65 AND OVER.. Charities lose retirement fight.

Byline: TOM PARRY

A BATTLE to scrap compulsory retirement at 65 was rejected in the High Court yesterday.

Campaigners had claimed the default retirement age breaks age-discrimination rules.

But Mr Justice Blake dismissed their challenge - though he said there was a "compelling" case for increasing working years.

And he stressed he might not have made the ruling had the Government not brought forward a review of the law to next year instead of 2011.

Age Concern and Help the Aged - now merged as Age UK - said the ruling was a blow for older people who need to work longer in the face of recession and a drop in returns on savings and investments.

It challenged MPs to demonstrate their support for older workers by acting urgently to overturn the "outdated" legislation.

Andrew Harrop of Age UK said after the hearing: "In his ruling the judge makes it clear that forced retirement at 65 is unsustainable."

Mr Justice Blake said in the High Court that due to current economic circumstances and an increased elderly population, "the case for advancing the default retirement age beyond minimum age of 65 at least would seem to be compelling".

He said a higher working age would not have a negative impact on the labour market or block access to high-level jobs for younger people.

"If the selection of age 65 is not necessary it cannot therefore be justified," he said.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission called on the Government to scrap forced retirement using the Equality Bill, soon to be debated in the House of Lords, rather than wait until next year's review.

But CBI deputy director-general John Cridland welcomed yesterday's ruling.

"Defeat for the Government today would have created an unworkable situation that would have fuelled litigation," he said.

Voice of the Mirror: Page 8

CAPTION(S):

BATTLE Forced out