House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Feb 1998 (pt 17)

1.31 pm

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) on introducing the Bill and on the manner in which she did so. She deserves many congratulations, and I hope that the measure will make progress.

I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) say that she hopes that the Bill will go to Committee. When I presented my measure--which was almost the same as my hon. Friend's Bill--two years ago almost to the day, that was not the attitude displayed by the then Government. They did not wish my very modest measure to go to Committee.

Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham): Corporate memory loss.

Mr. Winnick: Indeed. The mood was one of hostility, although it was an enjoyable debate. The hon. Lady said

6 Feb 1998 : Column 1405

then that she opposed discrimination, but--as she said again today--she was certainly very much against legislation.

Mrs. Gillan: The difference between the hon. Gentleman's 1996 measure and this legislation is that this is a changed Bill. As the then Minister, I could not accept his proposals. I still do not accept this Bill, but I would like it to be discussed further.

Mr. Winnick: The House may make up its own mind on that intervention; the hon. Lady's remarks, now and then, are on the record.

Although there has been an increase in the amount of media coverage afforded to the subject in the past two years, there has been no change as far as dealing with discrimination on the ground of age. The hon. Lady--who is now leaving the Chamber; she explained why she had to go--was right to say that there is a greater awareness of age discrimination. The advertisement that has been referred to served a useful purpose by bringing the issue to the attention of those who perhaps would not bother to read a news story or a press release.

As for the present Government's attitude, a promise was given, but it was to bring in comprehensive legislation. I hope that the Government will support the Bill, but if they do not, so be it, although that would be unfortunate and I would share the disappointment felt by a number of my hon. Friends. I know that there has been a great deal of pressure exerted by employers not to bring in such legislation, and perhaps that pressure is all the greater because of other measures that we are introducing about which employers might not be keen, for example, on a national minimum wage, and trade union recognition as well I hope. I understand the pressure that is being exerted on the Government about the Bill.

Let us be clear that many people experience discrimination on the ground of age alone. I deplore all forms of discrimination, and I know that young people are often discriminated against. However, I know from what I have been told and from what has been said by hon. Members and others outside the House about the acute difficulties of those who could be described as middle aged. When they lose their job, they find it difficult to get another, certainly in the non-manual sector, simply because they are in their 40s. Indeed, age discrimination can begin when people are in their 30s. Some employers state in their advertisements that the upper age limit for applicants is 35. Those who reach their 40s, let alone their 50s, find that, time and again, even though they have the qualifications and are capable of doing the new job, the door is closed for no other reason than that they have reached the advanced age of, for example, 45.

I remember the maiden speech of one of my hon. Friends who entered the House in 1992, and who said that he had just turned 45. He was starting on a new career and has done well since then, but, as he pointed out then, he would not have stood a chance of obtaining so many other jobs simply because he had reached his mid-40s. That must be wrong and cannot be defended. If it is not possible by voluntary means, persuasion or education to overcome the problem, legislation is needed.

Yvette Cooper (Pontefract and Castleford): Does my hon. Friend agree that tackling age discrimination is a

6 Feb 1998 : Column 1406

critical part of the fight against long-term unemployment because people who lose their jobs, particularly the over-50s, are more likely to become long-term unemployed and to stay on the dole year after year?

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend has made a valid point that ties in with my remarks about people's difficulty in getting a job because of their middle age.

Two years ago, I made much about linking age discrimination with that on the grounds of race and gender. We are not responsible for the colour of our skin, or whether we happen to be born male or female; neither are we responsible for when we were born. Discrimination on the grounds of race, gender or age must be unacceptable.

As I said two years ago, much of the argument against legislating against age discrimination, as outlined by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and the Conservative party, is the same as that used over 30 years ago against any legislative attempt to deal with race discrimination. Then, Conservative Members, many of whom were by no means racist, although I accept that some were, repeatedly said that we could not change human nature by law. They said that it was a matter of trying to educate and pressurise people to make them understand that it was wrong to discriminate on the ground of race.

Thirty years on, and despite all the difficulties still connected with racial discrimination, would anyone suggest that the progress we have made on race relations, and its subsequent impact on jobs and housing provision, would have been made without legislation?

Thirty years ago, it was argued that it was the customer rather than the employer who might be prejudiced. It would be unthinkable that anyone could now queue up at a bank, building society or wherever and then say, "No, I cannot be served by that person. She is of Asian origin. She is black." It would be unthinkable for an employer to try to discriminate in such a blatant way. Indeed, it would be against the law, apart from anything else.I accept and concede the point that to be discriminated against because of one's colour might be much worse than being discriminated against because of age, but to be penalised for no other reason than when one was born is, in my view, absolutely wrong.

One of the ironies is that many companies that discriminate on the ground of age have in their most senior positions people in their 40s, 50s--even 60s. No one is suggesting for one moment, including those companies, that the people who do the most senior, executive jobs cannot do them because they have reached what could be described as a rather advanced or late middle age.

I hope that the Bill will make progress, but what is required is comprehensive legislation to deal with age discrimination. My remarks today demonstrate that I have increasingly come to that view. If I am asked why I tried two years ago to introduce a more modest, limited measure, I say that it was because I knew that if I had tried to introduce more comprehensive legislation, there would have been no chance of the then Conservative Government supporting it. Indeed, they decided not to support my more modest measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said what he said at the time, but he also made the point that the Labour

6 Feb 1998 : Column 1407

party is committed to comprehensive legislation, and, moreover, that an incoming Labour Government would consult on such legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) pointed out, we have been in office a relatively short time--under a year--and there is time to consult.

If the problem will go away without legislation, those of us who are pressing for a change to the law will have to accept that there is no need for legislation, but I believe that it will not go away any more than the problem of race or gender discrimination. What has happened in the past two years demonstrates that little progress, if any, has been made in combating age discrimination, although there is a greater awareness of the issue. To my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights I say that if the problem does not go away, I hope that the Government will act, as it was a Labour Government who acted on race discrimination 30 years ago.

If the Government decide on a voluntary code of practice and decide that it simply does not work--that people continue to be penalised because of their age--I hope that they will conclude that comprehensive legislation is required. We must make progress on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North has done a public service. Indeed, to a large extent she has carried out what the Labour party conference decided in combating age discrimination. If we reject the Conservative notion that legislation is never desirable in such a field, and the Government conclude that the problem will not go away unless legislation is introduced, I hope that Ministers will have the courage to do precisely that.