| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Winnick: They are for 1996.
Mr. Bruce: I have been quoting from material that I had immediately to hand--yesterday's The Daily Telegraph and last week's Dorset Evening Echo. I also have a copy of Computer Weekly. I do not know whether Computer Weekly has adopted a policy of not specifying age requirements, but it is interesting to note that, among the hundreds of advertisements that it contains, there is not a single advertisement--
Mr. Donald Anderson: On a point of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that deserves grave and urgent consideration.
As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, last night the Government's rail privatisation programme--once described as the poll tax on wheels--suffered yet another humiliating descent into shambles as a result of a decision by Mr. Roger Salmon, the franchising director. He ruled that the awarding of a franchise to the company running the London-Tilbury-Southend line should be disallowed. We fear that the Government are so blindly and dogmatically determined to press on with rail privatisation--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?
Mr. Anderson:
Given the Government's track record, they are likely to press on with their programme without the House being able to make its views felt on, for example, the likely exclusion of British Rail.
Let me remind hon. Members that, when the House dealt with the matter on Monday, the Secretary of State gave a pledge, which can be found in column 19 of Hansard. He said that, if any changes took place, a further statement would be made. Given the seriousness of the issue and the shambolic nature of the Government's programme, surely the Secretary of State should be present to make a statement to the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I am aware of the commitment that was given, but I have not heard any Minister express the intention of making a statement this morning.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will know, when we kicked off at 9.30 am I requested that a Minister come to the House to answer a serious charge. It appears that the House was misled on Monday. The Secretary of State gave the impression that there was no chance of the franchise collapsing; now that it has, I think that Ministers have a duty to be present. They are treating the House with contempt--
Mr. Skinner:
And I would suggest--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I have got the message.
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Chair has no power to force Ministers to come and make statements.
Mr. Skinner:
In your heart of hearts, you know that it is right.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. That is for the Minister concerned to decide.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that you have no powers to force Ministers to come and make statements if they are too ashamed to come to the Chamber, but you have a duty to look after the rights of Back Benchers. Surely, once a Minister has made a pledge to the House--as a Minister did on Monday: he said that he would come back and make a statement--you at least have a duty to find out whether the Minister will make his statement at 2.30 this afternoon, or will sulk over the weekend and then come to the House on Monday.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time, and he is a wise politician. He knows that there are other ways in which he can deal with the matter.
I shall take no more points of order on this issue. I have dealt with it. I have said that I know that commitments were given--[Hon. Members: "Yes."] Order. I have heard nothing to suggest that a Minister intends to make a statement. The Chair can go no further.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I will take points of order on any other subject, but not on this one.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I hope that it is a different point of order.
Mr. Prentice:
It is indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I speak as a member of the Select Committee dealing with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. I read in today's press that another inquiry is being launched into the activities of Union Railways, which apparently involved irregular processes. Surely that is another reason why Ministers should come to the House and explain the position.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. No doubt Ministers will have noted what has been said.
Mr. Skinner:
Where are these Ministers?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a different point of order?
Mr. Dalyell:
It is a point of procedure rather than a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You chose your
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I have not heard that any Minister intends to come to the House at 2.30.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that this week the usual Wednesday morning debates were replaced by debates on two Select Committee reports. One report, produced in April 1993, has never been debated in the House--a distinguished report by a Committee chaired by the late Robert Adley, in which he christened rail privatisation "the poll tax on wheels", and forecast that it would be--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I heard the hon. Gentleman make the same points in his speech the other day, and I do not need to hear them again.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
I am somewhat surprised to see that Labour Members have suddenly appeared in force to try to talk out this interesting Bill. I hope that I have not lost track of my speech. [Hon. Members: "Start again."]I could start again, but I shall not yield to the blandishments of my hon. Friends.
I was talking about a survey that I had carried out,and referred to Computer Weekly. Computing is supposed to be a young man's job, but I was pleased to note that the industry seems to have stopped specifying age requirements. It is possible, however, to adopt the wrong approach in deciding what should or should not be included in advertisements. Almost one third of an advertisement by Luton borough council is devoted to telling people what a wonderful organisation the council is because it takes employees from ethnic minorities.It refers to the Race Relations Act 1976, which enabled the council to discriminate in favour of such people,and also gives a guarantee that disabled people will be interviewed.
I do not criticise Luton for having such excellent policies. The problem is, however, that if we start making regulations about what advertisements should and should not contain, organisations that are funded by ratepayers' money will pay a high price. Such advertisements do not come cheap. It is possible that people in Luton are having to pay 30 per cent. more for an advertisement that attempts to be politically correct.
Mr. Booth:
Surely the Bill's promoter is making an entirely different point. He merely suggests the deletion of one item. The advertisement placed by Luton borough council involved the inclusion of an item.
Mr. Bruce:
I take my hon. Friend's point, and it is correct in that I was trying to demonstrate to the House that there is no requirement in current legislation for people to put so much information in an advertisement, but there is a requirement, especially among public bodies, constantly to be aware of whether they are discriminating. That is one of the problems and why the Government are against regulation for the sake of regulation. People spend all their time worrying about whether they are breaking this rule or that regulation.
Many Conservative Members and, indeed, some Opposition Members have started businesses and they have suddenly come upon all the regulations that they must learn about. If we investigate who has been prosecuted under equal opportunities legislation or race legislation, we find that, generally, it is people who were ignorant of the requirements. The people who want to discriminate are not ignorant: they know how to get around the legislation. So often, legislation simply drives discrimination underground and that is a real problem.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned the percentages that surveys had found of companies that tried to discriminate.
Mr. Ian McCartney:
Given the hon. Gentleman's opposition to the principle of age discrimination, do his companies, as a matter of course, refuse to accept employment opportunities if the clients have an age discrimination policy?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |