The government's call for evidence on the future of the default retirement age (DRA) ahead of its review next year is an opportunity for HR to make its voice heard and influence future policy.
Over the next three months ministers want employers and business groups to submit evidence on, among other things, the operation of the DRA in practice and - more importantly - the experiences of organisations that have ditched a fixed retirement age.
This is a chance for HR teams at many top employers that have gone down this route to highlight the real benefits that ditching it can bring to a business. The CIPD must also come out strongly in favour of ditching the DRA.
When the government introduced a DRA of 65 as part of the 2006 age regulations its argument was that it did so on the basis of evidence which showed that it was necessary. It's important that the decision made next year is again made on robust evidence and not in anyway influenced by politics ahead of the general election.
As far as it's obvious, three options on the DRA lay open to the government: scrap it; keep it; or extend it. The judge in the Heyday case made clear that a DRA of 65 would probably not stand up legally now. Some have argued that it could be extended to age 70.
But what would be the point of that? Let's just do away with this arbitrary and archaic limit which allows the enforced retirement of people simply because of their age.
