| Employment Relations Bill
|
|
Mr. Boswell: It is perhaps fitting that after discussions that have ranged vigorously across the economic implications of the Bill, we should conclude on a, perhaps not quieter, but more reflective note, with a series of three new clauses, two of which are embodied in this group and one that will follow shortly, on what might loosely be called personal or moral factors. Of course, these factors have an economic implication, and I am not suggesting that other parts of the Bill do not engage on people's moral concerns, but these are particularly about discrimination and personal consequences, so it is right for the Committee to debate them. In that spirit, it is probably right, in responding to the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh when he moved his two new clauses, to declare an interest myself certainly in respect of new clause 7. People of my age are perhaps not always obliged to say precisely how old they are, although such information about hon. Members can be obtained from Vacher's or Dod's, but the Committee may be interested to know that I attended my first public election meeting during the 1945 general election. In order to awaken the interest of Government Back Benchers, I should say that the person who addressed that meeting Mr. Chidgey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his life pattern reinforces my view that the older worker has more staying power, less absenteeism and stays in the post longer? Mr. Boswell: I am delighted to hear that and am tempted to respond that only time will tell. I shall finish my anecdote, to tie things down more precisely. I am advised that the speaker on that famous occasion was none other than the late Professor Harold Laski, of whom Clem Attlee said that a period of silence would oblige. I hasten to say that my attendance was not out of political conviction, nor did it subsequently influence my political views. I was two at the time, but I am told that I was there. Some of us become increasingly interested in issues of age discrimination. With regard to older employees, I echo the experience of the hon. Member for Eastleigh that they are often of a very high quality. Some years ago I was chairman of my constituency association or, if Government Members prefer the term, constituency party and it became our firm practice, if not a conscious decision, to employ agents over 50 because they were extremely experienced and very good at their job. We had satisfaction from a series of older people in that position. Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend is correct that older people often make better employees, but is he not falling into the trap that has been set under age discrimination legislation that if one prefers older employees all my secretaries have been older than me, which can be quite old that can be discriminatory? Mr. Boswell: With his customary prescience and presence of grey matter, my hon. Friend has anticipated the point that I was to make. Mr. Chidgey: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the wording of the new clause? It does not mention whether a person is older or younger; it deals with discrimination on the basis of age. Did not the hon. Member for South Dorset say that he discriminated in favour of older people? There is no such reference in the new clause. Mr. Boswell: That may be the case, but the argument generally centres on discrimination against older people. The hon. Member for Eastleigh spoke eloquently about the problems of older teachers an issue with which I have some familiarity and about the difficulties of older workers in general. I share the view that older workers often give excellent value to their employers and that there can be discrimination against the older worker, sometimes in ways that are inappropriate. I am dealing at the moment with the initial stages of such a case. A professional driver has told me that, although he could obtain employment from an employer in an adjacent borough, he is unable to take up the post as the borough will not license him because he is over the age of 60. Apparently it would relicense someone attaining the age of 60, but, despite the fact that the man has had a clean licence for 40 years and an impeccable medical record, it will not permit him to join the payroll because he is 64. I shall not pursue that case because I have not completed my inquiries into it, but it comes immediately to mind as an example of a clear age test. I am sure that all members of the Committee wish to avoid the imposition of rigid age tests and I hope that many share my views about the quality of older workers. The difficulty is that it is one thing to express the aspiration to avoid such discrimination the Prime Minister was warm on that subject some time ago, but appears recently to have become more tepid on it, perhaps as it got nearer the time for taking decisions but it is another to turn that into viable legislation. It is here that we begin to get into the kind of trouble to which the hon. Member for Eastleigh referred and to which the CBI referred in its briefing note. The CBI says that clarity is extremely important and asks what a suitable comparator for alleged age discrimination would be; if the complainant is 35, for example, should the comparator be younger or older and by how much? It also makes the point that not all discrimination on the grounds of age is unreasonable. Mr. Chidgey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only discrimination in the work place should be on the basis of ability? The age of an employee is not necessarily irrelevant to that and the point of the new clause is to take age out of the equation and concentrate on ability. Mr. Boswell: I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I was about to cite a counter example. I will also give other examples. It would not be unreasonable to require a professional driver over the age of 60 to be tested more frequently for his physical well-being than someone aged under 50. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority requires more frequent eyesight tests or a doctor's certificate, if necessary, for older drivers. As for training requirements, it is more difficult to teach older people new tricks than it is to teach younger people. However, one always learns new tricks in this place and we may even learn some more before we have finished debating the Bill. Who knows? I am not sure that the point of the hon. Member for Eastleigh, although it was made with considerable charm and eloquence, is entirely valid. The CBI goes on to say that the concept must be tied down and, without such clarity.
The spectrum is that it is not always easy to differentiate other sorts of discrimination, but it might be particularly difficult to do so in relation to age discrimination. The ball is in the Minister's court to express his attitude towards the clause. If the hon. Gentleman can find a viable answer that does not increase the costs to business and the uncertainty that it faces, we might be talking, but there are difficulties. To aspire to good employment practice is not necessarily to require that it be enshrined in legislation. It is reasonable to say in certain respects, "Well, this issue may be handled better by guidance or a code of practice", something that I think that the Government are contemplating. We look forward to the Minister's response. I turn now to new clause 8 on gender discrimination, which is more sensitive and generates great feeling. I was aware of the South West Trains case to which the hon. Member for Eastleigh referred. I remind the Committee that the age of consent is a matter of personal opinion. In a personal rather than Front-Bench capacity, I am one of those Conservative Members who voted for a reduction in the age of consent to 16, so that will not be an issue between me and some other members of the Committee. I believed that such discrimination was no longer justified. However, we probably have to accept with regret the fact that even in contrast with other sorts of discrimination, such as on the grounds of race, a person's gender generates strong personal feelings. It might be difficult to practice for employment law to bite in areas where the employer felt passionately that he did not want to employ a certain person. I do not recall ever having been in that position when I was an employer. Lorna Fitzsimons (Rochdale): I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman voted for lowering the age of consent. Does he think that it is justified for an employer who believes passionately about issues of sexuality to discriminate against an employee? Mr. Boswell: The hon. Lady must allow me to make the argument: It is important that it should be coherent. I was saying that I am not aware of ever having had to decide whether to employ someone who was homosexual, because I am a relatively small employer. I hope that I would respond in an entirely non-discriminatory way I think, genuinely, that I would. For example, taking a sensitive area, I am aware that some clergy are homosexual, yet I regard them as excellent parish priests and in no sense worthy of discrimination. I hope that we share the same line on that. Realistically, some people in my view wrong and I hope that that gives the hon. Lady a lead choose to discriminate against persons with a homosexual inclination. It may be even more difficult to persuade people not to discriminate if they are aware of it than it would if they are not aware of it, whatever the law. That is difficult to measure, but it is right to flag it up as a practical problem. We ought to be getting to the stage where we can overcome that problem. I share the view that we should not discriminate against people. I have read the Stonewall evidence; it is, as always, most responsible. I find it compelling. That is my personal view. I give it because others may wish to dissent.
9.15 pm
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1999 | Prepared 23 March 1999 |
