The atrocity of rampant ageism has failed to get the attention it deserves during debate over the Equality Act, former Attorney General Phil Perinchief has claimed.Companies forcing people to retire at 65 — casting them on the “dung heap of humanity” according to Mr Perinchief — will be targeted by the legislation proposed by Families Minister Glenn Blakeney, which outlaws discrimination on the grounds of age.However, the age debate has remained in the shadows while discussion on the Equality Act has centred almost exclusively on its other intention to ban discrimination against non-heterosexuals.Mr Perinchief said in a statement: “I abhor unjustified and unjustifiable discrimination in all of its forms.“It follows therefore that I have no tolerance for discrimination against human beings as a result of their sexual orientation whether dressed in philosophical or purported religious doctrinal sophistry.“My focus, however, is for the moment on ageism and age discrimination which as I have said ad infinitum is rampant in this community in private, public and social circles, including our political parties.”The former Progressive Labour Party Senator said it’s reprehensible that the Cabinet Secretary can have sole responsibility on deciding whether to retain or let go individual civil servants.“Accordingly, it is a pity that the Minister included age discrimination with sexual orientation discrimination, because notwithstanding the individual importance of both, the sexual orientation issue has overshadowed or blunted a full debate on age discrimination both in the media and the public in general,” he said.“The age discrimination issue is now a tag-along or afterthought in the debate and accordingly is viewed as less important.“That, in my opinion, was an error, though I applaud and fully appreciate the intent and the comprehensiveness of the Equality Act.”Black professionals who reach 65 are particularly hurt by age discrimination, said the lawyer.“These baby-boomers as a result of racial and gender discrimination arrived very late in their lives, around 45 to 50 years of age, to the professional echelons in both the public and private sectors,” he said.“Having in 15 to 20 years gained the requisite expertise to consolidate and be in a position to disseminate their skills to their junior mentees, they are now being told that their prodigious services are no longer needed and they become the victims of involuntary retirement.“So at 65 years of age, faced with a 30-year mortgage and other financial obligations, they are cast upon the dung heap of humanity.“I’m afraid that a few salutary senior teas just doesn’t quite cut it for some of us as a ‘thank you very much for your services’ gesture.“This turn of events, particularly in a climate of a shrinking younger workforce, and by reason of the earlier mentioned involuntary retirement policy, an increasing call on the pension funds by mentally and physically healthy 65-year-olds, is ludicrous in the extreme.“Which begs the question, are progressive minds really at work? Better, are any minds at work at all? Does this inane policy find a rationale more in a bankrupt treasury or consolidated fund than the argument that it saves dollars and cents?”Mr Blakeney introduced a House of Assembly motion on the Equality Act earlier this month, saying he wanted to get a consensus from MPs before tabling legislation outlawing discrimination on age and sexual orientation grounds.He gave the House examples of age discrimination in Bermuda, noted the ageing population, and stressed the need for dialogue surrounding potential legislation.While the subsequent debate focused mainly on sexual orientation, MPs including backbenchers Derrick Burgess and Terry Lister voiced strong concerns about ageism.