Must be time to stop banging on about this topic but, every time you think you’ve seen the worst, someone else pops up with an even more irritating idea. This time the red rag is being waved by The Future Perfect Company which creates products for the over-50s market. Apparently they’ve decided to run a design competition with the University of Brighton that it hopes will throw up ideas that appeal to the baby-boom generation.

Staff and students at the university’s Faculty of Arts and Architecture and School of Environment and Technology are being invited to submit attractive designs that address one or more challenges associated with ageing such as short-term memory loss, failing eyesight and hearing, and problems with manual dexterity.

Future Perfect’s owner criticises the ‘uninspiring’ retail design of mobility shops, and observes that products for older people are ‘usually dull and clinical with very little emphasis on attractive design, making them “necessary evils” that highlight disability rather than aid and promote ability’.

Once again this raises the question “which older people is she referring to?” Very few of the baby-boom generation (around 50 to 70) visit mobility shops (unless on behalf of ageing parents) or suffer from the ailments described.  Had this been a competition for products for the elderly, all well and good. As it is, this shows a remarkable lack of insight into the market.

Age Concern England and Help the Aged (now a single charity to be known as Age UK from Spring 2010) has just announced a list of celebrities who will be contributing to their forthcoming Christmas fund-raising event at St Paul’s Church in Knightsbridge. Amongst them are Sir Roger Moore, Lionel Blair, June Whitfield and Sylvia Syms.

Well that’s good then. There has been some confusion resulting from noises emanating from Age UK (to be) that as part of their remit “to support older people” the new organisation is intending to concern itself with everyone aged 50 and over. But from this line up of the great and the good (who genuinely are to be commended for their efforts) it is clear that they must still intend to align their brand with the elderly.

Confirmation, if any was needed, comes from Sir Roger, who said, commenting on the event: “Far too often older people are forgotten about in our society, especially over the festive season. It is vital that we remember those older people who are suffering from isolation and loneliness at this time of year.”

Far from being lonely, the majority of the young old are far more likely to be over-stressed and over socialised from the usual round of festive work and family commitments. Rather than feeling isolated we’re more likely to be wishing for half an hour’s peace and quiet (in amongst all the good bits, of course).

Click here for more details of the event.

I’ve just caught up with reading Dame Joan Bakewell’s first Annual Report as the Voice of Older People. I like Joan and from what I read in the report it’s clear she’s putting a lot of effort into doing the best she can on a range of issues flagged up to her by, and relating to, “older people”.

However, as I initially suspected, these involve in the main, the concerns of the elderly – caring provision, health standards, sheltered housing, public loos. There is little in there representing the concerns of today’s average 50 to 70 year olds (apart from a section on retirement age). Yes, younger “older” people may have raised some of these issues but in relation to their parents or other “old” people, not themselves.

Dame Joan herself is aware of this anomaly and deals with it in the introduction to her report by stating “The term ‘older people’ is self defining. I believe that if you consider yourself to be ‘older’ then you are. It might be in your early fifties, it certainly applies to the over eighties.”  That’s a bit of an unhelpful explanation really. Of course if you’re in your early fifties you will see yourself as “older” than someone in their thirties or forties even though you may have similar interests and attitudes and not really look that much different. But do you consider yourself “older” in the same way as an eighty plus year old? I doubt it.

I have no issue with the good work that Joan is doing. I just wish she would adopt a more accurate title.

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/news/voice_of_older_people-_annual.aspx

There’s good news and bad news associated with yesterday’s announcement by the CIPD of a huge increase in the number of older workers planning to work beyond state pension age. According to their survey of 2,000 working people, 71% of those aged 55 and over are now planning on staying longer compared to 40% two years ago – with the main driver being “financial factors”.

The good news is that this implies that older people are taking a realistic view of their financial prospects for the future and are taking appropriate steps to deal with impact of the recession and demographic changes. The slightly less clear implication of this is whether or not they will actually be able to realise their plans as, at present, the majority of employers still retain a default retirement age and a right of veto in respect of requests to work beyond this (with no need to justify a refusal).

The bad news – for both employers and older employees – is that needing to work longer by no means equates to wanting to work longer. As CIPD spokesman Charles Cotton said, “Employers will have to motivate those who wish they could be elsewhere”.  They will indeed – and it will not be an easy task. Those who have to work longer for financial reasons are not necessarily going to be doing so gladly, so the issue of resentment and disengagement may have to be added to the already heady mix of challenges surrounding later life working. 

