The call for evidence for the long awaited review of the Default Retirement Age (DRA) ends today. What a long and stony road it has been. What facing in two directions has characterised Government policy for the past four years.
On one hand, we have the strategy for an ageing society, emphasising active ageing and stating in terms that “making a contribution to society, in particular through employment,” is a key indicator of independence.
On the other, we have mandatory retirement and the DRA, bundling people out of work just because they reach a certain age. How crazy is that?
TAEN has submitted evidence – two separate documents as a matter of fact.
The more you look at it, the clearer it seems that the DRA was an unnecessary over–reaction to fears expressed largely by the CBI. Most of the advantages they claim for the DRA were hardly realised in practice – see our survey of HR professionals conducted last year with the Employers’ Forum on Age.
The impatience of some ministers is palpable: they really don’t want to be saddled with this legacy in an election. Yet how to hurry up the process?
On 12 January, Harriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equality, pronounced on the matter. “The retirement age is arbitrary, it bears no relation to people’s ability,” she said. “Think of people running their own business - they do not shut up shop suddenly when they reach the age of 65.” Hear hear!
One’s first reaction was that this was a warning flare for something extraordinary about to happen. (A bit like the church bells ringing on Drake’s defeat of the Spanish armada - to tell us to get the street parties organised.)
But not so. Within hours the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills had put out a clarifying email. The DRA was not being repealed. There were no plans to use the Equality Bill to get rid of it. Everything hangs on the evidence-based review.
Little surprise then that last week Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, Leader of the House of Lords, poured cold water on an amendment Lord Lester of Herne Hill tabled to the Equality Bill, calling for the said DRA to be repealed. The thing fizzles out without even being voted on.
I have never, so far as I am aware, met Baroness Royall. I imagine that with a title like Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, she might disport herself in some fancy variation of aristocratic ermine on state occasions.
Knowing nothing of the good lady, I nonetheless venture that she could have been a tad more informed on the issue of the DRA. She explained that, “A default retirement age is very different from a forced retirement age….”
Oh yes? For whom I wonder?
Certainly not for those on the receiving end of dismissal notices on their 65th birthdays.
I found other comments puzzling. For example, she refers to the DRA as “protecting the dignity of workers at the end of their working lives,” and improving participation of workers in the 50-64 age group”.
Hilarious! With a wit like that she should be applying for the role of court jester.
But how in the name of Buddha does firing people because of their ages, protect their dignity? (If I hear that again I will scream!)
And what on earth has mandatory retirement and the DRA got to do with improving the participation rate of workers in the 50-64 age range? It beats me!
In truth, the Age Regulations allow, employers legitimately to discriminate against job applicants above 64½ years old in anticipation of the DRA at 65. So there is no question that the DRA improves participation in the labour market.
But what kind of message does this downwards extension of lawful discrimination send to employers? TAEN’s view is that far from improving participation, age discrimination trickles down and affects people in their early 60s - even younger.
The last word however must go to an exchange between the Baroness and Lord (David) Lee, former Assistant General Secretary of the TUC. Lord Lee asked: “Would my noble friend register the huge dilemma that exists given that an employer can say, ‘Goodbye, this is your retirement day. You are dismissed because you are retired’. This is the first time the employee has heard of it and asks, ‘Who told me I was retired? Who says what the retirement age is? What about collective bargaining?’”
Baroness Royall it seems was stuck for words. “My Lords, I hear what my noble friend has said and the best thing for me to do would be to respond to him in writing.”
A visit to TAEN’s website would have provided the answer, but it seems the Baroness had not troubled herself with such pursuits. Which rather goes to show that there can be nothing quite like a parliamentary debate for showing who hasn’t done their homework.