Andrew Harrop, head of public policy, Age Concern and Help the Aged

Forced retirement is bad for individuals, society and the economy. Increasing numbers of people are living longer and healthier lives, and many tend to work for longer as a result.

There is compelling evidence that forcing workers to retire before they are ready can wreak havoc on people's health and wealth, and that continuing working in later life is good for those who are able. This is especially true at a time when more people need to work for longer to boost pensions and savings hit by the recession. Forcing people to retire is a massive own goal in the fight against pensioner poverty.

The default retirement age (DRA), which allows employers to force people to retire at 65, is equally harmful to the economy. Many people are still clinging to the idea that forcing older workers to retire will somehow free up jobs for the younger. This "one-in-one-out" theory has been known among economists for almost a century as the "lump of labour" fallacy, because this is not the way the job market works. Now that the economy has started recovering from the recession, older workers' skills and expertise are invaluable resources.

With plans already in place to raise the state pension age above 65, a national DRA at the same age seems even more absurd. Why would any government encourage people to work past 65 while defending a law that allows employers to pension people off at the same age?

Ministers have already shown signs of being uncomfortable with the DRA. In July, pensions minister Angela Eagle said the government was "responding to the changed economic landscape" and wanted to "give older people flexible retirement options". Time is ripe for change. Ministers should move swiftly to free all older workers from the pending threat of forced retirement.

Michael J Ferraro, managing director, TH March & Co.

As a 62-year-old managing director, retiring at 65 and a pension scheme trustee, I recognise the value of older employees to both business and the public. But proposals to scrap the default retirement age, and the IoD's otherwise excellent Director's Guide: Extending Working Lives, gloss over two issues.

The HR considerations are complex. Older people's skills deteriorate at different rates. It is rarely a matter of employable one day, unemployable the next. Many are experienced employees who must be told that the business can only accommodate them in progressively less exacting or responsible roles. That is a potential HR minefield. One of the most disruptive events in business is handling underperforming staff who do not accept their underperformance.

Fairness and employment law come at a cost. Many employers sympathise with and recognise the potential of the retiree who would like to work, but think it uneconomic and not worth the risk beyond a default retirement age.

As insurance brokers, we have experience of the cost of placing group life, income protection and private medical benefits for older workers. Employers must be relieved of any obligation to provide such benefits for persons beyond a default retirement age.

Alternatively, it must be legitimate to cut benefits to the level at which premiums are no more than they would be for an employee aged 65. Unless government solves these two pressing problems, we will either cripple businesses with legal costs and HR problems, or fail to make best use of older people who can work.