Employers wanting to avoid a range of attitudinal and behavioural problems should start investigating imaginative solutions to making later life working desirable, aspirational and motivating – without further delay. They need to work with their older employees to find ways to redesign the later years of working life in a way that is meaningful and appropriate for older people, provides good business outcomes, and doesn’t alienate younger generations.  A big ask? Maybe, but not impossible.

A glance at the demographics shows that the scale of the problem is going to be immense and is unlikely to recede greatly once the recession is over. A head in the sand approach will not be the best way forward.

“Within a few years the very phrase ‘going to work’ will be meaningless: work will be what we do, not a place we go to” – Anne Lise Kjaer

 “And what do you do? – 10 steps to creating a portfolio career”, a new book by Barrie Hopson and Katie Ledger, is full of such pithy insights. It should be made compulsory reading for everyone over 50 and strongly recommended to anyone at any age who’s struggling to achieve an interesting, challenging and rewarding working life.

For the uninitiated a portfolio career is one where you do two or more jobs for different employers. It’s a way of ensuring that you utilise your skills and passions in your working life, a means of working flexibly to accommodate your other commitments and interests, and a medium through which older people in particular can sustain a working life that brings happiness, health and fulfilment for as long as they want it to.

As with Barrie’s previous books this one is a great read – an inspiring blend of perceptive information and practical advice supplemented by thought-provoking exercises to help you discover whether a portfolio career might be for you. Best of all it doesn’t concentrate solely on the positive aspects of portfolio working making everything appear deceptively easy.  As anyone who has a portfolio career will confirm, it is a risky and insecure way to work and can be difficult to sustain in financial terms when, as now, times are hard. In the book, Chapter 2: Can I afford a portfolio career? deals with the downside particularly well and, by causing you to consider some of the challenges, actually leaves you more motivated.

For more information about the book and portfolio working go to: www.portfoliocareers.net

Apparently BBC Radio 4 has boosted its audience by more than three quarters of a million in the past year and now has well over 10 million listeners each week. The Today programme, Woman’s Hour and You and Yours are especially popular choices. The average audience age is around 55, and, unlike on TV, one would assume that the average age of Radio 4 presenters must be somewhere around there too. As it likewise is on Radio 2, which also continues to attract significant numbers of new listeners (or perhaps returners?)

Strange isn’t it that BBC bosses can’t make the connection between people being turned off by ‘yoof’ TV and turning to the stimulus of sensible, interesting, grown-up radio programmes and the need to ensure that those who deliver services generally should mirror the age range of their customers (as many other service providers are discovering). Odd too that it’s alright for presenters to be old and even sound old on Radio – but God forbid that we turn on the TV and see them looking old.

A major piece of news in Scotland, published yesterday (see The Herald Scotland ), is that Glasgow City Council, for financial reasons, is looking to reduce its workforce by 4000 workers and will be seeking  to achieve much of this, initially at least, by a voluntary redundancy scheme aimed at the 3500 employees aged 50 plus.  

As a result of this, I was asked to appear on this morning’s edition of BBC Radio Scotland’s “Good Morning Scotland” to discuss some of the implications of this plan and the situation regarding older workers in general. Although the appearance was brief, any opportunity to re-iterate our concerns over such “initiatives” we see as very worthwhile.

It appears that the Council is concerned over whether this move is legal in age discrimination terms, and it is happy that it is, at least in its current form. While this may be so, it is certainly ageist, that is it reflects prejudicial attitudes towards older workers, stereotyping and the making of unwarranted age-based assumptions. It also emphasises employers’ pre-occupation, not with doing the best for their older employees but with not falling foul of the legislation.

As a response to its operational problems, in today’s environment the Council’s actions are crude, socially irresponsible and extremely unimaginative. It sees itself as able, with a little bit of sweetening, to wash its hands of the future well-being of large numbers of individuals and their families without considering the long term implications for these individuals in terms of future employment, financial well-being, health and feelings of self-worth, over a period which could easily stretch to 30 years, as living into one’s late eighties or nineties becomes a reasonable aspiration for the majority.

Some employees who “have their ducks in a row” will jump at the chance of pursuing other avenues, things they’ve planned for and saved for over many years. But many will be cast adrift without a paddle or a compass or an understanding of what they might be letting themselves in for. They don’t deserve this.

