Employment law expert slams Hewitt for shameful surrender on retirement age

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Patricia Hewitt, will be remembered as someone who ësold out the rights of older workersí, concludes Michael Rubenstein in an article in Januaryís issue of EOR (Equal Opportunities Review), published by LexisNexis Butterworths. The report is published today (12 January 2005). He is fiercely critical of government plans to create a national default retirement age of 65, with the implementation of age discrimination legislation in 2006.

Rubenstein argues that a mandatory retirement age is incompatible with effective age discrimination legislation.

With Hewittís announcement that the forthcoming age discrimination legislation will provide for a national default retirement age of 65, the governmentís position is now clear. This controversial decision is at odds with current anti-discrimination legislation affecting UK workers, according to Michael Rubenstein.

The author warns that unless the UK can fall within the terms of the Framework Employment Directive, the government will find it hard to justify its blanket exclusion of mandatory retirement from the scope of age discrimination legislation.

The article highlights the complexity of the many issues to be resolved, such as:

* íIf employees over 65 are excluded from the right to complain about age discrimination in dismissal, will they also be barred from claiming that they have been discriminated against on grounds of age if they are turned down for a job for which they apply?í

EOR co-editor, Michael Rubenstein said:

íMandatory retirement is age discrimination personified. What could be more arbitrary than forcing an employee out of their job because they have reached an arbitrary birthday, regardless of their competence, regardless of their circumstances, regardless of whether the employer has any justification? How is to possible to reconcile forced retirement with the opportunity society promised by the Prime Minister at the 2004 Labour Party Conference, a society where nothing in your background, whether youíre black or white, a man or a woman, able-bodied or disabled stands in the way of what your merit and hard work can achieve? Except your age, it seems.

íIt is the failure to recognise this in any way, shape or form that makes Patricia Hewittís decision to impose a default mandatory retirement age so shocking to those who care about equal opportunities.í

The way in which the decision to permit mandatory retirement was arrived at raises serious questions about the role of government departments. The DTI caved in to CBI demands which, says Michael Rubenstein, is hardly surprising. íThe DTI proudly boasts that it is the voice for business success in government. Acting as the mouthpiece for business is a valuable function, but it is open to serious question whether the same government department should have the lead responsibility for implementing legislation conferring rights on workers. When push came to shove, the DTI, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, did what the employers wanted. We should not be surprised, but the lesson should be learnedí.

The full article is printed in EOR (Equal Opportunities Review), which is published by LexisNexis Butterworths. Available on subscription, EOR is the only source of information, which brings together law and practice on all strands of discrimination. It provides independent and authoritative explanation and analysis of trends and developments in equal opportunities and diversity.

An annual subscription includes 12 issues of the journal and unlimited access to a fully searchable online service. It is currently available for 338 VAT UK / 382 VAT Overseas per annum. Charity and individual rates are available on request. Please contact customer services on 020 8662 2000 or log on to www.lexisnexis.co.uk/EOR for more information.