I’m sure you are aware that it is a fact that someone born this year can expect to live around 30 years longer than someone born a century ago.

This rise in life expectancy is one of the great achievements of the modern world.

But as you will all be aware, for too many people, extra years later in life are not bringing the new challenges and opportunities they should.

While people are living longer they are stopping work earlier. As a result one in three people between 50 and State Pension Age is not in work.

We know that many people leaving work early are not doing so voluntarily; many are not well off; many feel dislocated and excluded. Not only are we wasting the resource older people represent but there will be huge social and economic costs if present trends go unchecked.

Good employers already know that they need to use the qualifications and skills of all sections of their workforce. I want to ensure that this message gets through to all employers.

Age discrimination – at whatever point of employment or training - can have a devastating impact on the lives of individuals.

It leads to assumptions that create and perpetuate inappropriate recruitment, selection, training, promotion and retirement practices.

Assumptions are likely to arise from common misconceptions about older workers such as - slow to learn new skills, being inflexible and clinging to outmoded work practices.

These assumptions lead to :

• 1 in 10 of those aged 45 – 54 believing they have been rejected for a job they applied for in the last 12 months because the recruiter considered them to be too old;

• 1 in 8 workers being discouraged from applying for a job in the last year because the recruitment advertisement contained either an age limit or age range, or implied that the applicant needed to be a certain age by using wording such as "young";

• and that nearly 25% of workers agreeing that employers are not interested in employing or promoting people over the age of 40.

(taken from CIPD Age Discrimination at Work – Survey Report – February 2001)

It is clear , therefore, that if we want to combat age discrimination in employment and training we will need to change culture, promote good practice and implement sensible legislation.

In the last Parliament we introduced a non-statutory Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment to see how far a voluntary approach would take us.

The voluntary code was useful in promoting good practice and encouraging employers to recognise and consider the advantages of an age diverse workforce and to reflect this in their work practices.

An example of such an employer is Asda, who actively encourage the recruitment of older workers and store personnel managers to make use of initiatives such as New Deal 50 Plus.

However, whilst a code of practice promotes age diversity, we have now decided it is not enough on its own.

It was for all these reasons that we, together with European member states, decided to establish a common framework for protection against discrimination at work under Article 13.

And that is why in consultation with employers, individuals, trade unions and the voluntary sector we want to move forward with implementing the Directive.

When developing legislation, we also want to increase promotional activities to help change attitudes and misconceptions on age in the workplace and to challenge the unthinking prejudice that blights lives and is so costly to our economy.

I am sure you will be aware, that we will be issuing a consultation paper at the end of this year to establish the best way of putting this into practice.

This consultation will be about modern employment. It will be about the rights and the responsibilities of individuals and employers, and the benefits which are derived from good employment practices for individual employees and for employers.

It is important that we can make sure that everyone can recognise that a diverse workforce can give them a competitive edge in meeting the demands of a broad customer base.

I believe that it is essential for individuals and for employers to understand the combined effect of our proposals.

As you will know legislation on age is entirely new to the UK. Whilst implementing this sounds attractive to all of us and is right and proper, it is not straight forward, particularly because of the complexity of age discrimination issues. Many of you here today will be aware of this.

Implementing this framework to the deadline of 2006 is, therefore, a significant undertaking. And it is for this reason that we are committed to an open and full consultation.

So how do we achieve this?

We want to allow time for individuals and employers to consider proposals and offer their views at each stage of the legislative process.

That is why we will have a first consultation in December concentrating on the key issues and inviting views.

I want to stress to you how important a part this plays in the process leading up to the implementation of legislation in 2006. And it is essential that everyone here does make their views known.

A set of proposals will be developed followed by a second consultation in the second half of 2002, with a view to implementing this before the end of 2006.

What have we been doing so far?

We have been working with Third Age Employment Network and other organisations through the Age Advisory Group, on identifying and discussing some key areas and trying to ensure we develop effective and sensible legislation.