As today’s programme coincided with news of increased unemployment amongst the young the question was put that shouldn’t older workers give way to help younger ones? Firstly, those in their 50s, with all kinds of financial and family responsibilities, need employment as much as anyone else. Secondly, solving one injustice by creating another injustice does not seem a particularly intelligent way of moving things forward. Thirdly, research presented by the Equality and Human Rights Commission suggests that this is not a question of “young versus old” but of “skilled versus unskilled” and the removal of skilled and experienced older workers from the scene will not provide opportunities for the unskilled who form the main thrust of the problem at the younger end.

Writing in today’s Daily Mail, Vogue Editor Alexandra Shulman argues that mothers’ rights are making younger women unemployable.  She maintains that maternity leave (often multiple times) followed by requests for flexible working are creating huge problems amongst her workforce which she summarises as 90% female – of which 98% are women of childbearing age.

I will ignore the question of why 98% of her female workforce is under what must be around 50 or so (I don’t think I would want to hear whatever justification she chose to come up with). But therein lies the source of her problem – and the solution.  Not just replacing younger women with older women who no longer have childcare responsibilities, but ensuring there is a balance of ages.

Employers – Alexandra included – and society as a whole need to understand that today careers are made up of many different stages throughout which employees have different wants and needs and different levels to which they are able to commit to the organisation. Employers ignoring this do so at their peril and, yes, they will suffer the consequences.  Short-sightedness will lead to the demonisation of young women as it has already of older workers. All that will be left will be younger working men.  Back full circle to where we were a very long time ago.

All this on the same day as the Mail publishes another piece by Linda Kelsey on how being over 50 today is no longer old… Is it me or do we need some joined up thinking?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1226157/Vogue-editor-Alexandra-Shulman-asks-boss-hire-woman.html

The recent and ongoing row between the government and scientists over the danger levels of various narcotic substances serves as a sharp reminder that in respect of most social issues our leaders just don’t seem able to see the bigger picture and grasp what’s really at stake. There’s a tendency to become embroiled in table-thumping and tantrums about completely the wrong thing. In this case it surely doesn’t matter whether ecstasy or cannabis is more or less dangerous than something or other else, what matters is that we live in a society where drug-taking and alcohol abuse is endemic, so what needs addressing are issues of cultural change. This inability to see the wood for the trees doesn’t seem to be a political thing, policy makers of all denominations and from all sorts of organisations seem to have difficulty identifying and addressing what the real problems are and devoting resources to the areas where they might actually make a difference.

Certainly this is the case with issues surrounding older workers. In the next year or so there’s going to be a massive amount of disagreement, argument and petulance over whether or not the default retirement age should be abolished. Although I believe it should, I also believe that actually it misses the point. What matters is fundamental attitudinal change on the part of employers, workers themselves and society as a whole that older people have continuing right to work for as long as they want or need to and shouldn’t be discriminated against on the basis of ‘age’. What a shame all that energy and publicity won’t be seen as furthering that cause.

An interesting programme on Channel 4 just recently examined the issue of racism in the UK today, using as a framework an experiment which has been conducted in the USA for some decades. The experiment divides individuals into brown-eyed and blue-eyed groups with those with blue eyes being subject to discriminatory and generally abusive behaviour from those with brown-eyes – the object being to demonstrate how easy it is for people to discriminate against others on the basis of arbitrary and unchangeable features. The programme and its subject matter were interesting and thought-provoking in themselves, but even more so because of the underlying tenet that it’s easy to deny the existence of discrimination, stereotypes and prejudice if you’re not on the receiving end of them. The programme seemed to suggest that in the UK today, racial prejudice is subtle but still generally prevalent, albeit largely unrecognised by those who aren’t on the receiving end. Certainly it caused me to think about how this applies in relation to age. In the workplace there are numerous examples of situations where, although employers and younger workers abide by the rules in terms of age discrimination legislation, older workers (and certainly older job applicants) know that they are at a disadvantage because of their age. And we are all familiar with the ‘light-hearted’ joking and banter in the workplace associated with ageing and older people.

One of the messages of the Channel 4 programme seemed to be that discrimination happens to a degree because those who are subject to it allow it to take place. Whilst not wanting to get into the deep and thorny issues surrounding this view, it does seem to add weight to the argument that, as we have always maintained, if you act old, talk old, and let other people treat you as old then you will be more subject to ageism than those who refuse to collude with ageist attitudes.

