DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORK—PLACE ON GROUNDS OF AGE

HC Deb 30 March 1999 vol 328 cc930-61

1. '—(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 age.
2. (2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes—
1. (a) the offer or refusal of employment;
2. (b) the termination of employment;
3. (c) terms and conditions of employment;
4. (d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;
5. (e) promotion and career progression.
3. (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—
1. (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;
2. (b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;
3. (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. (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—
1. (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
2. (ii) age was not a significant factor in any decision to treat one employee differently from another in relation to an employment matter.
4. (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.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5— Discrimination in the work-place on grounds of sexual orientation—

1. '—(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. (2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes—
1. (a) the offer or refusal of employment;
2. (b) the termination of employment;
3. (c) terms and conditions of employment;
4. (d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;
5. (e) promotion and career progression.
3. (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—
1. (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;
2. (b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;
3. (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. (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.'.

New clause 6—Discrimination in the work-place (general prohibition)—

1. '—(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 any grounds specified in the regulations.
2. (2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes—
1. (a) the offer or refusal of employment;
2. (b) the termination of employment;
3. (c) terms and conditions of employment;
4. (d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;
5. (e) promotion and career progression.
3. (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—
1. (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;
2. (b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;
3. (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. (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

The new clauses deal primarily with discrimination in employment. New clause 4 would prohibit discrimination on the ground of age, new clause 5 on the ground of sexual orientation, and new clause 6 on any grounds that the Secretary of State may from his experience see fit to specify.

The new clauses expose a glaring omission in the Bill. The Government failed to grasp the opportunity to end discrimination in the workplace. They also expose a basic breach of a pledge made by the Government during the general election. Having made such a blatant remark, if Labour Members doubt me I refer them to their manifesto, which I happen to have in my hand. I am sure that we all remember it. Page 35 talks in glowing terms of equal rights for the citizen. It says: We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists. That is a sound sentiment, and it is one that I am happy to endorse.

Mr. Fabricant

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chidgey

I shall make a little progress and then I shall be happy to give way. It should be a fundamental right that no person should suffer discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, gender, age or sexual orientation. I hope that that is a view shared by every hon. Member, regardless of party. I give way to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).

Mr. Fabricant

I wished to make a comment that was appropriate to the point that the hon. Gentleman was making, but he has moved on and I do not want to break his flow.

Mr. Chidgey

The hon. Gentleman is so kind. Sadly, the moment comes and then it goes.

It surely must be the view of each and every Labour Member who campaigned throughout the general election on the basis of new Labour's manifesto pledges that no person should suffer discrimination. Discrimination on the grounds of age and sexual orientation is not prohibited by law, yet it is just as prevalent and pernicious in the workplace as any other form of discrimination.

New clause 4 would prohibit discrimination on the ground of age. I want to take a few salient examples of areas in which such discrimination is rife. The teaching profession is one. We are told that there is a crisis in teacher supply, but it could be that schools are guilty of ageism. Whenever we have reports of shortages of teachers, a few days later there is a flurry of letters in the broadsheets from older teachers who complain that they cannot get jobs even in maths and science, which are areas of scarcity.

I raised this matter in Committee, and it is worth emphasising the work of Alan Smithers, a professor of education at Liverpool university. He cites many examples of discrimination on the ground of age. A gentleman referred to as Bob has a degree in chemistry and 22 years of experience in industry. He trained as a teacher in 1997 as a second career. He applied for more than 50 jobs and received just six interviews, but each time the post went to a younger person. All that he can get is part-time supply work.

The second case is a woman called Melissa, a teacher of secondary maths—another area of shortage. She broke off to do educational research and she has come back with a PhD in education, but she is unable to get a post as a teacher. A gentleman called John happens to live, and previously worked, in my constituency in Eastleigh. He has a 2.1 honours degree and a PhD in modern languages—supposedly very much a shortage subject. He qualified as a teacher 27 years ago and at that time had no problem getting a job. Since then, he has worked for many years as a teacher, three as a head of a modern languages department. He then spent eight years training teachers as a senior lecturer in a local college of higher education, but following a change in the college's curriculum his post was declared redundant when the language teaching area was closed down. That was three years ago.

In the past three years, John has applied for more than 160 teaching posts. Not one has resulted in a job offer, even though he has kept his teaching experience up to date and modern by working continually as a supply teacher. On the rare occasions on which he has reached the shortlist for a job, he has been told, "You were the best candidate, but we chose someone less well qualified because we thought they would fit in better with a younger team." Or he was told, "We are under a lot of pressure these days to appoint bright young people." John is an extremely successful teacher. His referees confirm that he delivers considerable value for money, but his problem is that he is 47.

Mr. Brady

Many of the cases that the hon. Gentleman cites are worthy. Will he comment on the situation that I know frequently to be the case in the employment of teachers? The reason why an older teacher is not engaged is not simply age but the fact that he would be more expensive to recruit because he is more experienced. I wonder how the hon. Gentleman's new clause would apply in those circumstances.

8.15 pm

Mr. Chidgey

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If he will allow me, I will come to that and explain the position. Interestingly enough, John has gone through just those hoops. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient for a moment, I will come to the point that he makes.

John is told by the Association of Teachers Against Ageism that his case is typical. The statistics show that teachers of 45 or over are twice as likely to be unemployed six months after completing their training as new teachers in their 20s.

Ageism is by no means confined to teaching. John wrote to me in August last year and to the Department for Education and Employment at the same time. The DFEE replied sympathetically. It said: Ministers believe that schools recognise that more experienced teachers have much to offer … They are also aware that experienced teachers entitled to a higher salary felt they could be at a disadvantage. They have, therefore, introduced"— not are taking, but have introduced— a measure to assist schools who employ teachers with an entitlement to a higher salary. That was last September. I went to see John in Eastleigh at the weekend. His job applications tally has now risen to 185 and he still has no offer of a post.

Ageism is by no means confined to teaching; it can be found in many professions. It is certainly present in the mercantile marine—an area of employment that is, or at least used to be, prevalent in Southampton, with its shipping interests. I know of many examples of ageism. One is of a chief engineer with 30 years of experience, 10 years as chief officer. He applied for a job on an oil tanker, but was told that the company did not employ chief engineers over 45.

A deck officer qualified as a pilot and went on deep sea duties to acquire the experience that he needed at sea to apply for the senior positions for which he was qualified, but by the time that he had acquired a suitable certificate, he was 39. He was refused the post as a pilot because he was too old. He had to go to sea to get the experience, and that took time, but by the time he got back he was too old to get to the job.

There is a wealth of experience to show that age discrimination is prevalent. The over-40s find themselves bypassed for promotion. The over-45s have less opportunity for job-related training—a matter that we should look into. The over-50s find it difficult even to get an interview—John is in that situation, although he is younger. The over-55s are more likely to be long-term unemployed. Age discrimination in the workplace curtails individual opportunity. It wastes resources by forcing many older people into early retirement. Negative and inaccurate assumptions about the capabilities and abilities of older people are reinforced in many organisations.

The Secretary of State talked a few months ago about changing the culture. Well, here is where he could start. Many organisations have pay and conditions structures that make it financially more attractive to replace older people with younger people. The experience and skills of older workers are often undervalued and unrecognised by employers and older workers can be regarded as less capable and adaptable than younger people. Studies show that older workers may give better service, have lower rates of absenteeism and stay in the post longer than younger people. Older people have staying power, and I say that from the heart.

Mr. Brady

I confess that I am guilty of the age discrimination that the hon. Gentleman highlights, in that I tend to favour employing older people because I find that they have greater staying power and more commitment to their job. Surely, under the proposed new clause that practice would be illegal.

Mr. Chidgey

The hon. Gentleman usually looks through Bills with forensic skill, so I am surprised at his comment. Perhaps he was half asleep, because if he had read the new clause carefully he would know that it refers to "age", not to a particular age. The clause covers age discrimination, whether the person is young or old; it applies—although not perhaps equally—to many age groups.

Mr. Brady

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, because I want to clear up this point. I fear that I have been the subject of an unjust calumny. I do not necessarily claim to be forensic, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is making my point. The fact that the new clause would outlaw discrimination on the ground of age, whether old or young, is precisely my point; there may be extremely good reasons for choosing to employ an older person, but that would be outlawed under the new clause.

