Select Committee on Education and Employment Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum from Employers Forum on Age (EFA)


  Key Messages

  Introduction to the Employers Forum on Age

  The Inquiry and Methodology

  Employers Forum on Age—Evidence

    A.  In what ways and to what extent are older workers treated less favourably than younger workers as a result of their age?

    B.  What benefits does promoting age diversity in the workplace offer to employers and employees?

    C.  In what circumstances (if any) is the use of age as a criterion for the recruitment and retention of employees justified?

    D.  How effective is the government's code of practice in promoting age diversity in the workplace?

    E.  In what ways do other government policies such as the New Deal help or hinder older workers, especially unemployed job seekers?

    F.  Is there a case for anti-discrimination legislation, and if so, what provisions should it include?





  The Employers Forum on Age would like the Select Committee to take the following key messages out of this report.

  1.  Only the business case for age diversity will convince employers to address age discrimination in employment.

  2.  Individuals and employers have equal responsibility for neutralising age in employment.

  3.  Government must translate its commitment to age diversity from words into action.


  The Employers Forum on Age (EFA), launched in 1996, is the leading authority on age issues in the workplace and offers expert advice and support to employers on managing the skills and age mix of their organisations.

  The EGA is an employer-led organisation and currently has 170 employer members, representing 10 per cent of the UK workforce. Membership includes both major UK private sector companies and public sector bodies and has continued to grow year on year since the group's formation.

  Growing membership clearly demonstrates increasing employer interest and commitment to age issues.

    (i)  How the Employers Forum on Age Works

    (ii)  Why the Employers Forum on Age was formed

    (iii)  The Employers Forum on Age—Activities

    (iv)  Why the EFA is well placed to submit evidence to this Inquiry

(i)  How the Employers Forum on Age Works

  The Employers Forum on Age works to:

    —  Support member organisations in managing skills and age mix of their workforces to obtain maximum business benefit.

    —  Remove barriers to achieving an age balanced workforce by influencing key decision makers notably in Government, education, training, recruitment and the Trade Union movement.

    —  Inform all employers of the benefits of a mixed age workforce.

(ii)  Why the Employers Forum on Age was formed

  The Employers Forum on Age was formed by employers who recognised the business need for an age diverse workforce within their own organisations by the mid 1990's. Some were experiencing problems caused by the loss of experienced older workers following the widespread downsizing and redundancy policies of the 1980's and early 1990's, others were experiencing problems in attracting younger workers.

  These employers recognised critical age issues within their own organisations and were keen to learn from others. In exchange, they were prepared to share their own experiences and solutions. The EFA provides a forum for this.

  As employers have developed, promoted and started to benefit from age diversity policies significant barriers have become apparent. They include issues such as inappropriate rules and regulations on pensions and benefits, cultural stereotyping and discriminatory employment practices and policies—all of which fail to recognise the demands of the 21st Century workplace.

  These factors lead to unnecessary discrimination on the basis of age.

  Within the EFA member employers set the agenda. They identify issues which prevent age diversity and areas of potential age discrimination which need to be addressed.

  Employers have charged the EFA with identifying issues and campaigning to address barriers to age diversity by working closely with Government, with other employers and by promoting public debate on age in employment issues.

  This task has been significantly assisted by:

    —  The Business Benefits (quantifiable and otherwise) of age diversity experienced by employer members.

    —  Recognition of the current skills gap many UK companies are experiencing.

    —  Wider recognition of the implications of an ageing population on the labour market, individuals and the economy.

    —  Increasing recognition of discrimination on the basis of "age" as inappropriate and morally wrong.

    —  The introduction of the Code of Practice in Diversity in 1999.

    —  The forthcoming introduction of Age Discrimination Legislation by 2006.

(iii)  The Employers Forum on Age—Activities

  The EFA runs seminars, conferences and workshops. The year on year growth in popularity of these events demonstrates the increasing recognition by employers that age issues need to be addressed.

  There has been a significant growth in demand for these courses following the acceptance of the Article 13 EU Employment directive which has paved the way for legislation by 2006.

  We regularly publish expert reports and survey findings on age and employment issues and employer awareness and attitudes.

  We also made presentations to Government foreign delegations and public and private sector bodies.

  Our political and media campaigns generate comprehensive coverage in national press and broadcast media. The amount of unsolicited press coverage continues to increase, with enquiries to our press office in the period 1999-2000 increasing from 140 to 400. This demonstrates the increasing level of interest in age discrimination and diversity issues over time.

