---

Mr. Mark Robinson (Somerton and Frome): I agree that an awful lot of work must be done to persuade employers not to indulge in age discrimination. Given the hon. Gentleman's position, I wonder why his Bill has such a narrow focus. It refers to only one small aspect of a much wider problem. I have some difficulty coming to terms with the Bill's extremely narrow focus.

Mr. Winnick: It is rather strange for me to be accused by Conservative Members of not going far enough in my political actions. Perhaps it is the first time in my political life that the Conservatives have not accused me of being too extreme. I do not know whether that will improve my political image or lead to deselection--fortunately, I have already been reselected.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point very seriously. When I won fourth place in the ballot for private Members' Bills, I had already decided what I intended to do. I knew

9 Feb 1996 : Column 560

that, if I tried to introduce more comprehensive legislation, the Government would automatically say no. Ministers would refer to the cost of bringing discrimination issues before tribunals, and an open season would be declared on my Bill.

Therefore, I decided to concentrate on one aspect: advertisements. I have already acknowledged that it is a limited and modest step. However, as a Back Bencher, one must often limit oneself to a very modest legislative first step.

I assure the hon. Gentleman--I am sure that he will believe me--that my measure has met with general approval around the country. Some people have adopted the hon. Gentleman's attitude, which I understand perfectly. Others have taken a different attitude: they have realised that it will cost hardly any public money to deal only with advertisements, and they believe that the Government should support this reasonable and necessary measure. I do not believe that I am wrong in dealing with the problem in that way.

Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington): Temperamentally, I support the hon. Gentleman's Bill, and perhaps all hon. Members should declare an interest in its passage. However, can the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether we would be leading or trailing comparable countries by introducing a legislative requirement of that kind?

Mr. Winnick: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He has anticipated my remarks, and I shall come to that question in a moment.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that one magazine has taken unilateral action. People Management magazine has not carried any age discriminatory advertisements since the beginning of this year. I welcome that fact, and I congratulate the magazine. However, it cannot be said that voluntary action has worked, because that is the only example. If my Bill does not become law as a result of the Government's action, I doubt whether, next year or the year after, any hon. Member will be able to say, "People Management took the first step in 1996, and look what has happened since." Although it is good news in that instance, I do not believe that voluntary action will work across the board.

People Management magazine did not base its decision on the percentage of age discriminatory advertisements that it carried--which may have been only 3 or 5 per cent--it decided that it was a matter of principle: it is wrong to discriminate. People should be considered according to their merits. I wish that other publications would take similar action, but I doubt it.

The Confederation of British Industry will no doubt be referred to in the debate. However, I have a letter from the Federation of Small Businesses, which represents some 85,000 small firms. It states that the federation does not oppose my Bill, and it does not believe that the action that I am proposing would impose any burdens on small businesses. It goes on to say that the legislation may provide a watershed in changing attitudes. I am pleased about that response, as it shows that the commercial and business sector is not as hostile as some might think.

Turning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), Ministers are eager to play down the effect of anti-age discriminatory

9 Feb 1996 : Column 561

legislation in other countries--particularly the United States. The standard response--which was given in the Adjournment debate last year--is that such legislation has not worked elsewhere, so why should it work here?The discrimination that we are debating today is outlawed in the United States. However, Ministers continue to state that such legislation has not done much good--I am not sure that the present American Administration, or previous ones, would take the same attitude.

In its booklet entitled "An International Overview", the Employment Service concedes that there is some evidence that the potential exists for legislation, such as that in the United States, to have a positive effect. It states that the legislation is

"causing employers"--

obviously, those in the United States--

"to reconsider job evaluation and descriptions in order to use objective criteria--rather than arbitrary age criteria".

Although Ministers and the Government are determined not to follow the United States example, the Employment Service has conceded that point. Many in the United States agree that the legislation has not worked wonders--middle-aged people continue to be discriminated against--but that discrimination is much less widespread than it would be otherwise. Moreover, those in their 40s or early 50s are not the first to be made redundant.That is a positive step, and I believe that we should follow suit.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East): Has not the precedent been set by introducing sex and race discrimination legislation in the House? That legislation has not eliminated sex and race discrimination, but it is symbolic of where we stand on the issue.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend's point is most important, and I was just about to deal with it. I entered the House at the same time as he did, and I was there in the mid-1960s when we were considering extending the legislation. The Labour Government had at first passed a mild Act on race discrimination. But before that, when the Conservative Government were in office, they argued time and time again against any form of legislation to deal with racial discrimination.

When Fenner Brockway, before my time, tabled repeated ten-minute Bills, the Government's response was, "Yes, race discrimination is wrong and unacceptable, and causes pain and injury to those involved. It should not be part of a civilised society--but legislation is not the answer." They asked, "Why should people go for jobs where they are not wanted?" But look what has happened since then.

Let those who are against legislation think what things were like in the 1960s, when employers in my then constituency said to me, "We have no prejudice ourselves, Mr. Winnick, but our customers do, when they come into our banks, insurance offices and so on." But now, if we went to any bank, insurance office or building society, the idea that someone in the queue might say, "Oh no, I refuse to be served by that person because she is of Asian origin; she is black," would have us sending for the men in the white coats. See how attitudes have changed.

9 Feb 1996 : Column 562

Could anyone, no matter how much he or she opposes legislation, say with hand on heart that, even with all the difficulties that remain, we would have made the same progress on race without legislation? Would voluntary action have worked? We know the answer, do we not?

The same applies to gender. Fortunately, women now have more opportunities in the work force. There is a changing pattern in the work force--

Mr. Ian Bruce: I see that the hon. Gentleman is coming close to the end of his speech, so will he tell us how he sees the Bill as being defined? Will words such as "junior" and "senior" be outlawed? How does he see the technicalities? We all heard recently that someone who advertised for a "paper boy" was pulled up under sex discrimination legislation even though he already employed girls and boys in exactly the same way. It is important to understand how the hon. Gentleman would treat the words "junior" and "senior". I shall certainly touch on that aspect in my speech.

Mr. Winnick: To some extent that is a Committee point, but it is an important one. If the hon. Gentleman reads clause 2, he will see that the Bill

"does not apply to any advertisement for employment where there are physical, medical or other similar grounds on the basis of which it would be reasonable for any person to conclude that the job in question could not adequately be performed by persons who had passed an age limit".

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be constructive--I am sure he does--and if he says that he agrees with the Bill in principle but perhaps it needs tightening up, he will know that that is what the Committee stage is for. If I am fortunate enough to secure a Second Reading for my Bill, I am sure that we can have many interesting and constructive arguments about how to change clause 2 and add to it.

However, even as it stands, clause 2 shows that, as with race and gender, I accept entirely that, for certain jobs, such as those in the armed forces and the police, no one will suggest that we start recruiting people in their early 50s. Common sense dictates otherwise. I do not want to create bureaucratic difficulties where they are not necessary. I want to undermine age discrimination, but obviously I work on the basis that for certain jobs, with age as with race and gender, legislation should provide exemptions.

---