Introduction

This chapter addresses the role played by health in later life, especially in the context of pressures on people to remain in employment through their 60s and beyond. The 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review indicated that the state pension age (SPA) is to start rising above 65 as early as 2018, reaching 66 in 2020 (HM Treasury, 2010). This means that many people in their mid-50s today will have to work longer than either anticipated or planned. In the meantime, the government is encouraging continued employment by phasing out the default retirement age of 65. As a result, with a few exceptions employers will be forbidden from retiring staff on the basis of their age by October 2011 (BIS, 2010). This represents a considerable policy shift for the UK. Age discrimination legislation was not introduced until 2006, following an EU directive, and this only gave employees the right to request employment past age 65 (Sargeant, 2006). The rationale given for the impending changes includes ‘… demographic change; the financial benefits [of working] to both the individual and the wider economy; and the health and social benefits many people gain from working later into life’ (BIS, 2010, p 5).

While the financial and health benefits of working are used as a rationale for extending working life, surprisingly little is known about how health and wealth interact to influence employment past 65. This has led to an imperfect understanding of whether employment past 65 in the coming years is feasible for those in most need of earning in later life. In general, health is likely to have exerted a particularly strong influence on continued employment in the UK. Qualitative research by Vickerstaff suggests that line managers have been crucial in deciding who can continue working past normal retirement age, typically basing decisions on the perceived interests of the firm (Vickerstaff et al, 2003; Vickerstaff, 2006a, 2006b). Research on the impact of the 2006 legislation suggests it has done little to alter the domination of a ‘business case approach’ to allowing continued employment (Flynn, 2010). This is likely to limit opportunities to continue working for poorer workers.