Standing Committee E
Tuesday 23 March 1999
(Afternoon)
[Part II]
[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]
8.45 pm
On resuming
New clause 7
Discrimination in the work-place on grounds of age
` (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the
purpose prohibiting, in relation to any employment matter,
discrimination by an employer against another person on grounds of
that person's age.
(2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes
(a) the offer or refusal of employment;
(b) the termination of employment;
(c) terms and conditions of employment;
(d) the provision of training or skills development
opportunities;
(e) promotion and career progression.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may
(a) specify the types of action, or failure to take action, which
are to be taken to constitute discrimination for the purpose
of this section;
(b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on
employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal
Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;
(c) provide for penalties to be imposed or, as the case may be,
compensation to be awarded in respect of offences
committed under paragraph (a) above;
(d) specify exceptional circumstances in which, in any
proceedings arising under this section, it would be a
defence for an employer to show, having regard to the
nature and commercial viability of the business or
undertaking in question, that
(i) it was reasonable for him, in deciding to treat one
employee differently from another in relation to an
employment matter, to take account of the respective ages
of the relevant employees, or
(ii) age was not a significant factor in any decision to
treat one employee differently from another in relation to
an employment matter.
(4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft
has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House
of Parliament.'.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Chidgey: I beg to move, That the Clause be read
a Second time.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take
new clause 8 Discrimination in the work-place on
grounds of sexual orientation
` (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the
purpose of prohibiting, in relation to any employment matter,
discrimination by an employer against another person on grounds of
that person's sexual orientation.
(2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes
(a) the offer or refusal of employment;
(b) the termination of employment;
(c) terms and conditions of employment;
(d) the provision of training or skills development
opportunities;
(e) promotion and career progression.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may
(a) specify the types of action, or failure to take action, which
are to be taken to constitute discrimination for the purpose
of this section;
(b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on
employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal
Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;
(c) provide for penalties to be imposed or, as the case may be,
compensation to be awarded in respect of offences
committed under paragraph (a) above.
(4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft
has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House
of Parliament.'.
Mr. Chidgey: New clause 7 would allow the Secretary
of State to make regulations prohibiting discrimination by
an employer on the ground of age. New clause 8 similarly
allows the Secretary of State to make regulations
prohibiting discrimination by an employer on the ground
of sexual orientation.
The general sense of both new clauses is that they
establish in law the fundamental right that no person
should be discriminated against because of race, creed,
gender, age or sexual orientation. Hon. Members know
that in the first three cases, there is already established
law to protect people from discrimination. I should like
to believe, and trust, that members of the Committee and
Parliament share similar concern about discrimination
because of age and sexual orientation, because they are
just as prevalent and pernicious in the workplace as any
other form of discrimination. We have spent a great deal
of time debating the removal of discrimination on the
basis of training and membership, so I would have thought
that this was a good opportunity for the Government to
make their credentials clear and back their rhetoric with
a statute.
I have salient examples that I think are worth putting
on record to demonstrate why I believe new clause 7 is
important. I will begin with the teaching profession. We
are told that there is a crisis in teaching supply, yet it
could be that schools themselves are guilty of ageism,
which is cutting off the supply of teachers.
Whenever shortages of teachers are reported, there is a
flurry of letters in the press from older teachers, who
complain that they cannot get jobs, even in maths and
science, for which there is a desperate shortage of
teachers,. Alan Smithers, professor of education at the
university of Liverpool, cites the case of Bob, who lives
in London. The Committee will appreciate that I do not
wish to give people's full names. Bob has a degree in
chemistry and had 22 years experience in industry. He
decided to change career, and, in 1997, trained as a
teacher. Since qualifying, he has applied for more than 50
jobs but has had only six interviews. On each occasion,
the post for which he applied went to a younger person,
and all that he can obtain is part-time contract work.
Melissa spent 10 years teaching secondary schools
maths, for which there is a great shortage of teachers.
She decided to break from the classroom and undertake
educational research. Now, with a PhD in education, she
is unable to get a post.
There are difficulties, too, for the "scarce males" in
primary education. Many hon. Members will know that
there is a tremendous demand to get more men into
primary school teaching.
To cite the case of a gentleman called David from West
Yorkshire. After 29 years in mechanical engineering, with
a degree in environmental science, he decided to change
career and train as a teacher. He was told before he took
the course that he would make an excellent primary
teacher and would be snapped up and that, with his
experience, he would have no trouble finding a teaching
job. However, after countless applications he still has not
found a full-time post.
Finally, let me quote the case of Dr. John Whittaker, one
of my constituents is Eastleigh. John has a 2.1 honours
degree, a PhD in modern languages, another supposedly
shortage subject in schools. He qualified as a teacher 27
years ago and was immediately employed. He then worked
for 10 years as a teacher and for three years as head of
languages. He then spent eight years training teachers as a
senior lecturer at one of our local colleges of higher
education, so clearly he is a man of considerable talent. His
post was then declared redundant. Over the past three years
he has applied for 160 teaching posts, not one of which has
resulted in a job offer, even though he has kept his teaching
skills and experience up to date by working as a supply
teacher. On the rare occasions when he has reached a
shortlist, he has been told, "You were the best candidate.
We chose someone not as well qualified, but who we
thought would fit into a younger team." Another example
was "We are under a lot of pressure to appoint bright
young people."
John Whittaker is an extremely successful teacher. His
referees confirm that he delivers considerable value for
money. His problem is that he is 47 years old 47, and
on the scrapheap of our education system. He is told by
the association of teachers against ageism that the
response that he has received is typical of that received
by hundreds of teachers throughout the country. Indeed,
national statistics show that teachers aged 45 or over are
twice as likely to be unemployed six months after
completing their training as those in their twenties.
Ageism is by no means confined to teaching it occurs
in the mercantile marine, too. In my part of the country
there still is a mercantile marine just running out of
Southampton port. I know of a chief engineer with 30
years' experience, 10 years as a chief officer, who applied
for a job on an oil tanker. He was told by the company
that it did not employ chief engineers over 45 years old.
This man had 30 years' experience in charge of
ocean-going ships, with a wealth of knowledge and
practical experience behind him but he was over 45.
There are examples of deck officers who qualified as
pilots. For the uninitiated, that means piloting vessels into
harbour, not aircraft. One man qualified as a pilot and was
sent on deep-sea duties to gain the necessary experience
for the certificates that a mercantile officer needs to be
appointed to a senior position. But by the time he had
acquired the certificate he was 39 years old, and he was
refused a post as a pilot because he was too old.
There is a wealth of evidence to show that there is
widespread discrimination against age, particularly
against the over-40s, who find themselves bypassed for
promotion, the over-45s, who have fewer opportunities
for job-related training, the over-50s, who find it difficult
even to get a job interview, and the over-55s, who are
more likely to be the long-term unemployed. Age
discrimination in the workplace curtails individual
opportunity, wastes resources and, by forcing many older
people into early retirement, cuts off the valuable skills
and experience that we are told our nation desperately
needs.
Negative and inaccurate assumptions about the
capabilities and abilities of older people are reinforced by
the pay and conditions structures of many organisations,
making it financially more attractive to replace older
workers with younger people. The experience and skills
of older workers are often undervalued by employers, and
they can be regarded as less capable or less adaptable than
younger people. Studies have shown that older workers
may give better service, have lower rates of absenteeism
and stay in post longer than younger ones. We can look
around this place and draw few examples that reinforce
that analysis. That has made a few people think. Perhaps
I am thinking of beyond 2001, but I must not stray from
the point.
Anti-age discrimination legislation will not change the
underlying negative attitudes, but it would be an important
step towards ensuring that employers change their
practices. There is also strong support for such legislation
from industry. The Institute of Management, in a recent
survey of its members, found that 69 per cent. of
managers favour legislation to restrict the use of age limits
in job advertisements and 65 per cent. nearly two
thirds favour comprehensive employment protection
legislation, "comprehensive" meaning protection against
age discrimination.
Some organisations argue that a voluntary code is
sufficient that promoting the benefits of older workers is
enough and that legislation is unnecessary. The CBI is a
case in point. It put out a range of "what if" situations to
show how legislation could prohibit age discrimination.
Its approach is not dissimilar to that of many serious
probing amendments to the Bill, but in each and every
case the Government have responded by saying, more or
less, that the carrot of voluntary codes is not sufficient: it
needs to be backed by legislative sticks.
The Government have said in each case that the Bill
provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations,
should he see the need and only after consultation, but
that the power to make such regulations will be enforced
in law. New clause 7 asks for no more than that. If the
Government accept it they will grasp the opportunity to
ensure that discrimination in the workplace on the basis
of age is prohibited by law.
Briefly, new clause 8 deals with discrimination by an
employer against another person on the ground of sexual
orientation. This issue first came to my attention in 1994
when I was elected to this place. Within weeks of being
elected I was contacted by Lisa Grant, who lives with her
partner Jill Pearcey in my constituency. That may sound
a little parochial, Mr. Atkinson, but I assure you that it is
not. Lisa told me that, as an employee of South West
Trains, she was entitled to privileged rail travel. If she had
been married, the privilege would have been extended to
her husband or even her common law spouse, but, because
her partner is of the same sex, she is denied the travel
rights given freely to other employees, even though the
policy document issued by her then employer, British
Rail, stated that such discrimination was not acceptable.
That is not as parochial because as some hon. Members
may recall, the case became a cause ceÂleÁbre. It was taken
to the European Court, and argued by that well-known
barrister, Cherie Booth QC. While the European Court
agreed that there was discrimination, the case was lost,
because it considered that the issue was outside its
jurisdiction. New clause 18 would remove that anomaly
and protect same-sex couples in matters of employment
rights.
That case is by no means unique. A fairly recent survey
showed that among gays and lesbians, 16 per cent. had
faced discrimination at work and 21 per cent. suspected
that they had, on the ground of their sexuality. Another
48 per cent. claimed that they faced harassment, including
ostracism, threats and physical violence.
9 pm
In 1995 the Social and Community Planning Research
organisation, which is wholly independent, undertook a
survey among employees of all sexual orientation. It
found that one in three heterosexuals was less likely to
hire an applicant if he or she knew the person to be gay
or lesbian. In 1998, the Equal Opportunities Commission,
in its publication "Equality in the 21st Century: A new sex
equality law for Britain" , included the recommendation:
"There should be legal protection against discrimination for
lesbians and gay men."
The Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill went through
the other place last year, but insufficient parliamentary
time was available for the Bill to become law.
New clause 8 presents the Government with an
opportunity to at least prohibit discrimination against
sexual orientation in the workplace. The Government are
on record, in the other place, of having reservations about
the scope and timing of the Sexual Orientation
Discrimination Bill, but not about its good intentions. The
scope of new clause 8 is specific. Its intentions are clear
and precise and I urge the Minister to grasp the
opportunity to convert the Government's rhetoric into
law.
|