Mr. Chidgey

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the point a little clearer. My point is that people's employment should be based on their ability; the only discrimination that should exist in the workplace is over a person's competence to do the job. That is what the new clause is about.

I readily accept that anti-age discrimination legislation would not in itself change the underlying negative attitudes that exist, but it would be an important step towards ensuring that employers change their practices. There is strong support from industry.

Mr. Brian Cotter (Weston-super-Mare)

My hon. Friend refers to the possibility that legislation might not change attitudes. That was also true of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill 1998, which was adopted by the Government on the understanding that we needed a stick, but that we also needed to change the culture.

Mr. Chidgey

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Time and again, the Government have told us that the legislation that they wanted to have the power to enact through enabling Bills was merely a background to the problems that they hoped to solve through discussion and consultation. I accept that, but I do not see why we should not have the necessary sticks to back up the consultation that the Government hope will be successful.

There is strong support for legislation to tackle age discrimination. In a recent survey, the Institute of Management found that about 60 per cent. of managers favoured legislation to restrict the use of age limits in job advertisements and about 65 per cent. favour comprehensive employment protection legislation. Some organisations will argue that a voluntary code and the promotion of the advantages of older workers is enough and that legislation is not necessary. From its briefing notes, the Confederation of British Industry appears to be a case in point. The CBI argues that age discrimination is extremely difficult to define; so are many elements of the Bill, but that has not prevented the Government from introducing legislation. The CBI asks: What should be the comparator age? I dealt with that point earlier. The CBI argues that not all differential treatment on the ground of age is unreasonable, giving the example that older workers do not have comparable training needs to younger workers—what an admission. Throughout industry and commerce, firms are suffering from severe skills shortages, yet according to the CBI it is okay to discriminate against older workers in investment and training. No wonder the highest levels of unemployment are among those aged 45 or older, whose skills have not been kept up to date and who find themselves with obsolete techniques in industries that also deserve to be obsolete.

Mr. Boswell

I hold no particular brief for the CBI, but I think that the point its members were making is that older workers might not need training because they were already fully trained. Although some of them might need training, their entitlement to training might be somewhat different from that of other workers.

Mr. Chidgey

I should very much like to agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but the CBI briefing refers to older members nearing retirement age". The CBI completely missed the point of the clause; its briefing refers only to older workers. As I have pointed out, younger workers are often stifled and prevented from getting promotion on their ability because they happen to be too young according to the practices of the firm for which they work. I disagree with the CBI. Apparently, the Government disagree with the CBI too—or at least they did disagree.

In 1996, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), spoke in a debate on the Employment (Upper Age Limits in Advertisements) Bill. Incidentally, I am sad that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to be in the Chamber today; I know that he has been unwell and I wish him a speedy recovery. I mean no disrespect to the Minister on the Treasury Bench when I say that I would have been pleased to see the Minister of State at the Dispatch Box; I know that he would have wanted to be here to defend what he said when he was in opposition. He stated: The Labour party's position is quite clear … an incoming Labour Government will introduce comprehensive legislation to make age discrimination in employment illegal. We shall consult on the legislation. We want to ensure that not only will workers have a remedy in law against discrimination, but the appropriate legal framework will be put in place to enable employers to change their workplace practices, with co-operation between management and workplace representatives. —[Official Report, 9 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 618.] A well-made speech. I can hear the right hon. Gentleman saying those words in ringing tones. I agree; those are my sentiments exactly.

The CBI has made a range of "what if" objections to the clause; they are not dissimilar to the probing amendments to the Bill introduced in Committee. However, in each case the Government responded to those amendments by saying—more or less—that the carrot of voluntary codes is not sufficient, and that that carrot needs to backed up by a legislative stick, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) pointed out. In every case, the Government made the point that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations should he see the need to do so and only after consultation. However, the power to make such regulations will be in force in law.

With new clause 4, I am not asking for any more than that. If the Government accept the new clause, they will have grasped the opportunity to ensure that, in employment relations, discrimination in the work force on the basis of age will be prohibited, with the force of law to back up that prohibition.

New clause 5 would, in relation to employment, prohibit discrimination by an employer against another person on the ground of sexual orientation. The issue first came to my notice when I was first elected in 1994, because in my Eastleigh constituency a case involving such discrimination came to light and subsequently became internationally known. The case involved two women—Lisa Grant and her partner Jill Pearcey—who happened to live not far from my offices in Eastleigh. Lisa told me that, as an employee of South West Trains, she was entitled to privileged rail travel; and that, if she had been married, that privilege would have extended to her husband, or, in these enlightened times, to her common law spouse if she had had one. However, because her partner is the same sex as her, she has been denied those travel rights, even though the policy document issued by the previous employer and kept in place—British Rail's employment policy document—stated that such discrimination is unacceptable.

Many hon. Members will recall the case because Lisa and Jill took their case to an industrial tribunal, which in due course referred it to the European Court of Justice. Their case was presented for them by an eminent and, I believe, very able Queen's Counsel—none other than Cherie Booth, QC. The outcome was that although the European Parliament has declared that it deplores all forms of discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation, the European Union itself has not yet adopted rules to provide for such equality.

In most member states, a stable relationship between two people of the same sex is treated as equivalent to a stable relationship between a heterosexual couple who do not happen to be married. It is important, because that is not true in Britain. As a consequence, the European Court of Justice found that although in principle the European Parliament and the European Union deplore discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, no EC law currently exists to cover such circumstances; and, as no such law exists in the UK either, the court had no option but to find against Lisa and Jill. However, at the same time, the court called on the British Parliament to close the loophole that allowed the discrimination to continue.

8.30 pm

Mr. Wilkinson

Although I have no truck with the European Union arrogating to itself a function that rightly appertains to member states—namely, to decide social policy within them—is it not true that, had that action been successful, it might have opened the floodgates to all sorts of spurious claims, with people purporting to be partners when they were only friends and individuals and thereby gaining rights and entitlements that were not rightfully theirs?

Mr. Chidgey

I can respond only by saying that the ECJ's point was that no such law or regulation exists in the UK, although it does in many other European countries; and that because of that, the ECJ was not able to try or come to a conclusion on the case—it was outside the court's jurisdiction.

Mr. Fabricant

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some companies have overcome the problem of determining what is or is not a spurious claim? For example, the John Lewis Partnership offers discounts to partners and to the partners of partners, entitlement being based on the number of years the partners have lived together. There are ways of getting around the problem.

Mr. Chidgey

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The key word in the description is that it is a "stable" relationship—a phrase which could apply equally to a heterosexual couple who do not happen to be married and to a same-sex couple, the key test being whether the relationship is long term and stable. Many of Britain's top 100 companies have policies ensuring that they do not discriminate against people on the ground of their sexual orientation.

The new clause provides an opportunity for the UK to introduce laws that match those of our neighbouring European countries—an opportunity to end that type of discrimination. The case of Lisa and Jill is by no means unique: recent surveys among gay men and lesbians show that 16 per cent. have faced discrimination at work and another 21 per cent. suspect that they have suffered discrimination on the ground of their sexuality; and 48 per cent. have faced harassment, including ostracism, threats and even physical violence. In 1995, Social and Community Planning Research undertook an independent survey of employees of all sexual orientations. It found that one in three heterosexuals is less likely to hire an applicant if they know the applicant to be gay or lesbian—a telling fact. In 1998, the Equal Opportunities Commission, in its publication "Equality in the 21st Century", included a recommendation that: There should be legal protection against discrimination for lesbians and gay men. In another place, the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill was passed, but there was insufficient parliamentary time for it to become law by passing through this House.

As the law stands, it is not unlawful to refuse to appoint someone because of their sexuality. Treating someone less favourably because of their sexuality is not unlawful; harassing someone because of their sexuality is not unlawful; and dismissing someone because of their sexuality is not generally unlawful. New clause 5 would give the Secretary of State the power to extend protection.

Mr. Healey

This is a useful rehearsal of the problems of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and age and reinforces the argument for some action in that area. However, does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Department for Education and Employment is currently receiving representations from various agencies, including the Equal Opportunities Commission, about the need to consolidate and update discrimination legislation across the board? Might it not be better to deal with those issues in consolidated discrimination legislation rather than in this Bill?

Mr. Chidgey

I am grateful for that intervention. I am aware that the Department for Education and Employment is panicking about the problem as it affects teachers. However, I imagine that its legislation will cover only the teaching profession. I contend that the problem of discrimination is endemic in all of industry and commerce.

Mr. Healey

rose—

Mr. Chidgey

The hon. Gentleman is eager to contribute—he must have been briefed about this issue. I have followed the Bill through the Committee stage, and I do not accept the Government's "wait and see" approach. During consideration of the Bill, the Government said time and again that they wanted the power to make regulations in case they were needed. What is so different about my proposed new clause? I shall give way for the last time.

Mr. Healey

I have also followed the Bill through every stage, I have attended every Committee sitting so far, and I have not been briefed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am talking not about teachers but about responsibility. The Department for Education and Employment is responsible for anti-discrimination legislation. It holds that brief, not the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Chidgey

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. However, I do not foresee any problems if such legislation were to be on the statute book. I do not think there would necessarily be a clash of responsibilities. I do not profess to be a legal or a parliamentary clerk, but that is the sort of excuse we tend to hear when Governments do not want to do what most people think they should.

New clause 5 would give the Secretary of State the power to extend protection from discrimination in employment to lesbians and gay men. Like so many others in the Bill, it is an enabling clause. It would give the Government the opportunity at last to prohibit discrimination against sexual orientation in the workplace. The Government are on record in another place as expressing reservations about only the scope and timing of the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill, not its good intentions. This new clause is specific in its scope. Its intentions are clear and precise, and I urge the Minister to grasp this opportunity to convert the Government's rhetoric into law.

In Standing Committee, the Minister acknowledged: a gap exists in the protection that we offer some individuals. The Government deplore discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Minister then admitted that the Government had no clear plans to deal with the issue in the foreseeable future, and said: it is too early to be clear whether a legislative measure would be the appropriate way to proceed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 March 1999; c. 580.] That is not good enough. The Government have made much of codes of practice on ageism and have commissioned research to test their effectiveness. However, they are silent about discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. At the very least, they should make a commitment tonight to draw up a code of practice on sexual orientation rather than simply promising to consult.

New clause 4 refers to the general prohibition of discrimination in employment, as the Secretary of State may specify from time to time in the regulations. Time and again, the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations as he thinks fit—and when we probe the Government on the detailed applications of the Bill, they reply that it is an enabling Bill and that detailed regulations will be introduced after consultation and as appropriate.

If the Secretary of State finds new clauses 4 and 5 too specific and rigid, perhaps he will accept new clause 6, which would provide a general power following precisely the line that the Government have taken throughout our debates on the Bill. New clause 6 would, in the words of the right hon. Member for Makerfield—now the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry—enable the Government to ensure that not only will workers have a remedy in law against discrimination, but the appropriate legal framework will be put in place".—[Official Report, 9 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 618.] It would also allow the Government to keep their election manifesto promise to seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists". I look forward to the Minister accepting new clause 6 and demonstrating that that is one promise that the Government will keep.

Mr. Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South)

I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) about new clauses 4 and 5. I pay tribute to him for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. As he said, it is nonsense that the rulings that have been made in our courts—although they must abide by existing legislation—clearly discriminate against lesbians and gay men in partnership arrangements.

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's objectives in tabling new clause 4 because, like other hon. Members, I have had constituency cases involving people who were clearly victims of age discrimination. Teachers, in particular, experience such problems.

It is absurd that, as the Court of Appeal held in Smith v Gardner Merchant in 1998, the proper comparison for a claim under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is between a male and female homosexual, and where an employer can show that a lesbian and a gay man are treated equally badly, there is no case for sex discrimination. What we have, according to the present law of the land, is equality of misery or injustice, and clearly a Government who are intent on equality of opportunity and equal rights should not be prepared to countenance that for longer than is necessary. I therefore have enormous sympathy with the aims of the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh.

The question is: what is the appropriate mechanism within government for remedying that problem? It is well known—we should be cheerful about this fact—that increasing numbers of employers in the private and public sectors have introduced equal opportunity policies that include anti-discrimination terms for lesbians and gay men. That is to be applauded, but there will always be those who fall through the gaps. The survey to which the hon. Member for Eastleigh referred underlines the need for us to introduce legislation to deal with that problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) referred to the Department for Education and Employment. In certain circumstances, it would be most appropriate for that Department to introduce legislation on this matter.

Equally, it is important that, whatever the House decides, we send out a very strong message that hon. Members and the Government will not tolerate discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual orientation for longer than necessary. I shall therefore be looking to the Minister to comment in his reply on what he believes is appropriate. In Committee, he said that it was too early to be clear whether a legislative measure would he the appropriate way to proceed. I am in no doubt that the time for some legislative measure to proceed is well past. It is extremely important that this injustice is remedied.

If we are to remedy an injustice, it is important that we have evidence on which to proceed. I shall look to the Minister to comment on what can be done in his Department to produce evidence that shows an awareness of this problem and therefore underlines the need for legislative activity.

8.45 pm

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)

Does my hon. Friend agree that we must consider this matter not just in the employed sector, but in the professional sectors—whether it be in medicine or dentistry, at the Bar or in the Law Society—where discrimination on the ground of gender, as well as on other grounds, often occurs?

Mr. Marsden

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am particularly grateful to him for highlighting that point. That was precisely why I particularly approved of the intention behind new clauses 4 and 5. A range of issues in this area—not least ageism—should be addressed. I do not wish this debate to be seen as taking place in a ghetto. I agree absolutely that the professions have a particular responsibility in this area, which, in some respects, has been indifferently discharged. It is important that we ventilate this issue. I shall be looking for some assurances from the Minister on it.

Mr. Fabricant

I align myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), although I shall mainly address my remarks to new clause 4, which concerns ageism. I suppose that I ought to declare an interest. My ex-bank manager, Ken Stevens of Lloyds bank in Brighton, said when I was 33 years old that I was a young whiz kid. Now, at the age of 48, I am just an old has-been. Nevertheless, this matter needs to be taken seriously; things cannot continue as at present, for three reasons.

First, ageism is fundamentally unfair and immoral. It is the very issue that the House is here—and has been here for hundreds of years—to address. Ageism is quite simply wrong. The second reason is that older people have a lot to offer new companies—companies with fewer than 50 employees, about which we heard earlier, and large corporations, too. Mature people have not only staying power, but experience and solidity. I shall say more about that later.

The real reason why I say that the present situation cannot be sustained is that we are facing a demographic time bomb. I shall cite a couple of statistics. It is estimated that, by 2000, one person in three in employment will be over 40 years of age. More worryingly, by 2025, if present trends continue, less than 20 per cent. of the population will be working. All the rest will be unemployed, enjoying leisure or students, so 20 per cent. of the population will be paying the tax and the benefits for themselves and 80 per cent. of the population. That is unsustainable, and we should think twice before we reject the new clause.

In opposition, Labour Members also took the view that the position was unsustainable. I, too, am sorry that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), is not here today, and I hope that he will soon recover; but, back in 1995, when he was Labour's employment spokesman, he promised to introduce legislation, when a Labour Government were elected, to make age discrimination illegal. That has not happened.

Mr. Bermingham

rose—

Mr. Fabricant

I will give way in a moment, but, in case the hon. Gentleman—my good friend in the corner— thinks that that remark was a fluke, I shall quote the Minister of State again. Before the 1997 general election, the Conservative Government blocked a private Member's Bill to make ageism illegal. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had made a serious miscalculation in opposing that Bill and that a generation that either had lost its jobs or feared unemployment expected Parliament to act. So here we are, two years on. The right hon. Gentleman is a member of the Government, but what do we see? Unless there is a change of heart, the Minister will oppose the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey).

Mr. Bermingham

I agree that all those comments were made in the previous Parliament; I was there.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any society that says that people who reach 50, 55 or 60—I notice some of my hon. Friends nodding sagely—are therefore barred from applying for jobs is a society that loses and wastes talent?

Mr. Fabricant

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he does not speak only for people aged 50 or 55; he speaks for the nation. It is in the nation's interest to make ageism a thing of the past.

