Almost every sensible initiative is discredited by the antics of jobsworths — bureaucrats who overinterpret new regulations, or those persuaded by political correctness to throw out tried and tested practice. The ban on age discrimination, which came into force at the beginning of the month, has already been assailed by those aghast at proposed bans on words such as dynamic, energetic and ambitious in job advertisements lest these be interpreted as ageist, or company warnings against staff signing office birthday cards with humorous innuendos that might form the basis of lawsuits. Already Acas, the arbitration agency, has had to specify artistic exceptions so that playwrights and theatres do not run into trouble if the cast of a play is entirely young or old.

Such absurdities detract from the importance of abolishing compulsory retirement and making it more possible for productive and enthusiastic workers to continue in their jobs beyond the age of 65. The legislation is not intended to be a new platform for lawsuits, but encourage employers, on an informal basis, to ease labour market difficulties caused by the shortage of younger workers. It has, admittedly, caused confusion, as well as indecision, among many employers, and the implications for pensions are unclear. But the deadline has been extended until December 1 to give time for consultation with the pensions industry. And the thrust of the legislation is to encourage industry, and society, to change its attitude to older people and value them for their wisdom, experience and social stability.

That was also the thrust of an important speech yesterday by David Cameron. He denounced the frenetic cult of youth and the view that old people were simply a cost to the state. They should not be “airbrushed” out of society. The impending retirement of the baby-boom generation meant that 11 million Britons were approaching 65. Today one person in six is above that age, but in 30 years the total will be more than one in four. He said retirement should be a process, not an event, “a slope, not a cliff”. Older workers should be given the option of flexible and part-time working or taking jobs more suited to their situation.

Mr Cameron, sensibly, did not endorse a blanket prohibition on company retirement policies. This is an area where persuasion and good practice will achieve far more than intrusive prescription. But he did signal the change of attitude that he thought important in the workplace: older people, he argued, were more “future-oriented” than their “I-want-it-now” children; they did not all become ill; and those over 50 who wanted to continue working could contribute up to £30 billion to the economy. Older workers were often also more civic-minded and ready to volunteer: it is estimated that their unpaid work is worth £24 billion a year.

Beyond a change in attitude, there are practical ways in which an ageing society can improve the conditions for older citizens. Architecture and planning matter. Houses should be designed with the elderly in mind, so that couples do not have to move later or be confined to “grey ghettos”. A mix of ages is stabilising to any community. The Conservatives are clearly hoping for votes in this sector of the population. Older workers do have an important role in the workplace, but workplace rules need to be flexible enough to make that possible.