When we get older, we lose a lot more than our hair. Though average life expectancy for women is now 79 and for men 74, the moment they turn 65, individuals find themselves excluded from swathes of public life, despite their accumulated skills and experience. Recent changes in legislation mean that increasing numbers of over-65s will remain in the workforce. The same age group already carries much of the burden of caring for the frail elderly and children and, as more and more women work full-time, the voluntary sector has become increasingly dependent on the 65-75 age group, those we could term the "young old".

Former Scottish Conservative leader David McLetchie is right to maintain that under these circumstances it makes no sense to exclude over-65s from jury service, especially when some judges do not hang up their wigs until 73. The age limit, set in 1980, simply reinforces the negative stereotyping applied to older people in British society. Institutions need to be restructured to reflect new realities. It is difficult to imagine any political party arguing with Mr McLetchie's proposal, especially with the prospect of the state pensionable age rising to 67. A limit of 70 would add 200,000 to the pool available for jury duty, which would go a long way to addressing the present shortage.

Because of the very wide range in life expectancies in Scotland, there are certainly many 65-year-olds who are mentally or physically frail, especially in our most deprived communities, but they would be able to claim exemption, as is the case for all jurors.

If there is resistance to raising the age limit for jury service, it may come from those older people who regard their current exclusion as a lucky escape. That is what happened in the 1980s when the Centre for Policy on Ageing campaigned against the age limit on jury service. They should think again. Active participation in society implies responsibilities as well as rights. Someone fit enough to enjoy the benefits of a free bus pass should be prepared to deploy their wisdom and experience in the jury room. It would also help to counter the persistent stereotyping of older people as senile, mentally inflexible and old-fashioned. Anti-ageism legislation cannot change such ingrained attitudes, derived largely from ignorance. By regarding older people as second-class citizens, society relieves itself of responsibility for them, consigning them to conditions that would be unacceptable for the young or middle-aged. Ageism is also a way for younger people to disguise their own fear of ageing, illness and death.

Instead of regarding the "demographic time bomb" as a burden, we should regard increased longevity and better health as a bonus, but only if we restructure public institutions and our attitudes to reflect this brave new (older) world.