I must admit to feeling a little nervous when I read that yet another

Government report is tinkering around with plans to make life 'better' for the older members of society.

The latest, Winning The Generation Game, to be published in full this week, almost smells of panic as our masters are beginning to realise that the supply of eager young workers is going to go downhill sharply as we move into the early years of the 2000s.

So the powers that be plan to make things 'better' for the older workers

by making it less easy for them to

retire before the official retirement age of 65.

That is all very fine and dandy if you want to go on working. You should

certainly be allowed to do so providing that you are capable of fulfilling the requirements of the job.

Yet there are many jobs where the physical requirements are such that it would be a real burden to go on.

But there are other things to be

considered, such as the lump sum

provision, where people who have invested in a private pension take a

certain amount in a tax-free lump sum in exchange for a lower income.

By changing the rules on the tax allowance on lump sums it would be possible to discourage early retirement.

Currently, personal pension contributions are invested tax-free and

occupational pension contributions from employers are also free of tax.

Recently, under new Government rules, the income from the pension

contributions which make up the 'growth' of the pension funds have been taxed, thus making the funds less

profitable.

At the moment pension funds try

to get the young workforce to start thinking about a pension early in their working life, dangling the carrot of

the possibility of an early retirement

before them as an incentive to start

saving.

Now fund managers fear that by

making it harder to retire early that incentive will no longer apply.

The Government is now saying that the workforce should be encouraged

to stay in work longer and that it should be made easier to get a new job in later life.

Old cynic that I am, I cannot help

wondering if the cost of early retirement could possibly have anything to do with their sudden rediscovery of the benefits of employing older folk.

It is estimated that something in the region of £16 billion may be lost to HM Treasury because of the number of 50 to 65-year-olds who are not working. Some are on sickness benefits, others on unemployment benefit or disability payments.

If too many more go on to draw

benefits there will not be enough

flowing into the Government coffers to keep them all.

To change things too radically will need changes in the law, but for many nearing the age at which they had hoped to retire the fear is that

retrospective legislation will make it impossible to reap the rewards from

a life of prudent investment for

retirement.

The appointment of Alistair Darling as the champion in the Cabinet for the over-50s with a remit to stop the drain on the workforce from early retirement does not fill me with any great comfort.

I shall watch with interest the

reaction to the report.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.