So what are these key areas? I want to raise some questions here for you to start thinking about.

A key question is what we should designate as acceptable in the treatment of older and younger workers, and what should be designated as unacceptable and, therefore, unlawful.

For example, it seems to me that some differences of treatment on age grounds are justifiable. To take one instance - special training schemes under the New Deal for younger or older workers.

Another key area is around health and safety. Again there are a number of issues here that we need to think about.

Age can lead to assumptions about an individual’s health and ability to carry out properly all the duties of certain jobs.

Age as an health and safety issue is clearly more of a concern in some jobs than others such as in the fire service, police force, and deep sea divers.

In many such physically demanding jobs there is a system of assessment – often medical – designed to ensure the continued safety of the worker and/ or the people she or he is serving.

Where jobs are physically demanding, employers may be concerned about the ability of older workers to continue without jeopardising their safety or the safety of the people they are serving.

The issue of retirement is complex, particularly relating to a mandatory age for retirement.

Let us consider what is happening in other countries and what works elsewhere.

The Republic of Ireland and Canada do have a retirement age set at 65. But Australia and America do not. The different experiences of countries show that there is clearly not one best approach to simply follow.

But in the UK, with the absence of a national retirement age, many sectors have established their own individual mandatory retirement ages – typically 60 or 65.

So what are the questions we need to be thinking about?

For example, in the absence of a retirement age will there be an increased pressure to apply competency procedures for older workers?

Should an earlier retirement age apply to some sectors and not others?

I want to know your thoughts on all these questions during the consultation process.

Another area that needs careful consideration is how we set up arrangements to help employees defend their rights.

The Directive - which also requires us to combat discrimination in employment and training on the grounds of sexual orientation and religion - is silent on the issue of bodies such as commissions.

But will be looking at protecting the rights of the individual. And we do think it important that individuals should have easy access to practical advice and support if they believe they are the subject of age discrimination.

Our decision on how we proceed must be about how to secure appropriate and effective support for the attack on discrimination. And not just on age, but on all the grounds in the Directive, which includes sexual orientation and religion. I also want to move forward in a way that encourages positive engagement and good co-ordination.

But what is the best way to do this?

Is it to set up three brand new commissions?

Is it to add functions to existing commissions?

Is it to look at the key functions of such a body and allocate them elsewhere?

Or should we be aiming in the medium to long term for one single commission?

These all need careful exploration to ensure we take the right approach for the Directive as a whole, and this would include ensuring we have constructive dialogue with existing commissions who have a wealth of experience to draw on..

But what about the broader picture?

I know that legislation alone will not eradicate age discrimination in the workplace and in training.

It is essential we encourage and promote a culture change which needs to happen in tandem with developing the legislation.

It is a fact that a significant proportion of over 50s have fewer qualifications than their younger counterparts. That often means that employers are concerned about investing in developing and training older workers – whose working lives might be thought to be limited.

I want to make it clear to employers and recruiters that there are considerable benefits in recruiting and developing older workers such as: creating balance and continuity in the workforce; having a more representative workforce profile; having a stronger skills base and levels of experience; and increasing stability and commitment.

We have seen examples of good practice, where employers have most certainly put age diversity on their agenda - Nationwide and Sainsbury’s to name but two - and who I am pleased to see are members of Third Age Employment Network.

I am encouraged by this and hope we can build on it and raise awareness of the value of an age diverse workforce.

I realise that the final implementation date of 2006 for age legislation might appear to be a long way off. And I understand that you may be wondering why wait until the 2006 deadline.

This is ground breaking legislation and we need to get it right. We can only do this by ensuring we allow enough time.

There is a great deal to do in terms of consulting, preparing legislation, and providing practical support and guidance. In reality 2006 is a demanding target, but I want to assure you that there will be no "delay".

I have touched on a few of the issues that need to be addressed to help us develop age legislation. I hope this has given you food for thought and I am interested in your views.

I very much look forward to working with you in the future and hearing the results of today’s discussions.