Employment Age Discrimination (Hansard, 22 February 1989)

§ Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish age discrimination in employment. The aim of my Bill is to abolish age discrimination in employment. I hope that it will assist those who are in if not the evening then the late afternoon of life to find jobs. An information note issued by Hay MSL Management Consultants in November 1987 showed that, where an age was specified, 88.5 per cent. of advertisements showed an upper limit of 40 whereas only 2.5 per cent. advertised for candidates aged 46 or over. A recent report in The Sunday Times showed that over half the advertisements carried an age specification and not one carried an age requirement for the over–50s.

The Sunday Mail has run a long campaign about age discrimination, and it is a salutary thought that, at the last general election, the average age of Members of Parliament was 49. It is worth pondering the fact that a large number of Members of Parliament would never get the opportunity to be interviewed for a position here were they to seek employment in the normal market place. I am glad to be able to present the Bill from the Conservative Benches, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister practises, as always, what she preaches and she has started Sir Leon Brittan, at the age of 49, on a second career in Europe. We look forward tomorrow to learning that William Hague has been elected in his place in the Richmond, Yorks constituency.

In The Guardian on Saturday 4 February, a typical advertisement placed by a leading industrial company advertised for an industrialist journalist in Runcorn. It stated: If you are an experienced professional journalist with industrial experience and are aged 25–40, this challenging opportunity will appeal to you. To fit in leaving school, having taken A—levels, training as a journalist and obtaining industrial experience by the age of 25, one would have to move with great speed. A recent survey by the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services found that 56 per cent. of employers admit that they tend to recruit from the under–40 age group. What employers are really saying is that they want an 18–year—old with 30 years' experience.

There has been a steady decline in the economic activity of the over–55s. The sharpest drop has been among men aged 60 to 64, where employment fell from 83 per cent. to 54 per cent. between 1971 and 1985. There are some good reasons for this decline such as improved occupational pension schemes, with provsion for early retirement. Above all, until recently, it was seen as an act of social and moral generosity to give up one's job and retire early so as to create a vacancy for a young person or even a school leaver.

All that has changed rapidly. Because of the succeess of the Government's economic and industrial policies, unemployment is falling fast. The overtime in manufacturing industry last month, at 14.8 million hours per week, was the highest since January 1980.

An even greater problem facing the nation is the decline in the birth rate after the boom of the 1960s. In the 1980s there were 4.7 million 17 to 21-year-olds. By 1995–96, that figure will fall by 3.4 million, a drop of 1.3 million, bringing that age group down from 8.4 per cent. to 5.4 per 1000 cent. of the total population. In its evidence to the Employment Select Committee, the CBI forecast that the percentage of men and women within 10 years of retirement, who made up 28.7 per cent. of the work force in 1987, will rise to 31.2 per cent. by 1995.

According to the rules of the House, a private Member's Bill may not amend taxation, but I must express the hope that, in his Budget, the Chancellor will honour our long-standing pledge to abolish the earnings limit for pensioners. About £85 million in lost revenue, to allow pensioners to earn, and to keep their pension, would remove a long-running sore affecting those among the nation's "grey power" who have the energy and the inclination to continue to work. This measure, coupled with raising the level at which people commence paying national insurance contributions from £43 to £55 a week, would not only be a natural adjunct to my Bill but, remarkably, would leave the Treasury £5 million better off.

Grey power is the force of the future. For far too long the country has lacked an understanding of the rich, untapped reservoir in the over-40s. Older employees are often grateful for job opportunities. They bring stability, experience, loyalty and dedication. What they do not bring are baby problems, boyfriend problems or girlfriend problems. Very often, they are halfway through their mortgage repayments, so financial pressures do not make them conscious of the next pay rise. They act as a stabilising influence and have highly defined ideas and ideals about customer service, customer satisfaction, employee loyalty and a conscientious approach to all their duties. In London, we have all had experience of the shop assistant who is too busy varnishing her nails or telling her chum who she danced with last night to find time to serve paying customers. We have all experienced the surly, monosyllabic young man who greets all customers with, "Yeah, what yer want?".

This Bill is Parliament's answer to Phyllosan. It will prevent age discrimination in employment and ensure that all employees and job applicants are only as old as they feel and not as old as they are made to feel—and feel unwanted at that. Like Phyllosan, the Bill will "fortify the over-40s". It will free the over-40s, the over-50s and the over-60s to continue to work for their benefit and for the benefit of our nation.