Age (Prevention of Discrimination) (Hansard, 23 March 1999)

§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent discrimination in employment and in other matters on grounds of age. We serve as Members of the House of Commons without limit of age; our capacity to do so is measured by other yardsticks. That is an unusual position in Britain today. Increasingly, older workers are being forced out of their jobs well before they reach the official retirement ages of 60 and 65, and they are unlikely to find new employment once they are into their 50s. All parties in the House recognise the need to prevent discrimination in employment against older people.
Today, people in the United Kingdom understand that to refuse someone a job because they are black or a woman is wrong. Tomorrow, they must see that it is wrong to refuse an applicant a job merely because of his or her age. Such discrimination can be devastating and humiliating to those who suffer from it. After half a lifetime of work and achievement, they are told that they are good for nothing.
What are the facts? The Employers Forum on Age estimates that, today, of 9.3 million people aged between 50 and 65 in the United Kingdom, some 3.7 million are not in work. Most of them—3.4 million people—are classified as economically inactive, which is to say that they are neither available for nor seeking work.
Men aged between 50 and 65 are disappearing from businesses in Britain. In 1976, only 11 per cent. of men of that age were inactive; today, the figure is 27 per cent. That is causing huge damage to our country's economy in lost output of goods and services. Costly training, acquired skills and valuable experience are all being wasted. Taxpayers are becoming tax takers. It is a shocking waste of energy and talent, and it is getting worse. In the past 20 years, the figures for unemployed older people have doubled. In a society in which the proportion of older people is steadily rising, that must cause great concern.
Some economic simpletons fantasise that if we give work to the old, we take it away from the young. The idea is false. It is nonsense to say that there is a finite apple pie of work, and that if we give a larger slice of it to older people, there will be a smaller slice for the young. As economies grow, so do the number of jobs. From 1975 to 1995, employment in the United States, Canada and Australia has risen by more than 40 per cent., and the jobs in those places have not all gone to younger people.
The House must take up both the carrot and the cudgel of persuasion. We have, so far, preferred the carrot. The Conservative Administration relied on road shows and pamphlets to chivvy employers into taking on older workers. The current Government are publishing a non-statutory code of practice. Equal Rights on Age—the umbrella campaigning group, which includes Members of Parliament and charities—points out that the code will be without teeth. John Monks, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, has also predicted that a voluntary code will be largely ineffective.
Exhortation has certainly not proved itself. The Government's pilot scheme is called new deal for older workers, and it may be shown to be helpful. The approach, however, will not eliminate the problem of discrimination.
176 I listened with mixed feelings to the passage in the Chancellor's Budget speech on helping older citizens back to work. I am pleased that the Government are aware of the problem, and "£9,000 guaranteed" has a nice ring to it. However, what if one cannot get a job? What if, even after the £750 towards retraining, no employer is willing to let one prove one's worth? The £9,000 will remain beyond reach.
The Government's incorporation of the European convention on human rights will help to cut out the cancer of discrimination from public bodies, but age is not specifically mentioned in the relevant article—article 14. It is true that article 6a of the treaty of Amsterdam condemns discrimination on grounds of age. Nevertheless, the convention and the treaty make no demands on the private sector—which is why we need legislation.
Although we have legislation outlawing discrimination, it may be pointed out that women and ethnic minorities are still fighting to secure the same chances of employment as white men. However, such laws do provide remedies for the victims. They edge forward compliance with society's accepted standards and contribute to changing perceptions of what is appropriate practice by employers. The United States has had an Act preventing discrimination against older workers since 1967, and amendments have widened it to cover both private and public sector workers over the age of 40.
The House will understand that we cannot directly and easily use the experience of other countries to illuminate conditions here, but research shows that job losses in the United States from the delayering of businesses—as it was called in the 1980s—were more evenly spread across age groups than in this country. Research cited in the Employment Gazette shows that legislation can get employers to reconsider job evaluations and descriptions and to use objective rather than arbitrary age criteria. The Bill would introduce a framework law to prevent discrimination in employment, redundancy and promotion on the ground of age. The civil law would enable instances of discrimination to be brought to court and made subject to civil penalties, or taken to an industrial tribunal if preferred. A commission would be appointed to help older citizens to know and secure their rights. When the time was right, it would merge into a single equality commission, similar to the body being created in Northern Ireland.
If we are to create a society in which the potential and energy of all our citizens can bear fruit, we must outlaw discrimination against older citizens now.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
We have just heard a seductive argument—such arguments usually are—but before accepting it, we should pause for a moment to explore the possible implications. I thought that we were going to hear that because something happened in the United States, it must be rather good and we should copy it. I often find that argument seductive and persuasive, but the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) held back from that, although the fact that he cited the United States as a precedent gives me pause for thought.
While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, I was wondering how such a measure would work in practice. Open and honest as ever, he gave the answer, which gave 177 me pause for thought. Leaving aside whether legislation against discrimination succeeds in changing attitudes, it inevitably involves all the factors that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned: a commission, a framework law, civil law, the courts and civil penalties. Now we know what we are talking about—the familiar phenomenon of a bureaucracy. The discrimination industry was set up with the best of intentions, but it has burgeoned into large bureaucratic bodies that are a burden on the taxpayer and eventually a burden on business.
Let us make no mistake about the fact that we are talking about a burden on business. As business knows to its cost—though not necessarily to the cost of us in this House—whenever such proposals are brought forward by well-intentioned politicians, they immediately involve others in the bureaucracy, paid for by taxpayers' money, then the framework law, the civil law, the courts and civil penalties. Then there is mention of resort to tribunals. That is a controversial subject. How far are we prepared to introduce the possibility of resort to tribunals in addition to the courts and legal action, with the taxpayer-funded bureaucracy behind it?
The Bill would add yet another layer to the bureaucracy that exists in an attempt to overcome racial or gender prejudice. Another prejudice has been identified that must be tackled by the bureaucracy, paid for by the taxpayer, and pursued through tribunals or courts of law. That ends up as a penalty on business.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
Why not?

§ Mr. Forth
I am about to say why not. We must face the fact that the proposals are not a cost-free option. First, there is a cost to the taxpayer at large. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will be too worried about that as he supports a taxing Government. I suspect that he and many of his hon. Friends feel comfortable with the concept of additional tax burdens. They may not be ready to admit it yet, but it is increasingly understood.
Secondly, it is a burden on business—usually on small businesses, as they tend to be taken to tribunals where they have to spend time defending themselves and then 178 pay for redress. Therefore, such a measure will certainly not be cost free. Whatever its positive benefits—and I very much doubt them—I doubt whether many mature people would get jobs as a result of the bureaucracy, the framework of law, the civil actions, and the additional taxes and imposts on business that would result.
The risk of such an approach is that, by adding costs and burdens to business, we might jeopardize other people's jobs—indeed, they might be older people. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that very often these days, the older age group is first at risk if there is a squeeze on employment. Therefore, there is the possibility—I put it no higher than that—of a paradox arising of the very people whom the measure is intended to help being the first to suffer from its effects.
I hope that we will think long and hard before we go down this route too quickly because we really must examine all the implications, downsides, penalties and risks for what are not certain, but arguable benefits. I have tried briefly to identify the costs, penalties and difficulties. Even the right hon. Gentleman, in his more optimistic moments, might admit that the benefits of such a measure are at the very least doubtful. They are definitely not certain. I have the very gravest doubts about the measure and I hope that it will be considered in great detail before it proceeds further. I also hope that the House will be alerted to the likely possibility of its negative effects as well as its possible benefits.