The government's chief independent advisory body on pensions has entered the debate over compulsory retirement ages, saying there should either not be one at all or, if one is set, it should be significantly higher than 65.

Government Response: Department for Work and Pensions

A spokesman for the DWP said: "In terms of state pension the government has no plans to raise the age at which people receive this. But in the work place the DWP wants to give people the choice to continue to work should they wish to do so and the option to defer collection of their state pension. We are aware that people are living longer and not saving enough. Currently three million people are under saving for their retirement or they are planning on retireing too soon. In addition to this a further five to 10 million people may want to consider saving more,  working longer or a combination of both depending on their expectations for retirement."

Party Response: Liberal Democrat

Steve Webb MP, Liberal Democrat work and pensions secretary, said: “These plans must not be used by companies as a back-door way of filling holes in their pension schemes.  Flexibility is the key to managing retirement and workers should have the opportunity to carry on working after they reach 65 if they want to.

“Moves to end age discrimination are a good thing and long overdue.  It is outrageous that for years older workers have been discriminated against purely because of their age.”

Forum Response: Association of Retired and Persons Over 50

Don Steele, director of social policy for the Association, said: "There must be only one
criterion for employment and that is competence. Employers have nothing to
fear if they adhere to this principle.  The imposition of a default cut off point - at whatever age, must be seen as discriminatory. The idea that 70 is 'better than 65 must also be questioned. This would, in the political mind, soon become the 'natural' age for retirement and it would only be a matter of time for it to be seen as the appropriate age for the State pension to be
paid. When the government is placing such emphasis upon the importance of choice in other areas of social policy it would be seen as hypocritical to take it away in relation to employment and with a Commission for Equality and Human Rights on the horizon it would be ironic to deny a growing section
of the population the most basic of human rights - the right to work."

Forum Response: Institute of Directors

Richard Wilson, head of business policy, said:  "The abolition of a mandatory retirement age would send a powerful signal
that provided that people are capable of discharging their responsibilities effectively, they should not be obliged to retire. In short, it gives a message that discrimination against older people is no longer an option.
Significantly, a survey of IoD members in May 2003 showed that 68 per cent thought
that employers should only be able to force an employer to retire if the employee was no longer capable of doing the job (although there was also considerable support for the establishment of a default retirement age).

"In most cases employers and employees would probably be able to reach an agreement on when employees should retire. Although the abolition of a mandatory retirement age would theoretically enhance an individual's opportunity to carry on working as long as he/she were competent to do so, most people will probably still want to retire at the earliest possible opportunity, provided that they are financially able to do so."

Forum Response: Occupational Pension Regulatory Authority

A spokesman for OPRA said: "Introducing a more flexible retirement age is one way of addressing the greatest challenge facing occupational pension provision today - the challenge of funding in a world where life expectancy continues to increase at a significant pace.  When occupational pension scheme provision grew after the Second World War, life expectancy was much lower than it is today and pension schemes were never expected to provide for the extended periods of retirement that many scheme members now enjoy. This issue combined with the recent bear market and the introduction over the years of statutory improvements to members' benefits has led many employers to reduce their commitment to pensions provision.