Centre for Ageing Better - Written Evidence (RAP0013)

About the Centre for Ageing Better

We live in an ageing society, but there is still significant unfairness in how people experience later life. In less than 20 years, one in four people in England will be over 65, and the 2021 Census showed that the fastest growing age group is those aged 80 and over.

The Centre for Ageing Better works to ensure that our homes, workplaces and communities support us all as we age, and to challenge negative attitudes so that nobody is held back by ageism. We are a charitable foundation, part of the UK government’s What Works Network, funded by The National Lottery Community Fund.

Why we are responding to the call for evidence

1. We are submitting evidence to highlight the risks of introducing a mandatory retirement age in the House of Lords. In reviewing the potential unintended consequences of reform, the Committee should also take into account the wider message such a change would send. While we do not wish to comment on the House’s internal procedures, a fixed retirement age would reinforce ageist assumptions about the link between age, capability and contribution.
2. This matters because workplace ageism is still widespread and normalised. Our recent polling found that around half of UK adults believe job applicants are seen as undesirable by employers once they reach their mid-50s[1]. We have extensive research and practical experience on the harms of ageism, which we believe should inform the Committee’s inquiry.

A mandatory retirement age could reinforce ageist assumptions

3. The statutory Default Retirement Age was rightfully abolished in 2011 because of its incompatibility with principles of age equality. Forcing people to retire at 65 is now widely seen as unjustified and economically counterproductive.
4. Our analysis shows workers who remain in employment beyond state pension age contribute more than £60billion to the UK economy each year, in addition to billions of pounds in volunteering and informal care[2]. Despite this, ageism remains widespread. Our polling last year found that one in four people think it does not make business sense to employ someone over 50 because they will be a slow worker who will not be able to adapt[3]. At the same time, more than a third of people aged 50 and over say they feel at a disadvantage when applying for jobs because of their age.
5. Ageism is deeply embedded within society and reinforced by cultural norms and narratives, including those reflected in the media and public discourse, which perpetuate age-based stereotypes and assumptions. In this context, we are concerned about the message that reintroducing a mandatory retirement age could send.
6. Although often dismissed as harmless, ageism has serious and far-reaching consequences for individuals, society, and the economy[4]. For individuals, it harms mental and physical health, employment prospects, and financial wellbeing. At a societal level, ageism contributes to skills and labour shortages, reduces productivity and innovation, raises long-term health and social care costs, and leads to missed business opportunities. It also harms social cohesion, creating intergenerational divides and depriving both younger and older people of knowledge, experience, and social connections that support wellbeing and economic growth.

Chronological age is a poor proxy for capability or contribution

7. Chronological age alone is a poor measure of capability or contribution, especially as people are living longer and spending more years in good health. The IMF recently observed that 70 may be 'the new 50': a 70-year-old today has cognitive abilities comparable to those of a 53-year-old in 2000[5]. There is no clear scientific consensus that age 80 marks a specific ‘threshold’ at which general cognitive capacity suddenly declines. Instead, research in normal ageing shows that cognitive changes occur gradually across the adult lifespan, with different abilities changing at different rates, and with wide individual variation.
8. If the aim is to ensure turnover and renewal, fixed terms would be a more effective way to achieve this and would not rely on age. Fixed terms would result in greater diversity of many characteristics, including age. If the concern is effectiveness, it would make more sense to focus on levels of participation and contribution.

Received 3 March 2026