Although there are a number of very useful initiatives contained in “Building a society for all ages” there are a number of points that we wish to make regarding the proposals. We do this as consultants, writers and researchers in the field and as active and experienced members of the community that you are trying to serve.

The first is that the issues raised by increasing longevity have either taken everyone by surprise or people have taken a long while to acknowledge the inevitable course that the demographic changes are taking. This applies to individuals, to employers, to government, to health and care services and to the financial world. As such, one of the things that must happen alongside anything else is a serious and concerted attempt to change awareness, culture and attitudes throughout the country – changing the detail is necessary but it all has to be put into an overall context.

Individuals need to understand the implications of their lifestyle choices and carry out serious reality checks of their finances over the whole of their lifespans, employers need to understand both their own and their employees’ needs in respect of the workplace and not be allowed to hide behind repressive legislation, and government must take a longer term, non-partisan and more nationally responsible approach to the issues, both as they affect us now and into the future.

To do this requires through radio, TV, newspapers and magazines, a much broader debate of the issues, the need for people to understand their individual responsibilities and to plan and execute responsible lifestyles over the whole of their lives.

The second point is that this is not an issue that might be termed “pre-retirement”. By the time people reach that stage of their lives it is very often too late to make many of the changes necessary. Health, lifestyle and financial issues must be addressed from a much earlier age and those just starting out must be made well aware that they will be living longer and working longer and that their future well-being financially and health-wise depends on laying down solid foundations early on.

Furthermore the very notion of “retirement” will become much less relevant as people choose or need to make decisions about their future. Transitional working and a gradual shift from work to non-work will become the norm with every person having their own life plan, dependent on such things as choice, finance, ability to work and outside responsibilities. As such the work environment must become more age friendly, both culturally and physically. The government must take it upon itself to provide the legislative framework for such things to happen.

Linked to this we would see the work environment as an ideal place to coach, mentor and generally help people through their knowledge acquisition and work-life planning. Therefore, we do not see the “one-stop shops” envisaged existing solely outside the work environment but that enlightened employers should be encouraged to see this as integral and to the benefit of all concerned. The point must also be made that the idea of providing much of this facility online is premature. Although we are totally in support of online access to all kinds of information and services, and our own operation reflects this, much of the population which is intended to benefit are not at the stage where they have computer access or the knowledge to operate it with confidence and this must be tackled otherwise the efforts will be wasted. The alternatives, telephone and face to face, although providing access to necessary information, result in all of these facilities being responsive only and dependent on individuals recognising that they have the need to act and information gaps. We would argue very strongly that this is an area where people “do not know what they do not know” and a much more positive approach must be taken.

Thirdly, quite rightly the image of ageing needs changing and the stereotypes need banishing. However, “Building a society for all ages” falls into the universal trap which it must address. In the Prime Minister’s Foreword he talks of Henry Allingham at 113 and yet the document starts considering people as “old” (or “older”) from the age of 50. With a life expectancy for many now at 100 or more we are talking about an age span of 50 years, all vaguely lumped together. Would we do this with the first 50 years of life?

Those who are in the 50- to 70-age range (and possibly some years older) do not see themselves as old or elderly or anything like. If they do then they have an outdated misconception that the government must address. People in their fifties and sixties can expect to be fit, healthy, active and at the peak of their powers in many respects (in their prime we would say). They are concerned with finding and maintaining employment, financing themselves and their families, and caring for relatives. Patting oneself on the back for providing free bus passes and free swimming is an irrelevance.

People in this age range are not frail and vulnerable - they are independent, clear thinking and strong. They do not want other people doing things for them or to them. What they really want is the opportunity to be able to do things for themselves – fully informed and without one hand tied behind their back.

Only much later, or sadly through illness, may individuals become dependent on others. Too many organisations fail to make the necessary distinctions – in a youth obsessed world “if you are not young you are seen as old”. The result is the unnecessary throwing of resources, human and financial, at problems that don’t exist while not attending properly to the ones that do

The key to success in the employment field, and by extension to many other areas, is the “buy-in” of employers, in particular large employers. Until the hearts and minds of employers have been won over and they have been convinced of the solid business case for employing older workers all other initiatives will flounder. Legislation, however, punitive will be circumvented. Asking bodies such as Learning and Skills Councils, Regional Development Agencies and Jobcentres to equip individuals for non-existent jobs or jobs for which they will be systematically overlooked is demoralising for all concerned. What is required is deep and sustained cultural and attitudinal change by employers in the world of work so that both those already in work, together with those seeking work, see an environment in which their talents can be recognised and their aspirations met.

The government can and must provide a framework, and enabling legislation, but the real turning point will be when employers understand the value of older workers and start to take age management and age diversity seriously. Obviously, individuals must also make adjustments themselves to prove that they are capable, flexible and not stuck in their ways but, on their own they are powerless. There are some environments already surfacing where skills shortages and the retirement of key staff are causing whole industry sectors to review their attitudes towards older employees but this is patchy and will only change things very slowly.

If the government is going to raise the state pension age, which any government must do in due course, then opportunities for continued work are essential to support financial well-being and preserve the physical and mental health of the populace. And unless there is going to be a time interval between forced retirement and receipt of state benefits then the default retirement age must either be abolished or raised significantly upwards. However, while moving the default retirement age is necessary it is not sufficient, as evidenced in the USA where age discrimination still exists but is very difficult to prove in a court of law.

Much more positive incentives must be provided to employers either directly, or through training for employees, or to or for older employees who are retained and/or recruited. Some of these will undoubtedly have to be of a financial nature. However, as both employers and employees must be willing participants, and see the benefits, this should be carried out in partnership and in full consultation. At the moment the government is doing nothing pro-active in this direction and is, in fact, sending out mixed messages to all sides.

One might be tempted to look at what we have written and say it has all been covered, and to quite an extent it has – but only in vague terms, providing a certain number of facilities some useful, some less so. However, this is such a major cultural and attitudinal shift that more significant and pro-active interventions are required than are envisaged. Many of the suggested actions or agencies have been in place for some time now with little real impact. More of the same will not move things forward very much.