  We regularly provide spokespeople and case studies to the media throughout the year.

  The EFA was closely involved in working with DfEE on developing the Voluntary Code of Practice on Age Diversity.

  The EFA also contribute case studies and advice on best practice to Government.

(iv)  Why the EFA is well placed to submit evidence to this Inquiry

  The EFA are well placed to submit evidence to this inquiry on the basis of:

    —  The combined experiences of 170 employers (see appended membership list) working to address age discrimination and promote age diversity.

    —  The extensive research we have conducted into age and employment issues.


  Members of the Employers Forum on Age welcome the Employment Sub-Committee's Inquiry into Age Discrimination in Employment and the interest parliamentarians are now taking in this important issue.

  Members hope that this inquiry will succeed in:

    —  addressing age discrimination right across the age spectrum—recognising that it can occur to anybody, at any age and at any stage of their career;

    —  raising the profile of the business benefits of age diversity;

    —  ensuring age discrimination is recognised on a equal basis with gender, race and disability discrimination;

    —  encouraging Government to swiftly implement policies to facilitate age diversity;

    —  raising the profile of the Code of Practice for Age Diversity in Employment; and

    —  creating further debate among other employers, the media and the public.

  In submitting evidence we have drawn on much of the research carried out by and for the Employers Forum on Age in the last few years, including:

    —  research reports

      —  The Glass Precipice, employability for a mixed age workforce (1999). This report highlights the necessity of making training and development opportunities open to people throughout their working and non-working lives

      —  A Profits Warning, the macroeconomic costs of ageism (1998). An important report which calculated that the true cost of ageism among older workers is £26 billion a year.

      —  Managing the Size and Balance of your workforce (1997). This work investigates the way in which age need not be the main criterion for redundancies

      —  The Modernisation of Retirement (1997) and Flexible Retirement (2000). These reports call for a change to Inland Revenue rules which prevent people from working more flexibly towards the end of their working lives, and provide employers with solutions.

      —  Getting the Balance Right in Recruitment (1997) This report explores ways in which employers can achieve and benefit from age diverse workforces.

      —  Towards a balanced workforce (1997). A nation-wide investigation into the issue of Ageism in the workplace.

    —  member surveys

      —  Membership survey (1998)

      —  Membership survey (2000)

    —  targeted opinion, sectoral and geographical and surveys

      —  Employer Awareness of the Code of Practice for Age Diversity in Employment (1999)

      —  Survey of Employers in the West Midlands (2000)

      —  Releasing Potential—a survey of young people (2000)

      —  Ageism in the IT sector (2000)

      —  Typewriters to Teamworking—secretaries and ageism (1999)

      —  IRS survey of Employers Awareness of Age Diversity

    —  interviews and conversations with member employers and others

      —  EFA Workshops, Seminars and consultations

      —  EFA/ACT Age Diversity training for SME's

  Much of our research is appended in this submission.

  In preparing this document, we have looked at each of the Select Committee questions in turn, submitted our evidence and conclusions and members' key comments where appropriate.

  Based on our experience and expertise in the field, we submit recommendations to the committee throughout this submission. However, there are three key messages that we would like members of the Select Committee to take away from this paper and these are justified in section six.

  In the Recommendations chapter we have put forward the names of expert practitioners whom the committee may wish to call upon for oral evidence.

  Sir Howard Davies, Chairman of the Employers Forum on Age will be delighted to submit oral evidence on specific issues and share the forum's views and experience with the Committee.


  The Employers Forum on Age is pleased to submit evidence on the following six questions.

  A.  In what ways and to what extent are older workers treated less favourably than younger workers as a result of their age?

  B.  What benefits does promoting age diversity in the workplace offer to employers and employees?

  C.  In what circumstances (if any) is the use of age as a criterion for the recruitment and retention of employers justified?

  D.  How effective is the Government's Code of Practice in promoting age diversity in the workplace?

  E.  In what ways do other Government policies such as the New Deal help or hinder older workers, especially unemployed job seekers?

  F.  Is there a case for anti-discrimination legislation and, if so, what provisions should it include?

A.  In what ways and to what extent are older workers treated less favourably than younger workers as a result of their age?

  In response to this inquiry's call for evidence of age discrimination against older workers, we refer to EFA research on:

    (i)  Participation rates.

    (ii)  Perceptions.

    (iii)  Recruitment practices.

    (iv)  Training and promotion practices.

