| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Marsha Singh (Bradford, West): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Waterson: No, I will not. I do not have time.
Ms Claire Ward (Watford): I, too, support the aims of the Bill, but, as currently drafted, it does not dealwith some of the problems of age discrimination. Discrimination of any sort is, of course, unacceptable and we have had legislation for many years that prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex, race and, lately, disability, but attitudes take much longer to change. Even if the House were to enact the Bill today, it would not, unfortunately, ensure that age discrimination did not continue in workplaces, health services and the leisure and other industries.
Mr. Singh: Will my hon. Friend give way?
If we enact comprehensive legislation at some time in future--we should not rule that out--it will still take a long time to change people's perception and to educate them so that they see other people's merits and what they can bring to employment rather than simply their age.
As a young hon. Member, I can speak with some authority about age discrimination against younger people. During my selection as a candidate for the recent general election, comments were occasionally made about my age. I have always believed that it is not a matter of
how old or young someone is, but whether they are capable of doing the job. Although in the House I feel young, when I watch my local football team in Watford I am conscious that the players are considerably younger than me.
I watched my father suffer age discrimination when he lost his job in his mid-50s. Despite looking much younger than his years--perhaps the House will allow me to be biased about that--he often faced discrimination when filling in forms that required him to state his age and details of his early education. When he finally gained employment, he suffered the comments of younger managers such as, "You are old enough to be my father" and "I am surprised that someone of your age is still working."
We all recognise that changes are required. Recently, one of my constituents, a capable and young-looking woman of 69, applied for a job in a well-known and highly respected high street store during the Christmas period. She requested an application form, completed it and handed it in with the passport photographs that were required. As she had previous retail experience, she was an ideal candidate. She was invited for an interview. When she got there the personnel department was quite impressed, but, being an honest woman, she felt that she should say that she was 69. She was promptly informed that company policy would not permit the store to employ her as she was over retirement age. Disappointed, she returned home determined to approach other employers who did not discriminate in that way. To make matters worse, over the next few days she was telephoned by the personnel department of the store and asked whether she was interested in work. Clearly, the staff had looked at her form and seen how much experience she had. When she advised them once again that she was 69, they apologised and said that they could not employ her. Since then, the company has apologised and provided a generous token, but it has not changed its policy.
Mr. David Willetts (Havant):
We have just heard a fine and interesting speech from the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), who I see from "The Times Guide to the House of Commons" was born in 1972 and began work as a part-time secretary in 1985--at the age of 13. I am pleased that there was no age discrimination there.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) on introducing the Bill. It is a measure with a long history. We heard from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has been pursuing his campaign for a long time with great vigour and persistence.
I want not only to congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North; I should like also to commiserate with her. I suspect that, when choosing to promote this Bill, she may have thought--having come so high in the ballot for private Members' Bills--that she would be in a position to start implementing the Labour manifesto pledge that, in work, older people
It is right to debate this subject this week because it is age discrimination week. Age discrimination is wrong in principle--that point has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House--and economically wasteful. I had the honour of participating in some of the work done in the Carnegie study of the third age, which very clearly established that employers are missing out because of their entirely irrational prejudice against older workers.
There have been some very encouraging experiments by organisations such as B and Q, which has actively gone out and recruited older workers. Whether such a policy would be possible under the Bill is an interesting point. Regardless, having actively recruited older workers, B and Q reports less absenteeism and sickness and higher rates of consumer satisfaction with the service that they receive in B and Q shops.
The Opposition's position on the Bill is that there are arguments in favour of it, but that there are also substantial arguments against it. There are concerns in the business community about the burden that businesses would face if such regulations were imposed. We believe that it would be right for the Bill to proceed to Committee, having secured a Second Reading, so that those arguments can be thrashed out--particularly in the light of the comment made earlier in the debate by the hon. Member for Ilford, North, who went out of her way to say that she would be "flexible" in Committee and consider any practical amendments to the Bill.
Having stated the Opposition's position on the Bill, I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us the Government's view. This has been a rather erratic week for Government policy on older workers. First, we had a press notice from the Minister's Department that went on about a voluntary code of practice. That is fine--we have no problems with it--but it did not begin to clarify the Minister's view on legislation. Next, there were some quotations in the press that implied that the Minister had concluded against legislation. He apparently went beyond that press statement in his remarks to the press and talked about
Subsequently, we were told that perhaps some legislation would be possible--which I believe the Minister said to the nation through the medium of the Jimmy Young show. It would be very helpful to know whether the Minister believes that there should be legislation to deal with the issue. I look forward to hearing from him on that.
Today, another ingenious defensive argument has been mounted--we heard it in the intervention of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who is no longer in the Chamber--which is that the Government's commitment was to legislate comprehensively, so it would not be possible for the Government to legislate in a small but practical manner to deal with part of the problem. It is the argument that one cannot do a little but can perhaps do a lot.
The claim that it is impossible to implement the measures in this private Member's Bill because there may be subsequent and much more ambitious legislation is stretching credibility an awful long way, especially as the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)--who was then the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman--said in a press release issued on 8 February 1996 that
I suggest that we have clear evidence of the Government's real views on older workers in the pattern of expenditure in the welfare-to-work programme. We heard an extraordinary intervention from the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who said that employing older people would be an important part of the Government's welfare-to-work policies; but we know that, of the £3.5 billion that is to be spent on welfare-to-work measures, £3.15 billion--90 per cent.--will go on young people aged 18 to 24 and only £350 million will go on the long-term unemployed. Despite some rather vague promises from the Chancellor when he launched the pilot projects for welfare to work, a parliamentary answer to a question that I subsequently tabled clearly establishes that the Government have no intention whatsoever of offering older workers the four options available to 18 to 24-year-olds, unless they have been unemployed for two years--four times longer than it is necessary for 18 to 24-year-olds to have been unemployed.
We know that young people are the more mobile section of the work force and are able to get back into work more rapidly than older workers. They already have an 80 per cent. chance of getting off benefit within a year of being unemployed for six months. It seems extraordinary that the Government should display such bias against older people in the one practical intervention in the labour market--the welfare-to-work programme--that they have made since coming to office.
I shall conclude by quoting, yet again, the words spoken in 1996 by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Makerfield, who was then the shadow spokesman on this subject. He said:
"should not be discriminated against because of their age."
However, rather than finding herself happily implementing a measure to pursue a manifesto commitment, she has the sad experience of her Bill being strangled at birth by being talked out in today's debate. She has gone from being a loyalist to being a rebel without her views on the subject of age discrimination changing one jot. I suppose that that is a feature of the vagaries of politics.
"Trying to define some of these things in law could be setting up a minefield of complexity, with whole rafts of people going to industrial tribunals",
which sounded like a Minister preparing for a climbdown.
"Outlawing age discrimination in job adverts is a worthy beginning."
He believed that it would be a prelude to more ambitious legislation, so I cannot understand why the small measure before the House today has to be impeded because of the possibility of some more ambitious legislation later. I suspect that the Government have lost all interest in age discrimination. I suspect that they do not intend to legislate.
"an incoming Labour Government will introduce comprehensive legislation to make age discrimination in employment illegal."--[Official Report, 9 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 618.]
If statements of policy made to the House from the Front Bench are to count for anything, the Government should be supporting the Bill this afternoon.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |