---

Equality Bill

My Lords, Amendment 33 is in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lady Northover. Amendment 33 would remove the default age of retirement, and employers’ ability to dismiss employees, at the age of 65 or over for no reason other than that they have hit the age of 65 or over. We tabled Amendment 61 after reflecting on the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, when this issue was debated in Committee. If the amendment were accepted, the default retirement age would exist only until the end of 2011, so it would allow a breathing space of approximately 20 months in which to bring this measure into effect. When my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill raised this matter in Committee, he indicated that the amendments were probing, but I think there is a widespread belief that their underlying aim to remove the default retirement age has a lot of substance and merit. In the most recent Equal Opportunities Review, Michael Rubenstein wrote: ""A fixed retirement age is fundamentally discriminatory. It is based on the assumption that age affects someone's ability to do their job. Unlike other protected characteristics, age can be used arbitrarily to fairly dismiss people"." The JCHR, in its report on the Bill, said, ""there are strong arguments to suggest that the current statutory provisions governing the default retirement age unduly restrict the rights of older workers to equal treatment and non-discrimination"." It acknowledged that employers had a legitimate interest in workforce planning, but believed that other methods of workforce planning avoided the age discrimination inherent in a default retirement age. Indeed, one can go back further than the most recent edition of the Equal Opportunities Review and the JCHR’s report to the report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs of this House, which was published in January 2004. Now more than six years ago, that report recommended, ""that the Government should not permit the continued use of a normal retirement age by employers, whether at age 65 or 70 or 75, unless the employer can provide a reasoned and objective justification for the use of age rather than performance criteria in the determination of employability"." That goes to the heart of the matter. Rather than seeing retirement as something arbitrary when one hits a particular age, the employer should look at the criteria for determining when a person’s employment should be terminated. It should be objective rather than simply an arbitrary application of a birthday milestone, albeit that the age of 65 has been recognised as such for a considerable time. People should be treated as individuals, and the employer should look at the merit of what a particular individual can contribute in his or her place of employment. Many might be able to go on for some years beyond the age of 65. If we were to be as arbitrary with some of the other protected characteristics, people would see an obvious unfairness. Perhaps we have become so familiar with the age of 65 as the default retirement age that it is not so immediately recognised as being discriminatory. That is why we wish to terminate the default retirement age, but we have set a timescale in which that can happen. I believe that the Government are ultimately sympathetic to reaching the same destination. Perhaps by tabling these amendments we can hurry them along the way. I beg to move.