We’ve been hearing for a while about the terrible and unprecedented number of suicides occurring at France Telecom (25 since 2008 apparently). According to a recent story in the Times, the organisation is now to make part-time jobs available on a voluntary basis to employees aged over 57 who feel that full time work is endangering their health. My money’s on the fact that those making this decision are nowhere near 57 themselves. The (potentially fatal) flaw in the argument is that these poor beleaguered older workers who are already feeling highly stressed and threatened would be doing the equivalent of throwing themselves to the wolves, the very act of admitting that they could no longer take the pace being tantamount to lying on their backs with their legs in the air waiting to be ripped asunder. As anyone who’s spoken to older workers knows, a common driver of those who still want to see themselves as contributing value in a competitive situation is not wanting to admit they’re ‘not up to it’ or ‘not as good’ as younger competitors. BT proved this when they found that few of their older workers actually wanted to take advantage of reduced hours working for just this reason.

 Okay, some older workers do want to wind down and reduce their hours, but those at France Telecom are unlikely to fit the bill as they’re not being offered the choice to do it for positive reasons (either their own or their employer’s) in a supportive environment. As a comment on the Times site said, they should at least offer the option to all workers, to single out older workers in this instance is both inappropriate and insulting – and unfortunately not likely to solve the problem. Let’s hope they call in the occupational psychologists without delay.

Read the Times story at http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article6895790.ece

When will the BBC start taking some responsibility in its role as a public broadcaster and stop the shocking example it sets with its ageist policies? Apparently it has now added to its list of questionable decisions by banning dancers over 35 from auditioning for new Saturday night show, So You Think You Can Dance, to be aired on BBC One next year. The BBC argues that dancers over 35 lack the physical condition to perform the challenging routines required by the show, supporting its decision with all sorts of noises about health and safety. Whilst 35 seems a completely arbitrary age (why not 33 or 37?) and laughably young compared to most ageist decisions, it clearly underlines that the BBC seems unable to grasp the basic fact that chronological age is a meaningless concept.

Decisions about fitness for purpose in any arena need to be on the basis of individual ability and in this instance, as we all know, many dancers remain incredibly able until well into their sixties and older. Yes, it does mean having to put them through some sort of fitness and ability assessment but shouldn’t they be doing this for all potential competitors anyway? The BBC’s stance is compounding that taken by many employers with respect to the retirement age, i.e. that it’s easier to hide behind a policy and a number rather than putting in the effort to properly and adequately (and fairly) performance manage your employees on an individual basis.

According to a report in the Times, The English Amateur Dancesport Association (EADA) has warned the BBC that it could face a challenge in the courts. I do hope so.

It was interesting to attend the Institute of Directors’ Roadmap for Retirement Reform presentation last Monday (October 19th) which they used to announce the launch of their new Centre for Retirement Reform.  On the face of it the presentation looked as if it would be largely about pensions but fortunately – and refreshingly – all the speakers seemed to recognise that pensions reform per se is not going to be enough.  Of course it was useful to be reminded yet again that our current pensions system was introduced when the average male life expectancy was 63 – what clearer evidence is needed of why it is no longer fit for purpose? But beyond this, the clear message from all seemed to be that meaningful impact in terms of reforming “retirement” will only come when employers create the culture, opportunities and support to help those people who want to, or need to, stay in work for longer. 

We look forward to finding out more about the work of the Centre as it develops. At this stage, perhaps we have two caveats.  Apparently one of the Centre’s first areas of interest is to be what are commonly labelled “olderpreneurs” – older individuals who start their own businesses. In respect of this we take the view that the focus needs to shift from helping older people to start a business (generally comparatively easy) to helping them build and sustain their business (difficult). Otherwise all that is happening is encouraging a new generation of business lemmings, racing towards a cliff-edge of failure and disappointment.  Additionally, and on a different note, we yet again call for the development of a new terminology. “Retirement” will only truly be reformed when we have an adequate vocabulary to describe all the various states (non-working, part-time working, portfolio working, self-employment, volunteering, etc) that are currently covered by this outmoded term.

The deadline has now passed, at least for the moment, to make your voice heard to the government over their proposals outlined in “Building a society for all ages” a document which focuses predominantly on the issues surrounding our ageing population. The issues are very wide-ranging and extremely important.