    (v)  Redundancy and early retirement practices.

    (vi)  Mandatory Retirement.

  We suggest there is clear evidence to support the claim that age discrimination and incorrect preconceptions often lead to older workers being treated less favourably as a result of their age.

    "94 per cent of respondents think that ageism exists in the workplace"

    Typewriters to Teamworking—a survey of Secretaries and Ageism, EFA/IQPS 1999

  "Amongst older workers, 40 year old women and 50 year old men are the most likely to encounter age discrimination"[1]

  However, age discrimination is more difficult to identify than discrimination on the basis of gender, race, disability or religion. Age affects everybody. The definition of "older" or "younger" worker is fluid according to which industry or individual workplace culture you are looking at—what is old in one sector may be considered young in another, for example compare IT with Law.

  On this basis we ask the Committee to recognise the complexity of age as a discrimination issue.

    "In a nation-wide survey a quarter of all respondents felt they had experienced ageism in their career—over half because they were too young—only a few complained, but one in six changed jobs"1

  EFA research has uncovered examples of age discrimination against younger workers who have failed to be awarded jobs or promotion despite their ability, simply because they have not been deemed old enough.

    "We have long campaigned on behalf of older workers who are too often marginalised because of their age. Clearly there is a job to be done for younger workers as well. Age discrimination is counter productive for business. People at every level in organisations offer potential, which is being under used"

    Sally Davies, Director, Sanders & Sidney 2000

  In this context age discrimination means "indiscriminate use of age in decision making about employment." This may affect both younger and older workers equally. In promoting EFA membership and activities to employers, we are constantly asked by the employers themselves, to consider age discrimination at all ages. Employers wish to neutralise age in employment decision making, they do not wish to focus on age discrimination at one end of the spectrum.

  On this basis we ask the Committee to recognise that age discrimination affects individuals of all ages. If there is to be meaningful debate on this issue as we prepare for legislation, there needs to be a recognition that anybody can be discriminated against on the grounds of age and that effective campaigns against age discrimination must reflect employers interest in neutralising age—rather than in focusing on "older workers".

i.  Participation Rates—Individuals Over 50 Years Old

  The EFA conducted research to identify the participation rates amongst over 50 year olds in the UK, and to calculate the economic impact this has on the UK economy.

  Of the 9.3 million people aged between 50 and 64 in the UK today, some 3.7 million are not in work. Most of these (3.4 million) are classified as economically "inactive"—not currently available for or seeking work. Buried within these figures is a hidden workforce, excluded from official unemployment figures and largely rejected by employers. Currently, the numbers of inactive people aged between 50 and 64 are double the unemployment numbers for the entire country.

  The disproportionate number of those aged between 50-64 currently not participating in the economy is clear evidence of widespread discrimination against this age group.

  On this basis low participation rates amongst the 50-64 age group costs the British economy £26 billion annually[2]. The cumulative cost over the next five years will amount to one fifth of the country's output of goods and services.

  These figures highlight our failure as a nation to make full use of our productive resources—in this case people 50 and above[3].

ii.  Perceptions of Older and Younger Workers

  Age discrimination occurs because people tend to rely on stereotypical notions of "old" and "young".

  Through EFA research, seminars, discussions groups and surveys the following negative stereotypes of older and younger workers have been identified.

  There is however no evidence to support these assumptions about older and younger workers.

  Older workers are...

    —  Unable to grasp new ideas

    —  Difficult to manage

    —  Not interested in training

    —  Not a good investment

    —  Out of date

    —  Coasting to retirement

  Younger workers are...

    —  Not likely to stay

    —  Unreceptive to authority

    —  Unreliable

    —  More interested in their social life

    —  Immature and impetuous

    —  Always taking time off sick


  The EFA has found evidence of discriminatory practices throughout the employment cycle including recruitment, training, promotion and selection for redundancy.

iii.  Recruitment

    "If you have in your mind as a recruitment manager, that all the needs of your company can be met by bright eyed and bushy tailed 23 year olds, then you are finding it quite difficult to operate in the labour market because there just aren't enough of these people to go around."

    Sir Howard Davies, Chairman, Employers Forum on Age Speaking at the TNC-TEC Equal Opportunities Conference, June 2000

  Despite a long period of economic growth, unemployment levels are considerably lower than in the past and even though many firms are finding it much harder to recruit the people they want, many employers continue to select candidates on the basis of age.

    72 per cent of organisations are currently experiencing skills shortages[4]

    55 per cent of managers admit to using age as a criterion in the recruitment process[5]

  Significant numbers of employers continue to be unaware, not only of the changing demographics, but of the implications for recruitment, particularly of younger workers.

  In a survey of employers in the West Midlands, the findings were dramatic.

    42 per cent do not think that changing demographics will impact on their business in any way.

    34 per cent recognise that an ageing population will impact on retirement, only 20 per cent think recruitment will be affected[6]

  EFA research has identified age discrimination in recruitment through the use of:

    —  Inappropriate Age Bars in adverts.

    —  Inappropriate use of language in Job Advertisements.

    —  Assessing competence on Paper Qualifications rather than genuine ability of an individual to do the job in question. This may be unintentional—different qualifications lead to confusion—older workers may be deterred from a job requiring NVQs despite having equivalent qualifications under a different system. Demand for non-essential qualifications may also restrict younger applicants.

    —  Graduate Recruitment schemes which fail to accommodate mature graduates

    —  Offering candidates opportunities and conditions which are only attractive to specific age groups

    —  Use of "age" as a quick method of short-listing potential candidates

    —  Recruitment systems that are not geared to handling people of any age. Individuals have been found to recruit "in their own image" and specific training is required to overcome this problem

    —  Incorrect perception of salary expectations by different age groups

    —  Projection of a corporate image that dissuades applications from certain age groups

  Recruitment agencies have also been found to discriminate on the basis of age in putting forward candidates to employers. The employer is often unaware of this screening process[7].

    "It makes strong commercial sense to increase the size of the pond and bring in many people who are excluded from the workplace simply because of their age. With a strong voice in the recruitment market, our aim is to keep ageism at the top of employers' agendas".

    Ian Wolter, Chief Executive, Eden Brown 2000

iv.  Training/Promotion

  The EFA has conducted extensive research into discriminatory practices within the provision of training. Our findings reveal that:

    "Only seven per cent of those aged between 55 and pension age are getting any job-related training" compared to "23 per cent of employed people under 25"[8]

  This suggests employers are failing to invest in workers as they become older. This has a significant impact on the opportunities for older workers, not only in securing new jobs.

    "Lack of relevant skills is cited as the overwhelming reason (in 72 per cent of cases) why employers might be discouraged from recruiting and employing older workers"

  But also in ensuring the continued participation of older workers in the workforce.

    "80 percent of 50-59 year olds who had one month training in the last nine years are still in work8

    "The longer the time since employer-paid training, the more likely people are to be out of work"8

  An EFA Opinion survey also found

    "The under 30's are twice as likely to see older staff as unable to acquire new skills"[9]

  Older workers are often perceived as poor training investments because they are approaching retirement, but there is no evidence to support this perception. There is evidence, however, that employees who are offered training opportunities are likely to remain with their employer for longer.

  Employers discriminate on the basis of age in training provision by:

    —  Failing to encourage employees of all ages and stages to participate in training and development opportunities.

    —  Failing to ensure training delivery suits all employees training needs and learning styles.

    "Getting the balance right in recruitment" EFA 1997

v.  Redundancy and Retirement

    "Individual's capacities and needs vary over time according to their own circumstances and attitudes, and not just according to age...For employers in a time of full employment it is also imperative to make better use of the accumulated skills and knowledge of older people and not waste them through early retirement"

    Charles Nolda, Executive Director, Employers' Organisation for Local Government

  The mass programme of downsizing undertaken by UK employers in the 1980's and 1990's contributed significantly to devaluation of older workers. This, combined with economic recession in this period contributed to the "lump of labour fallacy" which was used to justify the ejection of over 50 year olds from the workplace in favour of providing jobs for the young.

  Occupational Pension policies have also created a framework which facilities the early removal of older employees from a workforce. Indeed it creates the illusion that enforced early retirement is an "employee benefit"

  40 per cent of early retirees feel that they were coerced into retiring when they did[10]

  "Close to over half of the over 40's, and over a third of senior managers see early retirement as a cheap alternative to making staff redundant"9

  70 per cent of employers have admitted to focusing on older staff when making workforce reductions[11]

  Early retirement policies illustrate how indirect age discrimination has become an acceptable means of "streamlining" a workforce.

  These policies have had major implications on the culture of the workplace, particularly amongst employees, and it may take decades to reverse their negative effects. Despite major skills shortages and very low unemployment levels, particularly amongst the young, there is still a misconception that older workers are of less value to a business and should retire or leave early to make way for the young.