Sally Greengross, the director general of Age Concern, said, Age discrimination"— this echoes what the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said— is a national shame and should be outlawed. Action to eliminate it is essential. The Government must introduce legislation and not hide behind rhetoric. I hope that the Minister will do just that and not hide behind rhetoric.

Earlier in the debate, I talked about my own experience, in which I, too, have found that older people offer not only maturity, but a calming influence. When my mother wants to irritate me, she comes up with German proverbs. I do not know why, because she was born in south Wales. When I went into business with a friend of mine, whom I have known since I was 16, she said, "Freundschaft und Brüderschaft machen keine Handelschaft." I think that that means, "Friendship and brotherhood make no businesshood." I do not think that there is a translation for "Handelschaft", but colleagues will know what I mean. Friendship and brotherhood do not necessarily make for a good business partnership.

Mr. Bercow

My hon. Friend is developing a powerful case. Does he agree that it would be helpful if businesses followed the example of our institutions of further and higher education, which, on the whole, practise sound policies in relation to this matter? They do not discriminate against, for example, older people—a fact to which, I hope my hon. Friend recognises, I can testify by virtue of my own experience. My mother, who is a lady of mature years, graduated last summer with an honours degree in English.

Mr. Fabricant

I am delighted to hear that. It was the previous Government's policy to ensure that people could be educated throughout all the ages of their lives.

I thought that I was going to have to disagree with my hon. Friend because I thought, as other hon. Members might have done, that he was about to say that institutions of primary, secondary and higher education did not discriminate when employing teachers. My hon. Friend did not say that, but they do. The new clause would stop that.

To carry on with my story of Freundschaft and Brüderschaft, my fellow director, a friend whom I had known since the age of 16, and I squabbled like two cats in a bag. Our small company expanded into a much larger company, employing several hundred people, and indirectly more than 1,000—if this Bill had been in place, we would have been strangled at birth and gone bust, never growing at all. I realised that some members of the company felt a little uneasy when, on one occasion only, my fellow director and I had fisticuffs in a corridor. We brought in John Ball—with whom I went out last night for a drink—then aged 64, who brought calmness, stability, wisdom, insight and maturity to the company. Had I been ageist, my company probably would not have survived. Certainly my partner, Mel, and I would not have survived, because we would have beaten hell out of each other, and most of our employees would probably have left. Older people have a lot to offer.

In principle, the new clause is good. However, two matters bother me. I am not exactly sure how the new clause would be implemented. I note that it would require secondary legislation. I am not convinced that secondary legislation is a good thing. More and more legislation goes Upstairs and is passed almost on the nod. Journalists say that the House is being supplanted by Whitehall, and I believe that the Chamber is being supplanted by secondary legislation. I am a little concerned that, if the new clause were passed, it might leave a number of options open.

My other concern relates simply to promotion and promotion prospects. If the new clause were law, could an employee who could not obtain promotion claim that that was due to ageism? That needs clarification.

I must tell my Whip that, in the event of a Division, because of my concerns I will not vote for the new clause, but I shall abstain. I hope that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, who has listened carefully, recognises that there is demographic time bomb, that the status quo is not an option and that, as the right hon. Member for Makerfield made promises two, three or four times immediately before the general election, the Minister has a moral obligation to support the new clause. He also has an obligation to support the new clause for the sake of British industry and the greater benefit of the nation.

9 pm

Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble)

The issues raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), particularly on new clauses 4 and 5, fit fully into the Government's policy. They are, and should be, the Government's objectives. It is unfortunate that these areas of discrimination are not the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry, which sponsors the Bill. I shall be seeking some undertakings from Ministers.

I want to deal particularly with discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual orientation. There have been major changes in the past 10 or 15 years. My judgment is that, if members of the public were asked whether people should be discriminated against in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, the overwhelming majority would say that it was wrong to discriminate.

I remember the arguments that were advanced when organisations introduced equal opportunity policies. For a number of years, I was a member of Preston borough council, and, as chair of the equal opportunities committee, I was involved in the introduction of equal opportunities employment policy, which included provisions against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. When we discussed that issue 10 years ago, it caused a major row, and there was a big fuss about it. A few years later, when I was the chief officer of a tribunal, I drew up an equal opportunities policy, which included provisions on sexual orientation. It went through the annual meeting of the tribunal on the nod, and was accepted as what a good employer should do.

We must recognise the fact that, in the past 10 or 15 years, many organisations in the public and private sectors have introduced policies to outlaw discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. In that area, therefore, we are clearly moving with the grain.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned the case of the two women who worked for the railways and the discrimination in that organisation. I am sure that he is aware that similar discrimination exists in the House. We cannot say that we have good employment policies in those respects.

If it is not possible to use the Bill as the vehicle for the Government's policy objectives, I shall seek from Ministers an undertaking to use their powers to influence the public sector. It is wrong for any employee in the public sector to face discrimination on the ground of age or sexual orientation. They are employed and paid to do a job for the public, and they should not face any discrimination.

I realise that legislation may be required to introduce regulations for the private sector, but I would look to the Government to introduce a code of best practice before doing so.

Mr. Bermingham

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should set an example? In their employment practices, they must ensure that there is no discrimination on the ground of age or sexual orientation, and that no one in a profession is, by the nature of his or her employment, precluded from applying for promotion or advancement within that profession because of such discrimination.

Mr. Borrow

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government should set an example.

If there is a message that I want to convey to the House, it is with respect to new clause 5. The majority of homosexual men and women in employment do not need to bring their sexuality to the notice of their employers when they are taken on as employees. It gives some comfort to homosexual men and women to know that the organisation that employs them has a policy that will not discriminate against them, and that will give them some safeguards against bullying and discrimination in their employment. That is the most important aspect of new clause 5.

I realise that Ministers have a problem with this, but I hope that the Minister's winding-up speech will be positive, and that, if the Government are not able to incorporate the new clauses at this stage, they will undertake to tackle the issues seriously between now and the next general election.

Mr. Brady

This has been an interesting debate, to which I shall contribute briefly, concentrating on new clause 4.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on the way in which he has presented his arguments, tonight and in Committee. I especially congratulate him on his avoidance tonight of one of the great traps, into which I fear my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) fell. I refer to the "demographic time bomb" argument. There is no danger of a falling out between my hon. Friend and me in that regard, although I did rather lose track of the German proverbs.

Mr. Fabricant

So did Hansard.

Mr. Brady

No doubt, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's mother will provide any guidance that is necessary.

I think that arguments based on demographic time bombs, skill shortages and the supposed need to tackle the issues because of perceived constraints on the labour market are entirely spurious. If companies cannot find employees, from whatever age group, they will naturally look elsewhere. That is one of the reasons why it is unnecessary to legislate in this regard. As the constraints on the labour market increase, along with shortages of labour and of skills among certain groups that may currently be benefiting in employment terms, companies will have no option but to look to older workers.

Mr. Fabricant

I thank my hon. Friend—I say "hon. Friend" advisedly—for giving way to me.

I, too, am a great believer in market forces, and I hate to intervene, not on my hon. Friend but in the free market. I fear, however, that the position is simply not as my hon. Friend has described it. Shortages occur from time to time, in connection with not just age but skill, and, for all sorts of reasons—illogically—companies do not take up the opportunities that are available. There is a lag. Although I think that by 2035 or 2040 the situation may be forced to rectify itself, I do not entirely share my hon. Friend's belief in the free market: I think that it will need a gentle nudge to overcome human prejudice.

Mr. Brady

My hon. Friend makes his point well. I could agree with a gentle nudge, but I fear that the new clause may constitute rather more than that. I fear that it may cause significant problems for employers and, potentially, for employees.

Let me return briefly to a point that I tried to make in an intervention on the hon. Member for Eastleigh, which I think is also relevant to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. I admitted to ageism in my practice of choosing to employ older workers, and the hon. Gentleman admitted to having done the same. According to my reading of the new clause, his conduct would be prohibited, because the new clause seeks not only to make it impossible to discriminate on the grounds of someone's being older, but to make it impossible to discriminate on grounds of age. A good example is the policy of B and Q, which for many years has voluntarily exercised a policy of employing older workers because it regards them as loyal, steadfast and reliable. That policy in itself would be prohibited if the new clause were adopted.

I strongly believe that employers should take an enlightened view. I think that they should employ people on the basis of merit, regardless of whether they consider them to be too young or too old. It is important that employers move in that direction. A gentle nudge may be required, perhaps through a code of practice—indeed, some exhortation may be appropriate—but some problems could arise from the legislative approach of the hon. Member for Eastleigh, and he needs to deal with them.

I have mentioned companies that choose to employ older workers, sometimes for good reasons in particular circumstances. There may also be instances where the age of an employee is relevant. One could imagine instances where particular physical work needed particular physical strength or resilience, which may favour younger employees. In the acting profession, it may be appropriate to employ a young actress rather than an old, although glamorous actress in a particular role. In the modelling profession—I do not wish to dwell on the issue because the hon. Member for Eastleigh will become over-excited—

Mr. Chidgey

I am not getting over-excited. It is just that I suddenly got a flash of the possible history of the acting profession. Perhaps if we had followed the views of the hon. Gentleman, women would still be prohibited by law from appearing on the stage in this country.

Mr. Brady

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he is leading me more into the territory of new clause 5, which I am not speaking to, and new clause 6, but he did not deal with those issues in his remarks on new clause 4. Perhaps he will return to the matter later in our proceedings.

Mr. Bercow

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a proprietor of a fitness or health club opted for a younger rather than an older candidate when choosing between different candidates of otherwise equal merits, he should not be chastised in law for so doing?

Mr. Brady

I have not given great thought to the merits of that case. As a matter of principle, the difficulties that are thrown up by the legislative approach in new clause 4 would intrude into many areas, and that may be one of them. Equally, in retail sectors—perhaps fashion—where products are being sold to younger people, it is clearly the practice to employ younger people; frequently, people working in that sector are younger. Employers choose to take on young people in shops that seek to sell goods to young people.

Mr. Fabricant

There is a bit of stereotyping going on about not only age and sexuality, but the type of jobs that older people can do. In my speech earlier, I mentioned my partner, Mel. He subsequently left the company that I founded and collected his money. He then decided that he was getting bored and became a tennis coach; he is the same age as me: 48. He went through a course with the Lawn Tennis Association. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is not implying that Mel could not do something physical at the age of 48.

Mr. Brady

I am sure that there are many physical things that one could do at the age of 48; I had not sought to imply that there were not. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) sought to imply that, but the fact that a man of 48 can work as a tennis coach suggests that such discrimination is not happening and that legislation is unnecessary.

Mr. Bercow

My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is probably not aware that I am a qualified tennis coach and that I received worthwhile instruction in the playing of tennis from a relatively elderly man, who was an exceptionally good coach, so I do not suggest that an older person cannot be a good coach. My point, which is a serious one, is simply that someone who runs such a club, or conducts a course in relation to which qualified people are needed, should be entitled to exercise his judgment as to what factors are material in the choice.

Mr. Brady

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying his views, and I suspect that there is not that much distance between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield on the point.

It is important to deal with situations where someone might be a good candidate—apart from the fact that he or she is approaching retirement age and there would be insufficient time for training. I have no difficulty with the spirit of the new clause, but the hon. Member for Eastleigh has not addressed those factors.

In the City, certain types of employment are appropriate to younger, rather than older, people. In such situations, I would be regarded as too old for many jobs.

Miss Kirkbride

Surely not.

Mr. Brady

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's expression of disbelief, but in some City occupations it is considered that someone aged 30 is too old and ought to move on to other occupations in the financial sector. In addition, there may be difficulties with military and police recruitment, where age limits are regularly imposed.

Even the Government's own minimum wage regulations accept the principle of different pay according to different ages. I can understand the embarrassment of Ministers at the possibility that they will be invited to agree to new clause 4, which may be in accordance with their manifesto pledge but which will directly contradict earlier legislation implemented by the Department. With good will on both sides, some arrangement could be made to remove the Government from a difficult situation of their own making.

I endorse the spirit behind the new clause introduced by the hon. Member for Eastleigh, but I fear that the direct approach that he is advocating is not entirely appropriate and will cause difficulties. However, I commend him for his efforts.

9.15 pm

Mr. Cotter

I support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). Discrimination must be outlawed firmly; surely no one could disagree with that contention. In Committee, it became clear that many accepted that unfairness was intolerable. However, on age discrimination—as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has mentioned—we have had an about-turn from the Government.

Instead of having legislation—as they promised before the election—the Government have backed away with the weaker alternative of a code of practice; something that many, including John Monks, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, believe will not be effective.

Legislative difficulty is no excuse in such a matter. On that premise, we would still have slavery in this country. Equally, we would not have passed race and sex discrimination legislation. These matters are difficult to address, but we have proved that they can be addressed. In this case, they must be addressed. The issue will not go away, and action will have to be taken sooner or later.

I do not wish to be accused of supporting the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant); it would damage my reputation with the Liberal Democrats. However, reference has been made to the demographic time bomb. By 2000, 35 per cent. of the labour force will be 45 or over. By 2010, it will be 40 per cent. A recent survey in The Sunday Telegraph found that, 20 years ago, the employment rate among 55 to 64-year-olds was 84 per cent; it is now down to 58 per cent. The situation is scandalous, and in general people accept that there is a problem.

It is the qualifications and suitability for a job that matter, whether a person is young or old. There have been two recent examples of attempts to legislate on the subject, the first of which was the Employment (Age Discrimination in Advertisements) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham). It was not adopted.

More recently, last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) promoted a short Bill entitled the Age (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill. In presenting it, my right hon. Friend said: Costly training, acquired skills and valuable experience are all being wasted. He was talking about older people who have been trained and yet are still not employed.

There is an Act in place in the United States. As my right hon. Friend said: job losses in the United States from the delayering of businesses"— in factories that would be called redundancy—

Mr. Bermingham

Downsizing.

Mr. Cotter

I thank the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend said 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". —[Official Report, 23 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 175–76] In Britain, however, downsizing usually involved older people.

Age discrimination gives rise to tremendous costs. The Employers Forum on Age estimates that it costs this country £26 billion a year.

In The Guardian of 18 March, Barbara Nemeth described what happened last year when she was put out to grass by a social work organisation that prided itself on its human resources. She had been involved in child protection, in which accumulated experience is surely of value; yet, despite being an experienced occupational therapist and family therapist, she was turned out of work. Barbara Nemeth wrote that her manager had wanted to keep her, but higher management insisted she had to go on the grounds of her age.

Canada provides another example, which covers all the—

Mr. Bermingham

It is estimated that, in 40 or 50 years, people will live to 130. Indeed, my son told me the other day that he was looking forward to his 140th birthday, which gave me a heart attack on the spot. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that with such projected longevity, it is time that we rethought all our employment policies so as not to waste the experience and knowledge that comes with age?

Mr. Cotter

I more than agree.

In some Canadian provinces, one's date of birth is classed as personal and private information. Similarly, one's religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation are not considered relevant to employability. In the interests of brevity, I shall say no more about that aspect, but I must tell the Government that the issue will not be lost, but will be brought up more and more. The Liberal Democrats will certainly want to draw attention to it.

New clause 5 is about sexual orientation. This is not the first time that such a clause has come before Parliament. In June 1998, Baroness Turner introduced a Bill in the other place, and Baroness Blackstone, on behalf of the Government, said that they supported the principle but were waiting for a report from the Equal Opportunities Commission. The EOC reported more than four months ago, recommending that there should be legal protection against discrimination for lesbians and gay men. The Government were waiting for that report; it is now in front of them.

The Government have clarified the position. In Standing Committee, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry said that they were committed to considering the report's recommendations, and added that it was too early to be clear whether legislation would be appropriate. Several other statements made in Committee would support my case.

Let me turn to sexual orientation. A recent Stonewall survey found that 48 per cent. of respondents had experienced harassment at work from which they had no legal protection. That is a sorry tale. A survey in 1995 found that one employer in three was less likely to employ an individual whom he knew to be lesbian or gay. Official tolerance of such discrimination is an affront to civilised values. I was shocked when, in preparing for debate on this issue, I learned for the first time that such discrimination existed.

The Government must not tiptoe around the sensibilities of bigoted employers. They must recognise that hard working and talented individuals are open to discrimination. They should not have to wait further for long-overdue employment protection. The legal situation is a ludicrous mess which should be cleared up. The Government have ratified the International Labour Organisation's convention 111 on discrimination. They have therefore undertaken to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote … equality of opportunity and treatment … with a view to eliminating discrimination. The Government commendably included provisions on this matter in the Scotland Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, they have done nothing to create employment rights for lesbians and gay men in England. I could say much more and give many more examples, but as it is late, I simply urge the Government to accept our new clause. There is absolutely no reason why they should not.

Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon)

The new clause would outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. I was proud to sponsor Baroness Turner's Bill when it came to the House of Commons during the previous session of Parliament, although the pressure on private Members' time meant that it was not afforded a Second Reading. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) for the way in which he introduced the new clause, and to others who have spoken tonight and in Committee, including Labour Members.

A lot of work has been done by Lesbian and Gay Employment Rights—LAGER—to battle against the vacuum of legal protection for lesbians and gays. In addition, Stonewall has been active, and I pay tribute to that organisation and thank it for its briefing on this matter.

People's lives are being destroyed all the time. I read recently of the teacher, Shirley Pearce, who took her case to an employment tribunal. Having taught for 20 years in a school, she was outed as a lesbian and was harassed by her pupils. She was not given adequate protection by the school, but the employment tribunal was unable to rule because it was deemed that a lack of protection against harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation did not constitute sexual discrimination.

Time and again there is a problem when people seek to use sex discrimination laws for protection but find that the courts cannot provide it. There is a legal argument for plugging the gap. The cases that come to court require courage from those concerned, as their cases are dealt with very publicly. I am sure that the cases that we know about are only the tip of the iceberg.

I see no difference in terms of human rights, and little practical difference, between discrimination against someone on the grounds of sexual orientation and discrimination against someone on the grounds of gender or race. We see things happening in employment every week that would be deemed intolerant if they were directed against people who were Jewish or black. This Government and previous Governments have acted in such cases, and I can see no reason why they cannot act now.

9.30 pm

Stonewall has launched an Equality 2000 campaign. It requires various campaign objectives to be met in order that lesbians and gay men enter the new millennium as free and equal citizens. One of those objectives was equal protection from discrimination in the work place. In December 1997 I was privileged to attend a Stonewall lecture given by the eminent human rights barrister, Peter Duffy QC, who tragically died some weeks ago. He pioneered the promotion of lesbian and gay rights in the European courts. In a superb lecture, he was optimistic that the European courts would find a way to provide equal rights for lesbians and gay men in employment law in this country, with especial regard to the Grant case and the Perkins case. He lived to see those hopes dashed, but there was cause for optimism at the time of his death that this Parliament will provide employment rights for lesbians and gay men. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that such rights are available in this Parliament, because in that way they could deliver their manifesto commitment to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists. That should happen before the next general election.

In Committee, the Minister rightly said that the Government have consulted on the issue of age discrimination and that they have made proposals for codes of practice. However, it is hard to see that any progress has been made in the first two years of this Government on the possibly more significant case—it is difficult to rank such things—of discrimination against people on the grounds of sexual orientation. I have seen nothing from the Department for Education and Employment, which could take the lead in such matters, and the outside world is moving ahead of the Government. Before I was elected to Parliament, I steered through the council of the British Medical Association a wide-ranging equality provision that would outlaw discrimination in the medical profession on the grounds of sexual orientation. It is a model for others. The public and private sectors are now waiting for the Government to act; they have an excellent opportunity to do so tonight.

During consideration of the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill in June 1998, Baroness Blackstone reminded the other place that the White Paper "Fairness at Work" proposed reducing to one year the length of time which an employee must be in work before gaining protection from unfair dismissal. It is hard to imagine circumstances in which an industrial tribunal would find sexual orientation fair grounds for dismissal". That is not the case. People are still being sacked on the basis of their sexual orientation in cases in which, if the dismissal was based on grounds of gender, it would clearly be sexual discrimination; and if the dismissal was on grounds other than sexual orientation, there would be a case for unfair dismissal. Baroness Blackstone added that the Government were committed to giving serious consideration to the issues raised by the Bill.

Consideration is all very well, but people are anxious to see action and the new clause provides an opportunity for the Government to act. Baroness Blackstone added that she looked forward—as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) said—to the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission, and that she hoped that Baroness Turner would accept that it was reasonable to await the final views of the specialist equal opportunities body. It reported four months ago that there is a need for protection in the law—which could be achieved if the Government were to accept new clause 5. She also said: the Government are committed to looking seriously at the issues raised in the context of the wider review of equality legislation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 655–57.] Nearly a year later, we have still to find out what those sentiments mean. We hear much about thinking seriously and consideration but there is no legislative action.

It is not only a question of unfair dismissal. Under the Bill, if one has been employed for more than a year, one can claim that dismissal is unlawful, but there is also discrimination in recruitment and promotion. That is not illegal if based on the grounds of sexual orientation and difficult to bring to court because it is difficult to prove why one has not been employed.

There is also the problem of harassment on the ground of sexual orientation and the failure to deal with it. The Minister may know the case of Burman v. Trevor Page, in which the employer dismissed the victim of the harassment, not the perpetrators. That was thought fair. He will know of other cases that I do not have time to expound. I hope that he recognises that the Government's record leaves a lot to be desired.

In passing another Act that dealt with equal rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government rejected an amendment to put sexual orientation specifically into the provision relating to article 14 for British courts to use. No action has been taken on discrimination in the armed forces, other than an open-ended review. The time is now right. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and deliver equal rights tonight.

Mr. Bermingham

I will not be long. I have listened to repetitive speeches that have all missed the point. No hon. Member would discriminate, or permit or support discrimination, on the basis of sexual orientation. We have said that time and again. Let us say loud and clear that we do not tolerate such behaviour. The Government seek to emphasise that point in the legislation. Why come back to it time and again unless we want to make fallacious points?

Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South)

What?

Mr. Bermingham

Fallacious points. I can spell it for the hon. Gentleman if he wants.

Should we not make an advance? We live in a continually ageing population. I am one of them, being not far short of 60. I do not want to be put on the scrap heap when I am 60, 65 or 70. If I retain my faculties, I hope that I will still have something to offer. Ageism is a matter of concern not only to me but to the thousands of my constituents who lost their jobs when they were 45 under the Thatcher Government, who told them that they were no use to society and put them on the scrap heap. They are now 65 and still have 20 years to go but have no pensions, support or anything else. They were destroyed by a philosophy that said people were good if they were young. The flash boys in the City grabbed their money.

As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said, at 37 he is too old for the City. He is not prepared to do 24 hours a day, drink champagne and cream off everyone. That is what the City of London did in the 18 years during which we had to tolerate the destruction of our industrial society.

We have to face up to the reality of society and where we are going. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may laugh, but in days yet to come, there is a chance, regrettably, that he might make 110, according to the medical evidence now available. Members of Parliament could serve for 80 years.

Mr. Bercow

Do not tempt me.

Mr. Bermingham

Please God.

Our society must face the fact that people are living longer. To support that society, we must find useful employment for those who pass the age of 65 and still want to work. There is a vast number of people in that category. In considering discrimination, let us think not only about sexual orientation, but about ageism and the restrictive practices that still deny, in certain professions, the right of promotion to people in particular sectors. That happens in government and elsewhere.

This is a far more serious problem than people realise. If we are to have a society that is worth while, every person must have a right to contribute, regardless of age, sex or colour. That is what we should aim for. That is where I think that the Bill is heading, but I warn Ministers that they are not going far enough yet.

Mr. Boswell

I shall be brief. This has been an interesting and eloquent debate, very well introduced by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). It reflected a number of views. I made a speech on the matter in Standing Committee and I have little to add except for some brief comments.

All hon. Members who have spoken are in principle in favour of selection for employment on the basis that the person is the most suitable to do the job. That was well expressed by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). It is perhaps a more positive way of looking at the matter than in terms of discrimination against people. The difficulty with which this Government and successive Governments have wrestled is finding the best way of meeting the general aspiration, whether by codes of practice, legislation or a mixture of the two. It is not always easy.

To return to my exchange with the hon. Member for Eastleigh on the criteria that he set out in introducing the new clause, I still have some concerns, as does the CBI, about the practical possibilities of preventing ageism, especially in promotions. There may be a perfectly good reason for not advancing the employment of a young person of 25, such as experience, ability to cope under pressure and so forth. It is not always easy to articulate such reasons in a formal policy, especially for a smaller business that does not have a sophisticated human resources department. It may be very easy, if we go down the legislative route, to promote, as the CBI warned, continual trouble with definitions and litigation.

As for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, I draw to the attention of the House the distinction between discrimination in employment on the grounds of sexual orientation and concerns that hon. Members clearly have about, for example, certain practices and the age of consent for them. Those things should be clearly distinguished. I am conscious that on the latter matter there are widely held and intensely felt differences of view which should not be allowed to intrude into the debate about employment policy.

I remind the House that, as some people feel strongly on the issue of homosexuality and homosexual practice, that is likely to affect their attitude to employment, perhaps irrationally, in a way that would not necessarily apply to some other forms of discrimination. However, that is, in a sense, speculative.

It is for the Government to decide what they need to do about the matter. I have given some little study to the Under-Secretary's response to our debate in Standing Committee. Having reflected on it, it is clear to me that he will have to grasp a few nettles. The ghost of Sir Humphrey has been stalking the Standing Committee. On ageism, he said: That is why the Government are taking a measured approach, taking forward a range of initiatives that will help older people and bring cultural change, and using the lessons learned from those initiatives to inform future plans. I think that that is an elegant piece of Whitehall-speak for, "It is all rather painful." In exactly the same context, and taking up a quotation that has already been given to the House, the Under-Secretary said of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which had proposed specific legal protection for lesbians and gay men: We remain committed to considering that, and the EOC's other recommendations, carefully. However, it is too early to be clear whether a legislative measure would be the appropriate way to proceed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 March 1999; c. 578–80.] We know from lobbying material presented to us that there is some concern that the Government are making haste not slowly but imperceptibly. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister told us what the Government proposed to do in these difficult areas of discrimination and gave us a sense that they were coming to grips with these difficult problems.

9.45 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills)

We have had an important debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made important points and articulated powerfully held views. I am wholly sympathetic to the concerns that prompted the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) to table the new clauses. He outlined them cogently and gave some poignant examples.

Our manifesto commitment has been referred to many times this evening. I am happy to stand by it and to remind the House that we pledged: We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists. That remains our position. It is precisely because we share the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman and because we are committed to tackling discrimination that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities is taking action to combat unfair age discrimination.

The Government are committed to promoting age diversity, and tackling age discrimination in employment is an essential element in our strategy of building a country in which everyone—young and old alike—can play their full part, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) pointed out so eloquently. From an extensive consultation exercise carried out by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, however, it was clear that effective legislation to tackle age discrimination raised complex issues. For example, is the retirement age itself discriminatory? Some hon. Members spoke of the value and commitment that older workers can bring to the workplace, and I can only endorse that. However, an insistence on maturity of approach and experience might be seen as at least indirectly discriminatory. Those are not straightforward questions; they need to be tackled in a measured way, and I make no apology for saying that.

Changing the culture is the key point that we must address. As the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has already reminded the House, I said that in Committee and I stand by it. Employers need to believe in the value of people whatever their age. Employers need to recognise that unjustified age discrimination is unjust; it is irrational and damaging, not only to the individuals who are discriminated against, but to the businesses in which they work. The culture needs to be changed. The only question is how, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) pointed out.

Mr. Fabricant

The Minister says that the culture needs to be changed. Would he be surprised to learn that, in the previous Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said just that, and would he be equally surprised to learn that, in opposition, his colleagues—including the present Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—argued that my right hon. Friend was wrong and that a Labour Government would introduce age legislation?

Mr. Wills

I should not be altogether surprised by anything said by the hon. Gentleman. The fact remains that we have to change the culture, and we are setting out to do so.

We realise that legislation is not always a solution. That point has already been made, but I want to make it clear: legislation is not always a solution, but sometimes it can be. Sometimes it must be a solution, but not always. In this case, the evidence is mixed. The French and Spanish already have legislation against ageism, but their older worker employment rate is lower than ours. The Canadians have age discrimination legislation too—

Mr. Chidgey

rose—

Mr. Wills

If I can finish the point, perhaps it will be clear to the hon. Gentleman.

The Canadians also have such legislation, but the economic inactivity rate among Canadians aged between 55 and 64 is higher than in this country. It is a complex matter and the lessons are not clear. The results of the year-long consultation exercise carried out by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities point to a non-statutory code of practice as the best immediate way to bring about that change in culture. That is why we shall launch such a code in May, backed up by detailed guidance and illustrative case studies. The code has been drawn up with the involvement of many key players from both sides of industry and from voluntary bodies active in the field, such as Age Concern.

We believe that the code will command widespread support. To help the evaluation process and to ensure a fully informed debate, we are already carrying out a baseline survey of employers and older people. In addition, we shall publish, every June, key indicators showing the position of older workers in the labour market. We shall also carry out a full evaluation of the effectiveness of the code by February 2001, which will help to inform our plans for future legislation. I hope that that will reassure those hon. Members who need reassurance on that subject.

New clause 5 deals with discrimination based on sexual orientation. As I acknowledged in Committee, there is a gap in the protection we offer some individuals compared with the law on sex, race and disability discrimination. We are appalled by the discrimination that is experienced by some gay men and lesbians; it is a disgrace to any decent and civilised society. I have some personal experience of that: a good colleague and friend with whom I worked in the 1970s was driven out of his profession in the 1980s because he was gay. The employer lost a talented, skilled and motivated employee and my friend lost a profession he loved. Such discrimination is disgraceful and the DTI takes the issue extremely seriously. Last Friday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had a meeting with Stonewall to discuss such issues; the meeting was constructive and we intend to continue that positive dialogue.

However, it has already been pointed out several times this evening that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has primary responsibility for tackling discrimination in employment. In November last year, the Equal Opportunities Commission presented several recommendations to my right hon. Friend, following a review of sex discrimination legislation. I know that my right hon. Friend is studying the EOC' s recommendations carefully, and I do not want to pre-empt those conclusions today. At this stage, I simply remind the House of our manifesto commitment: We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists.

Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does the Minister not realise that earlier today, there was a statement, accompanied by a glossy brochure, all about joined-up government? If a legislative opportunity presents itself to do something about a problem, the fact that another Department has the lead should not prevent Ministers from taking advantage of that opportunity.

Mr. Wills

We have made our attitude toward unjustifiable discrimination extremely clear; ending such discrimination is a manifesto commitment and we shall deliver on that, just as we deliver on all our manifesto commitments.

In new clause 6, the hon. Member for Eastleigh urges on the Government a power to prohibit discrimination on whatever basis the Secretary of State may specify in regulations. Although I sympathise with the instincts that led the hon. Gentleman to table that proposal, it is puzzling to have such a broad and unfocused power proposed, especially when attempts were made in Committee to criticise the Government for taking far more specific powers where we were clear about what they would be used for.

As I said, discrimination in employment is largely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment; however, the Department of Trade and Industry has responsibility for some aspects of that—for example, discrimination on grounds of trade union membership or non-membership. If Opposition Members have in mind some further specific problems that are not already under consideration and in respect of which there is clear evidence that individuals are suffering unjustified discrimination in employment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I would be happy to consider them. However, we do not want to have the sort of sweeping powers proposed in new clause 6.

If there are specific problems of discrimination, such as those addressed by new clauses 4 and 5 or relating to protections for whistleblowers, the proper approach is that we should debate them, consider the policy options and then decide whether to act and, if we decide to do so, how to act. Legislation is not the only option, as we have shown in respect of age discrimination, although it might be appropriate, as we believe it is in respect of whistleblowers.

Dr. Harris

Does the Minister understand that, every time he talks about how appalling and disgraceful discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is, it brings into sharp relief his Department's refusal to take this legislative opportunity to tackle it? The Minister has not said what is wrong with this legislation compared with future legislation that may emanate from another Department. There is an opportunity tonight to remedy the situation. Why will he not take it?

Mr. Wills

The Equal Opportunities Commission has provided detailed recommendations on precisely those issues. We owe it to that body and to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who has primary responsibility for these matters—

Mr. Borrow

rose—

Mr. Wills

I shall address the comments of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and then I will be happy to give way to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is addressing these matters, and I do not intend to pre-empt his conclusions tonight. I am sorry, but I have made my position clear.

Mr. Borrow

I recognise my hon. Friend's difficulty in giving assurances on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Will my hon. Friend ensure that he conveys to the Secretary of State the strong feeling expressed in the Chamber this evening that the matter must not be allowed to drag on? Many Labour Members will expect the Department for Education and Employment to move on the issue very quickly.

Mr. Wills

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so passionately and so well. I assure him that I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment the views that hon. Members have expressed so powerfully tonight. I shall also convey the real sense of urgency that has been communicated.

As to new clause 6, we believe that it would be wrong to adopt such sweeping and draconian powers without the slightest idea of how they might be used. That would not set a good precedent. Discrimination is a serious matter which we take seriously, but I have already said, with genuine regret, that we cannot support new clauses 4 and 5 because we have announced our policy on the former and the latter needs further consideration. While I sympathise with the good intentions that undoubtedly lie behind its tabling, 1 am afraid that I cannot support new clause 6 for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Chidgey

This has been a good debate to which many hon. Members have made valuable and thoughtful contributions. Sadly, the end was not as good as the middle—or perhaps even the beginning. The Government are in a fix; they have been caught out. The Government promised the electorate that they would provide employment rights through legislation, but they have not even begun to consult in some areas. The Government have not begun to consider the issues, let alone produce a famous code of practice.

The Minister's contribution has left me feeling rather depressed and sad. He went on at length about the importance of commitment. He professed to be very upset, and almost cried as he addressed us. However, he must understand that saying something is not the same as doing it. I have yet to see any sign that this Government—

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)

rose—

Mr. Chidgey

I will not give way. I have had just about enough.

I have listened to the debate for five hours, and the Government have made no promises that even faintly resemble the commitments that they set out in their election manifesto—let alone the comments that they made in opposition. It is a disgrace that Labour Members should change their position so rapidly after coming to power. They wonder why, having done nothing in this area for two years, there is so much anger on these Benches and throughout the community that they are supposed to represent. I shall press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 318.

Division No.134]	[9.59 pm
AYES
Allan, Richard	George, Andrew (St Ives)
Baker, Norman	Hancock, Mike
Beggs, Roy	Harris, Dr Evan
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Breed, Colin	Kirkwood, Archy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Livsey, Richard
Chidgey, David	Llwyd, Ellyn
Dafis, Cynog	Moore, Michael
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Rendel, David
Fearn, Ronnie	Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Sanders, Adrian	Willis, Phil
Stunell, Andrew
Tonge, Dr Jenny
Tyler, Paul	Tellers for the Ayes:
Wallace, James	Mr. Brian Cotter and Sir Robert Smith
Welsh, Andrew

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Ainger, Nick	Cummings, John
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Allen, Graham	Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Dalyell, Tam
Atherton, Ms Candy	Darvill, Keith
Atkins, Charlotte	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Austin, John	Davidson, Ian
Banks, Tony	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Barnes, Harry	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Barron, Kevin	Dawson, Hilton
Battle, John	Denham, John
Bayley, Hugh	Dismore, Andrew
Beard, Nigel	Dobbin, Jim
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Donohoe, Brian H
Begg, Miss Anne	Dowd, Jim
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Bennett, Andrew F	Edwards, Huw
Benton, Joe	Efford, Clive
Bermingham, Gerald	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Berry, Roger	Ennis, Jeff
Best, Harold	Etherington, Bill
Betts, Clive	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Blackman, Liz	Fisher, Mark
Blears, Ms Hazel	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Blizzard, Bob	Fitzsimons, Lorna
Borrow, David	Flint, Caroline
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Flynn, Paul
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Follett, Barbara
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Browne, Desmond	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Buck, Ms Karen	Fyfe, Maria
Burden, Richard	Gapes, Mike
Burgon, Colin	Gardiner, Barry
Butler, Mrs Christine	George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Gibson, Dr Ian
Caborn, Richard	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Godman, Dr Norman A
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Godsiff, Roger
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Goggins, Paul
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Golding, Mrs Llin
Canavan, Dennis	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Cann, Jamie	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Caplin, Ivor	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Chaytor, David	Grocott, Bruce
Clapham, Michael	Grogan, John
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Hain, Peter
Clark, Dr Lynda	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
(Edinburgh Pentlands)	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Healey, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Clelland, David	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clwyd, Ann	Hepburn, Stephen
Coaker, Vernon	Heppell, John
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hesford, Stephen
Cohen, Harry	Hill, Keith
Coleman, Iain	Hinchliffe, David
Colman, Tony	Hodge, Ms Margaret
Connarty, Michael	Home Robertson, John
Corbett, Robin	Hood, Jimmy
Corbyn, Jeremy	Hoon, Geoffrey
Cousins, Jim	Hope, Phil
Crausby, David	Hopkins, Kelvin
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Howells, Dr Kim

Hoyle, Lindsay	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	Moran, Ms Margaret
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Humble, Mrs Joan	Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Hurst, Alan	Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Hutton, John	Mountford, Kali
Iddon, Dr Brian	Mullin, Chris
Illsley, Eric	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Jamieson, David	Norris, Dan
Jenkins, Brian	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	O'Neill, Martin
Johnson, Miss Melanie	Osborne, Ms Sandra
(Welwyn Hatfield)	Pearson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Pendry, Tom
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Perham, Ms Linda
Jones, Ms Jenny	Pickthall, Colin
(Wolverh'ton SW)	Pike, Peter L
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Plaskitt, James
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Pollard, Kerry
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa	Pond, Chris
Keeble, Ms Sally	Pope, Greg
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Pound, Stephen
Keen, Ann (Brenfford & Isleworth)	Powell, Sir Raymond
Kemp, Fraser	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Khabra, Piara S	Prescott, Rt Hon John
Kidney, David	Prosser, Gwyn
Kilfoyle, Peter	Purchase, Ken
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Kingham, Ms Tess	Quinn, Lawrie
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Radice, Giles
Laxton, Bob	Rammell, Bill
Lepper, David	Rapson, Syd
Leslie, Christopher	Raynsford, Nick
Levitt, Tom	Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Rogers, Allan
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Rooney, Terry
Linton, Martin	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W
Livingstone, Ken	Rowlands, Ted
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Roy, Frank
Lock, David	Ruane, Chris
Love, Andrew	Ruddock, Joan
McAllion, John	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McAvoy, Thomas	Ryan, Ms Joan
McCabe, Steve	Sarwar, Mohammad
McDonagh, Siobhain	Sawford, Phil
Macdonald, Calum	Sedgemore, Brian
McDonnell, John	Shaw, Jonathan
McIsaac, Shona	Sheerman, Barry
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mackinlay, Andrew	Shipley, Ms Debra
McLeish, Henry	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McNamara, Kevin	Singh, Marsha
McNulty, Tony	Skinner, Dennis
MacShane, Denis	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mactaggart, Fiona	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
McWalter, Tony	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
McWilliam, John	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mallaber, Judy	Snape, Peter
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter	Soley, Clive
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Southworth, Ms Helen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)	Spellar, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Squire, Ms Rachel
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Martlew, Eric	Steinberg, Gerry
Maxton, John	Stevenson, George
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Merron, Gillian	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)	Stinchcombe, Paul
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan	Stoate. Dr Howard
Miller, Andrew	Stott. Roger
Mitchell, Austin	Stringer, Graham
Moffatt, Laura	Sutcliffe, Gerry

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)	Ward, Ms Claire
	Wareing, Robert N
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)	Watts, David
Taylor, David (NW Leics)	White, Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)	Wicks, Malcolm
Timms, Stephen	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Tipping, Paddy
Todd Mark	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Touhig Don	Wills, Michael
	Winnick, David
Trickett, Jon	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Truswell, Paul	Wood, Mike
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)	Worthington, Tony
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)	Wray, James
Twigg, Derek (Halton)	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Vaz, Keith	Tellers for the Noes:
Vis, Dr Rudi	Mr. David Hanson and Mrs. Anne McGuire.
Walley, Ms Joan

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), That, at this day's sitting, the Employment Relations Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.