We here, at in my prime, made our own representations in the fields in which we operate and if you are interested in seeing what we had to say please click here 

To read the original government document click here

Conservatives’ plans to raise the state pension age to 66 will make youth unemployment worse leading to a 200,000 rise in unemployment in the first year – many of whom could be young jobseekers. This is the view of Ray Barrell, Director of Macroeconomic Research at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research who made his prediction at this week’s Just Ageing Seminar, hosted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). He supported his case by commenting, “If we extend working lives effectively the people we will have to help in the labour market are not those who are in a job and can stay in it for another year, but those at the other end of the labour market who are looking for a job, and the job that would have come up for them is no longer available.”

Stirring stuff when accompanied by alarmist headlines such as Tory plan to raise pension age will add to youth unemployment (Personnel Today)

But surely it’s not that simple. Not only do young, incoming job seekers not automatically replace outgoing retirees due to lack of similar skills and experience, but not all older workers are going to want to keep working or, if they do, to keep working in the same job. Research has shown that later life career changes are becoming more desirable for older individuals with those who want to work increasingly seeking to do so under their own terms. And for many those terms mean working less and working flexibly. The sooner employers start to address these issues, the sooner we should stop hearing these types of argument which effectively are comparing apples with pears – and ultimately just don’t add up.

Indeed, the Personnel Today article does not reflect a balanced view of proceedings at the Just Ageing Seminar. In particular, Sheila Wild, Head of Earnings and Age Inequalities at EHRC, arguing why the Default Retirement Age should be removed, said “ It is not a contest between older and younger workers, but about ensuring everyone who wants to work has the appropriate skills, whatever their age. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills has predicted 2 million new jobs between now and 2020 – and most of them will demand higher level skills. In securing jobs coming out of recession, skills levels are likely to be the key factor, not age”.

Oscar, the concessions site for the over 50s has launched a new award to coincide with UK Older Person’s Day and Grandparents’ Day which both take place this month. They’ve called them the Golden Owls and their purpose is to “find the cream of the over-50s”.  All well and good -  we strongly support the idea of promoting the position of older people and would always encourage the recognition of much needed role models for what being “over 50” is like these days.

But sadly, a closer look at the categories reveals that this is hardly likely to be the outcome. If you want to vote you can choose from:
•  THE EUREKA – most inspirational person of our time
•  THE ENDURANCE – longest-lasting celebrity
•  THE GIVER – Most worthy charity
•  THE INNOVATOR – Most recognised achievement in industry
•  THE OLYMPIAN – Outstanding contribution to sport
•  THE OWL – Lifetime Achievement Award

All of these are likely to produce the same old names representing the same old activities. What’s happened to the really meaningful stuff like:

The Feminist – the woman who has overcome ageist stereotypes

The Supporter – the individual from whatever sphere who has most helped the cause of older people

The Communicator – the writer, artist or commentator who has most clearly contributed to greater understanding about ageing in the twenty-first century

The Worker – the employee who sets the best example of what later life working can be

We’re sure there are plenty more categories that would be really worthwhile including those in areas such as caring, wisdom, and original thought. Why not let us know what you’d like to see?

In the meantime, as nominations close on October 15^th, you ‘ll have to be quick with the Golden Owls if you want to cast your vote.

Click here  to see more

Research published in The Lancet and reported widely in the press this week (for more see www.inmyprime.info) predicts that about half of the children now being born in wealthier countries can expect to live to be 100 or more. Furthermore, with better and earlier medical intervention many of these later years can be free of serious disability. This Danish/German research adds more weight to the ever-growing need to address the issues surrounding population ageing and to acknowledge that the concept and definition of old age needs to be re-examined, mindsets changed and prejudices challenged.

The researchers have even suggested that the lifespans of people should now be considered in four stages: child, adult, young old age and old old age. This is something which those of us who specialise in the field have been banging on about for some time – it is just not possible to lump people who have reached a certain age all together and assume that they are elderly and that their active and useful lives have come to an end, along with their judgement, taste, ability to think for themselves and so on. We are talking about a 50-year time interval here – potentially half of one’s life. And if in “old old age” we can be independent and moderately healthy then what does it say for “young old age” or in my prime as we might describe it?

But living this long is not a “given”. It is dependent on many things – financial security, physical and mental well-being, a good reason to want to live that long, and adequate safety nets for when we might become old or infirm.

The serious debate is only just beginning.