  However, one benefit of this policy is the recognition by EFA members of the business cost of losing some of their most knowledgeable and experienced workers during this period. This policy may inadvertently have provided substantial business data on the value of such workers to employers and have contributed significantly to the "case for employing older workers".

vi.  Mandatory Retirement

  The EFA have recently begun to investigate issues associated with mandatory retirement and the protection of employee's rights after retirement age. The issue of mandatory retirement will require extensive future debate as it may be considered unlawful following the adoption of UK age discrimination law. Enlightened employers are already developing policies which allow employees to continue working for as long as they wish and are able to do the job.

  Evidence suggests that current retirement age policies and the State retirement age of 65 significantly contribute to a culture which does not value age and sends a signal to employers and employees that individuals do not have a valuable contribution to make once they have reached 65. Given demographic change— people are living longer and healthier—and falling birth rates, the EFA would suggest current levels are unsustainable in the long-term and retirement ages must become a matter of individual choice and business need.

  The Committee should note any changes in mandatory retirement may need to address employment law which currently protects employees only up to their contractual retirement age or in the absence of one, 65. Failure to address this issue will leave employees who continue working past their sixty-fifth birthday vulnerable to unfair dismissal, without redress. This would create numerous examples of discrimination on age.


    "Some organisations may perceive older workers as unable to learn new skills, difficult to manage and don't fit into a "young culture". Overt practices such as age barriers in job adverts, is just as damaging as those that are "indirect"—for example, lack of training opportunities, perceived high levels of absenteeism, resistance to change which can prevent an older worker being promoted or retained. These assumptions can be damaging to an organisation in today's competitive job environment, where there are shortages of talent in some service sectors . . . At Nationwide, we select the best person for the job based on ability."

    Denise Walker, Head of Corporate Personnel, Nationwide Building Society

  Age discrimination against older workers clearly exists. It manifests itself in recruitment, training and development, retirement and redundancy practices, but may also be encountered in organisations which fail to promote a diversity culture or to address inappropriate stereotyping.

  However little work has been carried out to date investigating discrimination at the other end of the spectrum. Initial research carried out by the EFA has also identified age discrimination amongst younger workers. Their experiences must not be discounted.

  EFA research has identified significant concern over age discrimination by younger workers.

    Over 60 per cent of young workers think the Government should be doing more to combat ageism in the workplace. Only the smallest minority disagree.

    Releasing Potential, EFA/Sanders & Sidney 2000

  There must be a greater acknowledgement of the business case for an age diverse workforce and a sustained campaign to break down incorrect perceptions of individuals in specific age groups.


  The EFA recommends that rather than focusing predominately on older workers, the inquiry investigate the extent to which age discrimination affects people throughout their working lives and the employment cycle.

B.  What Benefits does Promoting Age Diversity in the Workplace offer to Employers and Employees?


  Age Diversity in the workplace benefits both employers and employees. Benefits to employees include, not only the fundamental right to equality of opportunity, but also the chance to learn from colleagues with different experiences. This may mean, for example, an older colleague "mentoring" a younger one by sharing knowledge of what has or hasn't worked in the past, or it may mean a younger colleague assisting an older worker in developing their IT skills. These benefits are of course passed on to the employer through increased effectiveness.

  Age diversity is more than an equal opportunities issue, it is fundamental to a well managed business.

  The EFA focuses primarily on the promotion of the benefits of age diversity policies for employers. We have therefore worked extensively with employers in developing a comprehensive "Business Case" for age diversity in the workplace. This "Business Case" is based on employer experiences over time and is, we believe, critical to overcoming age discrimination in the workplace.

  While a cost/benefit analysis of each benefit is difficult to provide—it is significant that employer members are more than happy to adopt age diversity policies based on anecdoctal evidence alone.

    "Promoting business diversity enables business to utilise the skills and experiences of both young and older workers, and so enable employers to benefit from a wide range of views and knowledge. This is critical for an organisation such as HSBC Bank, which needs to be able to communicate effectively with a diverse customer base."

    Anne Watts, Head of Diversity and Employee Support, HSBC Bank plc

    "Promoting age diversity is important as it makes sound business sense. Our continuing effectiveness depends on making the best use of the talents of all staff and reflecting at all levels the diversity of the modern society we serve. That must include age diversity."

    John Nicholson, Head of Diversity and Equal Opportunities, HM Land Registry


    "More than half the EFA members have identified substantial benefits from their work on age."[12]

  Age discrimination in employment is damaging to business and society—as well as the individual involved. Employees of all ages are critical to business success. Inefficient use of people, particularly in a competitive environment with widespread skills shortages, is inexcusable.

  Basing all employment decisions on the grounds of ABILITY NOT AGE makes good business and economic sense. Age Diversity policies have a positive impact on a company's competitiveness and need not be regarded merely as a response to demographic change, or to legitimate moral arguments. Employers can demonstrate that age diversity policies have a positive impact throughout an organisation, even minor changes in one area, can have far reaching benefits throughout a business.

    "We need to ensure that we do not fall into stereotypes and make assumptions based on age which exclude people from development, training or particular jobs whatever their age. To do so would be both unfair and a waste of talent and mean that we would not be making the best use of resources to achieve business results."

    John Nicholson, Head of Diversity and Equal Opportunities, HM Land Registry

  This business case has been developed and proved by EFA members over the last four years. While some of the benefits may be difficult to quantify, there is considerable and growing evidence to support them.

    "Our past experience has taught us that we need to retain our most skilled and knowledgeable employees to remain competitive. This is why we firmly support the business case for an age diverse workforce and have employment practices and procedures to support this. By gaining top level commitment to age diversity throughout the business we have increased both employee and customer satisfaction."

    Denise Walker, Head of Corporate Personnel, Nationwide Building Society 2000


Access a wider labour pool and create more choice

  By taking age barriers out of employment policies and considering a wider variety of individuals, employers create more human resource options for their business.

    "72 per cent of UK employers seeking skilled staff are experiencing recruitment difficulties" Reed Skills Index 2000

Become an employer of choice

  Even in a recession there are skills shortages. Since talent is critical, competitive organisations need to develop the kind of reputation that will make the best people want to work for them.

    "Recent IDS research reveals that being seen as an employer of choice help ease recruitment and retention pressures and attracts those potential recruits who might otherwise look elsewhere" IDS 2000

Ensure more efficient employment decisions

  By removing age bars on selection, promotion, redundancy and other employment policies, an organisation can ensure employment decisions are based on objective criteria to meet an organisation's needs. Criteria based on discrimination, prejudice or unfair assumptions do not always consider the skills and experience needed for a job and produce inefficient as well as unfair employment decisions.

    "Employers put the average cost of each failed appointment at £60,000 a year" EFA 2000

Create a more flexible workforce

  Age diverse workforce tend to be more flexible and better able to respond to fluctuations in business demand.

    "EFA research reveals that those businesses which invest in the training and development of all their employees achieve a flexible and multi-skilled workforce agile and responsive to change"

Better manage the size and balance of a workforce

  Employing a mixed age workforce will reduce the impact of retirement, maternity leave and other potential bottlenecks for an organisation.

Facilitate knowledge transfer and up-skilling

  Mixed age employees, working together with a variety of knowledge and experience, can effectively learn from each other.

  In EFA case study research employers consistently listed "a wide range of experience and expertise on which to draw" as a major business benefit of age diversity at work.

Benefit from a more stable, loyal and motivated workforce

  By removing age bars on career development, employers create a better environment for all employees. As a result employers enjoy a positive impact on productivity with overall reduced recruitment and training costs.

  EFA Case study evidence reveals that where all age groups are included in training and development opportunities, there are significant reductions in staff turnover, absences and accidents.

  EFA Case Study research reveals that those businesses which take steps to facilitate the retention of their older employees benefit from a more motivated workforce which feels valued and able to contribute to business success.

1   EFA/Austin Knight Survey-"Towards a balanced workforce" 1997. Back

2   Calculated by applying average output method to all those currently classed as economically "inactive" who would be willing and capable of re-entering the workforce. Back

3   A Profit's Warning-the macroeconomic costs of ageism, EFA 1998. Back

4   Reed Skills Index 2000. Back

5   Institute of Management "Breaking the Barriers" 1996. Back

6   Survey of Employers in the West Midlands, EFA/Age Concern Birmingham 2000. Back

7   Getting the Balance Right in Recruitment, EFA 2000. Back

8   The Glass Precipice, EFA 1999. Back

9   EFA/Austin Knight Survey, "Towards a balanced workforce" 1997. Back

10   Towards a Europe for All Ages, Communication from the Commission (1999). Back

11   Towards a Europe for All Ages, Communication from the Commission (1999). Back

12   EFA Membership Survey 2000. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 27 March 2001