Employment (Age Limits) Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 18 October 1989)

§ Baroness Phillips
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, I thank those who have participated in the Bill from all sides of the House, including the Minister. I am not a pragmatist, but I am a practical woman. I appreciate that, because this is a Private Member's Bill, though it will go through this House it will not have any effect as the one couched in similar terms from another place has not gone through. Nevertheless I must give warning that this is only the beginning of a campaign.
I took heart when I heard the Prime Minister speaking about age at her party's conference. I think she said that she was 56 when she became Prime Minister. Her masters seemed to think she did the job so well that they had appointed her twice since. I took heart from that because she was obviously in favour of the view that age should not be a reason for discrimination.
981 At this stage in the Session I can only say that the Bill still has a pressing importance. We still need to feel that age is not used as a reason for saying to a man of 50 that he has to accept redundancy, not because he is no good or because his employer cannot afford to keep him but because he is 50. That is not a good enough reason. Those of us who went through the whole battle to get equal opportunities for men and women know only too well that a campaign like this is not won overnight. I feel that the forces of demographic change are on our side and will make it necessary for the poor old 50 year-olds to become the best thing since sliced bread. I am delighted that I have had the opportunity of taking the Bill through this House. I beg to move that it be now read a third time.

§ Baroness Phillips
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until five past eight.