Morning:
8°c
The High Court today upheld the law that allows employers to force workers to retire at 65.
Charities for the elderly failed to get the court to agree that compulsory retirement at that age breached human rights.
However, the judge ruling on the case said there was no reason why the retirement age could not rise.
The law says a British employer can dismiss a member of staff without redundancy payments on their 65th birthday.
Employees have the right to request working beyond retirement age but although employers have a duty to consider these requests they need offer no justification for refusal.
Age Concern and Help the Aged, which recently merged as Age UK, took the Government to a judicial review, arguing that the Default Retirement Age introduced in 2006 was unlawful because it did not comply with an EU directive against age discrimination.
But the Government argued that the employment equality EU directive permitted member states to allow differences in treatment on the grounds of age if they were objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim.
However, it agreed to a review next year and Mr Justice Blake said in his ruling: “I cannot presently see how 65 could remain as a Default Retirement Age after the review.”
Age UK said the High Court ruling was a blow for older people who needed to work longer to secure a decent retirement in the face of recession and a drop in returns on savings and investments.
Following the ruling, it challenged MPs to demonstrate their support for older workers by acting urgently to overturn the “outdated” legislation. Andrew Harrop, the charity's head of public policy, said: “Despite the judgment today, ministers still have the opportunity this side of a crucial general election to give real help to people in their sixties by outlawing forced retirement.
“They should amend the Equality Bill which is making its way through Parliament.”
Mr Justice Blake said the Government's initiatives over removing the compulsory retirement age in the civil service pointed to the kind of good practice many have recommended, and the Government's own case accepted that it was desirable.
The charity's judicial review came amid growing concern about the ability of people to retire on adequate pensions.
A recent study found that one in 10 people aged over 65 was still working, with half claiming they could not afford to retire.
Reader views (3)
I think that people should be allowed to work after 65 if they want too, 65 is not old and many people are still able and willing to carry on working past 65. I am 62 but am now retired which I really enjoy as I am able to take part in my interests etc which I had little time for when working full time in the past. When I was 40 I applied for a job in a well known supermarket filling shelves, but I was told by the manager that their ruling at the time was not to take employ people over 40 which I thought was laughable were people of this age group past their sell by date I remarked to him. In recent years older people have found jobs in many DIY stores etc. I think Britain has become an ageist society, many older people have so much to give including knowledge and experience so let them carry on working if they choose to, I prefer not to work anymore I am enjoying my welcome break form work now.
- Carole Heath, Wallington Surrey, 28/09/2009 00:08
Report abuse
Hello London,
I have 12 years to go before I'm 65 and I can't wait to retire.
God willing, who the hell wants to carry on working give the next generation a chance, from 15 to 65 have'nt people done there bit 50 years, god knows how many hours?.
- John L., Scarborough N.YKS. England. U.K., 25/09/2009 15:55
Report abuse
People who are ageist are only committing their children to an early grave. Stupid really.
- Steve, Brentford, 25/09/2009 14:23
Report abuse