And so the “Heyday” case has finally drawn to a conclusion with seemingly disappointing results. Even in its final battle Heyday was destined to be a loser and its (poorly chosen) name will thankfully fade away into history. Let’s hope the new merged charity sticks to its knitting and does not make the same mistakes again. However, that is another story – for another day.

On the surface the outcome of the Heyday case is unhelpful, certainly to those who have had age discrimination cases pending. Much has already been written in the press about the case and we don’t wish to go over this ground again. The judge took a particular standpoint based largely on a historical perspective and this has let the government off the hook, at least in the short term. However, moving forward, it will clear the air and allow fresh and proper thinking instead of continued attempts to justify the previously taken, and very weak, position.

The demographics are moving one way only. The financial concerns of our older citizens and of government are moving one way only. And the skills needs of industry, business and employers at large are moving one way only. The debate can, therefore, move in one direction only. Nevertheless, it has to remain top of the agenda and we applaud all of those organisations which are fighting and lobbying to bring about the necessary changes, sooner rather than later.

We, at in my prime, have a slightly different perspective. We are more concerned with the next phase. How are employers going to manage their older workforces? How are individuals of any age going to plan for the rest of their lives, find the right balance between work and non-work, and determine the necessary stepping stones? And how are employers, employees and government going to work together to find solutions which are in the best interests of all concerned?

The Heyday judgement is just a temporary setback – but nothing in this life worth having comes easy.

Age Concern and Help the Aged are looking for an Internet Champion to represent the charity and provide a leading light for the estimated 6.4 million people 65+ who have never used the internet, according to data from the Office for National Statistics.

Many older people never have the chance to use the Internet, despite new research from Age Concern and Help the Aged finding that older people see the benefit of the internet with three in four people believing it to be a useful tool to stay in contact with friends and family (ICM survey 11-18 September 2009). The research also found that 61% of older people believe the internet to be a useful way of making savings on products and services.

The Internet Champion – who will be a regular older person who has embraced the internet – will show older people that using the internet is a realistic possibility for them and that they too can reap the benefits of being online.

The winner of the Internet Champion search will receive a laptop computer, a complete BT package including BT Total Broadband, as well as an all-expenses paid trip to London. For more information visit www.ageconcern.org.uk/it.

itea and biscuits week, supported by BT, offers older people nationwide the opportunity to get involved in technology ’taster sessions’ at local Age Concerns and other supporting organisations from September 21 to 25.

What is a regular older person?

The Internet Champion search aims to find an ordinary person (aged 55+) who has recently learned to use the internet and whose personal story can inspire others. The search will begin on 21 September 2009 and end on 13 November 2009 with the winner being selected by a panel of judges from Age Concern and Help the Aged. To apply, candidates will need to fill in the Internet Champion application form which can be downloaded from www.ageconcern.org.uk/it.

It is now well-documented that people over 50 setting up their own businesses have a greater chance of success than any other age group. But, if you are contemplating doing this, where do you start?

Well, here is one answer. Over 50s with this idea in mind can come along to PRIME’s Olderpreneur Roadshow which kicks off in Bristol on 23 September. PRIME (The Prince’s Initiative for Mature Enterprise) is the only national organisation that offers practical support to Over 50s considering setting up their own business or becoming self-employed and their Olderpreneur Roadshow is part of a practical package of support the charity offers Over 50s including a Business Club, Olderpreneur Loans Scheme and  Mentoring.

At the FREE roadshow anyone over 50 who wants to find out whether self-employment or setting up their own business might be for them, can come along. They will hear from local ‘olderpreneurs’ about their experiences, and from inspirational business speaker Tom Edge, author of “Age Is No Barrier”. They will also be able to quiz local business support organisations and network with other Over 50s wanting to start up on their own.

The Roadshow will run from now until early 2010 and after Bristol, it will move to Leeds on 14 October, Birmingham on 4 November, London on 10 November and Manchester on 9 December.

“The potential for economic growth partly driven by the Over 50s could be a big factor in the success of the UK’s businesses and in our future.  However, they need better targeted support and guidance. Many have care responsibilities.  A significant number have a health condition or a disability. Nevertheless, flexible working and a good work-life balance can be key to the Over 50s remaining in work, which is why self-employment or setting up their own business is such a good option”, says Laurie South, Chief Executive of PRIME.

For more information and /or to register for a free place visit; http://www.primebusinessclub.co.uk/events/