Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform written question – answered at on 12 February 2009.
To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform if he will bring forward proposals to (a) prohibit employers from operating a mandatory requirement age and (b) remove the national default retirement age provided for in the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
The UK does not have a national mandatory retirement age. Employers do not have to retire employees once they reach 65. They are free to continue to employ them as long as they like, and employees are entitled to request to continue working beyond 65. The default retirement age allows employers to use retirement at 65 as a tool for workforce planning. If an employer wishes to operate a normal retirement age that is lower than 65 they must objectively justify it.
We are monitoring the legislation as we said we would when it was introduced. We will take due account of all the up to date information available in ensuring we arrive at an appropriate outcome in our review planned for 2011.
Yes0 people think so
No1 person thinks not
Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.
Annotations
Joyce Glasser
Posted on 27 Feb 2009 1:19 pm (Report this annotation)
Mr McFadden has not answered Ms McCarthy's very timely and important question. He should be asked to answer it.
To add insult to injury he states that (quote)The UK does not have a national mandatory retirement age (end quote). That is incorrect, or it is hair splitting. The National Default Retirement Age is part of the Employment Equality Age Regulations 2006 and is responsible for thousands of fit and capable employees being made redundant legally since October 2006.
Mr McFadden appears to believe that the word mandatory applies to the employer, as he says that: (quote:) the employers do not have to retire employees once they reach 65. (end quote). The word mandatory obviously applies to the employee as the whole point of the legislation -- which is discrimination legislation -- is to help overcome age discrimination in employment for the benefit of older (or younger) employees.
The point is surely that if and when the employer does decide to get rid of someone just because he or she turns 65, the employee must retire. It is mandatory for the employee, and the employee has no recourse in law against the employer as long as the employer follows the simple statutory procedure. The employer does not even have to tell the employee the reasons he or she is being let go: it is sufficient to say 'retirement', even though the employee might not be ready or financially able to retire.
There is clearly something wrong when the Minister of State at BERR does not understand the legislation or when he attempts to misrepresent it in the face of an MP's question.
Moreover, it is obvious from the question that Ms McCarthy knew about the 2011 review date because her question asked about the possibility of it being brought forward. Mr. McFadden does not address that at all. He merely repeats what all staff at BERR repeat whenever asked about the review, that it will take place in 2011. This is no way to answer an question -- telling the MP what she clearly already knows and evading the rest.
The point of Ms McCarthy's question is relevant and even urgent because in the current climate, many people approaching 65, who are not failed bankers living on pensions of £12,000 a week, need to work to pay the bills and put food on the table. Thousands of people over 65 are still working, and they do so without the protection of the law because of the national default retirement age. But because of the default retirement age, thousands more cannot find work and indeed, part of the legislation allows employers to ignore all applications from job seekers who are over 64.5.