DTI to tackle workplace ageism
Radical government proposals that could entail millions more people working until they are 70 have been unveiled.
The Government wants to consider stamping out workplace discrimination and end enforced retirement. At present, employers can determine the compulsory retirement age for staff.
The Department of Trade and Industry (dti) perceives that enforced retirement adversely affects the economy.
Ageism has been slammed by Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt as the “last bastion” of discrimination.
The Government forecasts that billions of pounds in lost productivity every year could be saved if the practice were ended.
Other items could include a ban on “ageist” advertising.
In its document, the Government puts forward the following areas for consultation:
1. The abolition of employers’ mandatory retirement ages (dismissal at a given age) unless employers can objectively justify them.
2. The possibility of including in implementing regulations, a default retirement age of 70, at which employers could retire employees.
3. A list of proposed legitimate aims which employers, exceptionally, could use to help justify the retention of a small number of age-related practices.
4. Some changes to the legislation regarding unfair dismissal and redundancy.
Explaining her department’s proposals, Patricia Hewitt said she thought the most obvious change would be the abolition of compulsory retirement.
‘This is not about forcing people to work until they’re 70 or even older, but this is about giving people much more choice’.
‘I think these days more and more people want to combine work and family, work and leisure, in different ways at different stages in their lives and as we all expect to live longer, that makes a great deal of sense’, she told BBC Radio Four’s ‘Today’ programme.
‘So we’ve got to get away from a situation where hundreds of thousands of people are forced out of employment literally against their will in their 50’s, sometimes in their 40’s and then find they can’t get an interview, they can’t get another job.’
Various options were ‘being floated’, according to Ms Hewitt, with regard to how a retirement age could be negotiated between employer and employee.
‘One possibility of course is to have no fixed retirement age at all – that’s how they manage in the United States – in which case each individual would have to decide for themselves and in discussion with their employer when they actually stopped work.’
‘An alternative possibility would be to have a default retirement age of 70 so that you would be free if you wanted to, to carry on working until you were 70; after that it would be up to the employer whether or not that was agreed.’
Employers’ organisation the CBI gave a qualified welcome to the radical government proposals.
Deputy director general John Cridland said that his organisation welcomed the consultation document in principle, but warned that the ‘devil will be in the detail’.
‘I think we all have a feeling deep down that we need a new signal that age discrimination is out of order, but none of us can quite put a finger on where it happens, and that is part of the problem’, he remarked.
‘Everybody is slightly older or slightly younger than someody else, and therefore there are endless questions about age discrimination but few answers’.
As for proposals to ban ‘ageist’ advertising, Mr Cridland said that this was a ‘sensible step’, but added: ‘What employers often want when they are recruiting is experience.
‘And I think there is concern in the CBI about whether employers will be able to continue to say that they want someone with particular skills or mature experience without ending up in front of an employment tribunal’.
‘The last thing any of us want is a sensible new law that we welcome in principle leading to an explosion in employment tribunal cases’.
The Liberal Democrats warned that the proposals would leaven many areas in which older people get a raw deal untouched.
Paul Burstow, party spokesperson for older people, said that the proposals were too “limited” to tackle what he insisted to be the widespread problem of age discrimination in the UK.
“Institutional ageism exists in many of our public services such as health care being rationed on age. It also exists in the sale of goods and services such as financial services” he remarked.
“What is required is comprehensive age discrimination legislation that will give people the right to challenge ageism throughout our society.”
And Age Concern warned that the Dti’s plans could actually institutionalise age discrimination.
Spokesperson Michelle Mitchell said that the general drive to clamp down on age discrimination was “a welcome step”.
“Far too often somebody’s birth certificate is an excuse for P45, and our own research tells us that nearly two million people believe that they been discriminated [against] in work.”
But she added that the charity was “pretty concerned” about the idea of introducing a default retirement age of 70.
“If this legislation is really going to change hearts and minds it has to have no age limits on employment because we’re fearful that it will send a confused message to employers and employees and [will] actually institutionalise age discrimination.”
The Conservative Party welcomed today’s consultation document, describing workplace discrimination on the grounds of age as “indefensible”.
“We need a debate involving employers, employees of all ages and their representatives to find the best way of ending this discrimination”, Shadow DTI Secretary Tim Yeo remarked.
The Conservatives say that they “fully support” the Government’s proposal of ending mandatory retirement ages.
The consultation period on the Government’s proposals will run until 20 October.
The EU Employment Directive deadline for full implementation of age-related legislation is by the end of 2006.
However, the Government says that it wishes to have the regulations “in place but not in force” by the end of 2004.
“This will provide all those affected by the legislation ample time to prepare for changes before the legislation comes into force in October 2006”, it states.
