Ministers seek evidence on default retirement age
Share
Ministers are calling for businesses and individuals to submit evidence on the default retirement age to feed into the review taking place next year.
The Government is seeking evidence on:
- The operation of the default retirement age in practice
- The reasons that businesses use mandatory retirement ages
- The impacts on businesses, individuals and the economy of raising or removing the default retirement age
- The experience of businesses operating without a default retirement age
- How could any costs of raising or removing the DRA be mitigated and benefits realised.
Business minister Pat McFadden and minister for pensions and the ageing society Angela Eagle today issued a joint statement calling for evidence on retirement ages to be submitted by February 1, 2010.
Eagle says: “As people live and work for longer, it is sensible that we have the debate on what works for business and individuals. The laws around employment and retirement need to reflect changes in economic and social circumstances.
“That is why earlier this year we announced we were bringing the review of the default retirement age forward to 2010. Today we are asking for evidence to be submitted by February 1 to allow that to happen.”
Business minister Pat McFadden adds: “The default retirement age is a subject that employees, the business community, trade unions and charities all have a strong interest in.
“We want to receive information from all of these parties as it is important that our review is based on robust, detailed and wide-ranging evidence.”
Submissions are requested by February 1 2010 and should be emailed to draevidence@bis.gov.uk or posted to DRA Evidence, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, V497, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (5)
Ken Turner | 28 Oct 2009 1:28 pm
There is no alternative to increase the age at which state pensions are paid as we as a nation are not prepared to pay the actual costs required to fund a suitable scheme. But why tie pension age and retirement age at all; if individuals wish to continue working simply remove the retirement age altogether and let people retire when they want to with a default age at which the state pension is payable.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Brown, Managing Director, Moneynotion Limi | 29 Oct 2009 10:22 am
Why does there have to be a default retirement age at all? What is right for one is unsuitable for another. Why not have the choice of retirement ages, with the assumption that one hasn't retired until one declares that intention, with a plausible increasing level of benefit the longer one leaves it.
Governments of all parties have had over 60 years' notice of the coming retirement boom, as a result of the post WWII baby boom and have shown an astonishing dereliction of duty to the responsibilities that has put upon them.
Why are we paying benefits to middle class families, and people who have yet to contribute to our society, when the basic retirement pension is so disgustingly poor?
The whole system needs a shake up. The retired don't want condescending hand-outs like bus passes, Winter fuel allowances et al. Give them a decent pension (save the administrative costs of all the various other hand outs) and let them have autonomy on what they spend.
A measure of civilisation is how it looks after its old. As a nation we don't...
(Grumpy old git rant over...)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Frances Holt | 1 Nov 2009 9:52 am
I think people should be able to retire at what age they want as long as they are fit to do the job. I am still working at 67yrs but my husband was made to retire at 65yrs but did not want to.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
MRS JILL AINSWORTH NEWLAND | 1 Nov 2009 4:30 pm
I feel that ive worked since the age of fifteen ,ive given a lot of my wage to the goverment and if i wont to carry on working i should if im fit and able to .The goverment should bear this in mind ,we must remember that our mothers and farthers worked hard after the second world war as so we could have a better future and be prosperous and so we should,so were has the money gone over the years .If you were in business you hold on to the money for retirement so again were has it all gone and we should be getting more after all those years of working hard .We are a so called a well country come on goverment hand it out you seem to find money for other things you must look after your own first in this our england we have been keeping this country afloat and doing our thing
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
bernard | 4 Nov 2009 1:52 pm
Who or what decides why we have to retire at 65?If one is fit and able to work they should be encouraged to do so.After working for 50 years
contributing to a system that one has little control over eg;tax ,N.I.etc your choice is removed in one foul swoop.Employment is not just about work, but all the life skills that you acquire during those years.The whole sys tem needs to change,benefits,should only be paid to those who have contributed or genuine cases
eg,disabled.How much does an individual contribute over a working life and retire on such a poor state pension?Hard work deserves good rewards,retired people are only asking for theirs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment