| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.46 pm
Mr. Mark Robinson (Somerton and Frome): It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), who made a thoughtful and interesting speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on his good fortune in having been successful in the ballot and on bringing this issue again before the House. In the past 12 years,no fewer than six Bills, I believe, have dealt with agism and tried to move that issue up the political agenda.
If our discussions continue in Committee, that will cause me no problems because this topic needs to be properly aired and discussed. If we are to go down the legislative route, we need to ensure that that legislation is the right sort of legislation. That is why, in my intervention during the hon. Gentleman's speech, I tried gently to probe to find out why the Bill's focus was so narrow. In responding, I think that he was delighted that a Conservative might be urging him to go further, although that was necessarily the point of my intervention.
Too often, hon. Members are tempted to pass laws that raise a flag for a particular issue but do not bring about any real or desired effect. In the consideration of the Bill, we are trying to prevent employers from putting an upper age limit in their advertisements. At the same time, clause 2 may enable employers to drive a coach and horses through the Bill--that is probably not the best analogy; with the discussion we have had of the European Commission's practices, perhaps I should say, it may enable them to drive a channel tunnel through it. We will obviously consider that matter in Committee.
The way in which the European Commission advertises--a practice that is copied by other international organisations--is not good and should be stopped. The arbitrary imposition of age limits--35, 45, 55, and so on--causes a great deal of resentment. Who is to say that the applicant of 36 is not as good as the applicant of 35? Such arbitrariness is not helpful and sensible employers do not adopt such a practice in their advertisements.
Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West):
I am listening to my hon. Friend with great interest. He has referred to sensible employers not imposing age limits, but will he also deal with the other side of the argument and question whether we, as legislators, should brand employers as sensible or otherwise? Is it not the absolute right of an employer to decide in what categories he wants to look to find a suitable employee? Surely no outside body should determine whether he is sensible or otherwise in doing so.
Mr. Robinson:
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, with which I had intended to deal later but instead will do so now. As I have said, this is the sixth time in 12 years that such a Bill has come before the House. Does that very fact not send out the message that we should be trying to resolve the issue differently? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would be prepared to encourage employers, through their professional associations,to draw up a proper code of practice for recruitment. After all, age is not a determinant of ability.
Young people have come to this House, performed effectively and entered the Cabinet quickly. Our more elderly brethren have been equally successful at the top of their profession. Of course, the Japanese and the
Chinese make a virtue out of age and experience. In the 1960s and 1970s, Britain, however, was dismissive of anyone who reached pensionable age. We said that we did not need those people any more and that they should retire. In fact, companies soon found that they needed that experience and before long those people were back in post as consultants.
In many ways, the west has become too dogmatic in its approach to recruitment and to people with experience. The House needs to deal with that problem and encourage better practice. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that I was a retread. At least that shows that in the Conservative party someone in his mid-40s can re-enter the House--as, indeed, did the hon. Member for Walsall, North. I am pleased that in that respect there is some affinity across the House. We are setting a good example to employers.
Many hon. Members have referred to the European Commission's agism policy. The Bill would force the Commission to change the way in which it advertises in this country, but not in France, Belgium or other European countries. The problem is that an applicant from Britain would have his expectations falsely raised--having had his interview, the matter would be decided in Brussels and he would not be chosen.
Mr. Tony Banks:
The hon. Gentleman makes a good argument. Would that not be a good case for ensuring that that requirement is written into the social charter?
Mr. Robinson:
The hon. Gentleman is as ingenious as ever, but he takes us away from the scope of the Bill because the argument that I just made is not covered by the Bill. Yes, there would be a penalty--I believe, of £2,500--for infringing the law by setting an upper age limit in an advertisement, but the Bill says nothing about the nuance that one can put into an advertisement. One might say, "Only the young upwardly mobile will be considered," and I believe that the Bill would create much legislative nonsense. I should be happy to discuss that issue in Committee.
Mrs. Gillan:
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is nonsense that a law in France prevents the use of age limits in advertisements yet the European Commission flouts the law of that country?
Mr. Robinson:
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is the difficulty in which we find ourselves.
As the hon. Member for Walsall, North asked, what are we trying to do in introducing the legislation? We are trying to put up a flag to signal that employers should not discriminate against people who are in their second career, the third wave or whatever term one prefers. In the immortal words of the songwriter Tom Lehrer, however, the Bill would be
I wonder whether, as legislators, we are in the business of trying to do that.
Mr. Forman:
It was Shakespeare.
Mr. Robinson:
I was thinking of Tom Lehrer, but I am reminded that I am quoting from Shakespeare. [Interruption.] So are we.
It is important that we have had the debate. I take the opportunity of paying tribute to Age Concern in Somerset, with which I have had dealings although it has not especially lobbied me about the Bill. It is important that we move the issue of agism up the political agenda, but we must be careful not to do so by framing laws that become meaningless in their implementation and interpretation. I hope that the result of the debate will be that industry and small business associations will try to establish among themselves good practice that they can continue to operate in their recruitment policies. That is the key.
What are employers seeking? Are they seeking someone of a specific age or are they seeking someone who will perform the job well? The answer should always be the latter. It is bad recruitment practice to impose in an advertisement the arbitrary rule that no one aged over 35 or over 45 will be employed, and I prefer to think that only a small minority of employers adopt that type of practice in their advertisements. As I said earlier, there is no evidence that a 36-year-old is worse than a 35-year-old. A deplorable artificial element is introduced into recruitment. It would be welcome if my hon. Friend the Minister would, after the debate, give further thought to ways in which we can improve recruitment practice.
I suspect that when my hon. Friend the Minister makes her contribution to the debate, she will say that to pursue this policy is to embark on a regulatory route that is restrictive and unnecessary. There is strength in that argument, but we all recognise--indeed, she has recognised--that there is a problem and we need to find a means of resolving it. I am certain that voluntary organisations such as Age Concern can also help by making a fresh input into our attempts to solve such problems.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan):
I should declare an interest in the debate: I am living proof of the motto that life begins at 40. I was at the endof my 39th year when I was elected to the House and I should be delighted if my remarks this morning encouraged other men and women to think about starting a career in the House at about that age.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North(Mr. Winnick) on his success in the ballot. I am grateful to him for his explanation of the concerns that have led him to introduce the Bill. I have been most interested in what he has had to say today, and I have also appreciated the great thought and effort that has gone into the measure. He did not discover the subject overnight when he won the ballot, but he has thought about it long and hard. He feels passionately about the subject, and I share his concern. I would not want a single Member of the House or a wider audience to believe otherwise.
The Government also fully share the hon. Gentleman's objectives: the elimination of age discrimination in employment. We undoubtedly have a common interest in
highlighting the problem. I am particularly grateful that, through the introduction of his Bill and today's debate, the hon. Gentleman has helped the Government and me to lift the subject's profile.
I hope that I shall have some success in persuading the hon. Gentleman as to why the Bill is not acceptable to the Government, and why it is unlikely that we shall be able to agree on an amendment that will make it acceptable, particularly at this time. I was sad that, during his lengthy remarks, the hon. Gentleman did not once mention the Campaign for Older Workers, or the research that I announced last year and that I have reinforced again today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) supported the Bill and advanced a powerful argument, not least because of his great experience as the founder of the headhunter movement--a movement of which I can do nothing but approve. I have been headhunted only once in my life;it was a pleasurable experience, and I thank my right hon. Friend for starting that trend in the recruitment trade.
My right hon. Friend said that, when it comes to CVs, a sense of humour would help. I think that a sense of humour helps people of all ages. I am reminded of Jeanne Calment, the French woman who has achieved the grand age of 120. When asked if she expected to reach her next milestone of 125, she shrugged and said:
She thinks that she is very lucky, because God might have forgotten her, and she says that at least he does not seem to be in a great hurry to meet her. She is a woman after my own heart: it is rumoured that she gave up smoking at the age of 118.
I listened very carefully to my right hon. Friend's plea for the standardisation of CVs. Any hon. Member present in the Chamber who has been interviewed or has interviewed potential employees will share his deep frustration at CVs that are sometimes extremely poorly prepared. They often achieve the very reverse of what they intend, simply because they obscure an otherwise extremely talented person. I have often read a CV and, upon meeting the job applicant, I have thought to myself, "My goodness, that piece of paper does not do justice to this applicant's talents." I have a great deal of sympathy with my right hon. Friend's point.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made some very telling points. I listened closely to his remarks, not only because he speaks with such authority due to his long service in the House, but because he has obviously canvassed the views of his colleagues in Scotland. He said that he was speaking on their behalf, and on behalf of Age Concern Scotland.
I was concerned about the fact that the hon. Gentleman said that the measure would not cost any money. The hon. Gentleman may need to rethink that point, as I think that it would have implications for industrial tribunals and for public expenditure. It is estimated that compliance costs across the board could run well into millions of pounds. That will obviously depend on the size of the business or organisation concerned, but reorganisation will certainly have to occur.
"Full of sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing".
"Why be a pessimist? I've waited 120 years to be famous, and I intend to take advantage of that for as long as possible".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |