex anti-smoking posters
Experience the Heineken Hub
Get free wi-fi and exclusive i content while you enjoy a tasty pint of Heineken at participating pubs.
Can you imagine a career in teaching?
Be inspired to teach - let real teachers show you how rewarding the job can be.
Playing a game-changing role during the Games
Cisco is providing the solutions for London 2012's complex IT needs.
Enter the latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Business videos from commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.
Career Services
Day In a Page
Ridley Scott: The most macho man in movies?
Gallic gourmets put France back on culinary map
The outsider: Margaret Howell
For men only: A pilgrimage to Mount Athos
Feeding a hungry world – or meddling with laws of nature?



Comments