| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Gillan: If the hon. Gentleman considers that those people's opportunities are curtailed, perhaps he will explain what effect the minimum wage and the social chapter would have on those people's chances.
Mr. McCartney: The national minimum wage will be implemented by an incoming Labour Government. Its rate will be set by Government, employers, trade unions and the Low Pay Unit. The minimum wage will not cost jobs. It will create economic productivity and jobs. I await the general election. The hon. Lady will put her case and we shall put ours. There is overwhelming support in the nation for the minimum wage. Unlike us, the hon. Lady supports a low-pay, no-pay strategy--the fat cats and all of rest of it. As a result, millions of workers receive low pay and poverty wages and are in no-hope jobs, with no opportunity for training or advancement. That is the Government's deregulation strategy.
If we are serious about doing something in the long term about agism in the labour market, we need to introduce legislation that assists both management and employees in key sectors of the economy. We need a labour market where training and investment in retraining play a significant part. We need to change the nature of promotion in companies. We need flexible working to allow older workers, many of whom have caring responsibilities, which the Minister mentioned, to get back to work or to retain their jobs. We need to introduce proposals on relocation and maximising the potential of all working people, whatever their age. That includes their ability to change career.
Agism in the labour market prevents much of that from taking place. Why do the Government fail to recognise the growing support for, and the trend in industry and in
the community towards, a legislative framework that would provide minimum standards and offer opportunity for a change in the management culture? That would lead to fundamental changes in the labour market, and would allow older workers either to remain in work or to return to the labour market, because discriminatory factors would have ended. It would allow them to be interviewed and treated on merit.
As the global economy changes, no nation, never mind this nation, can, under any circumstances, be prepared in either the short or the long term to lock out so much talent and ignore the need to develop an industrial strategy for the next millennium. What other nation would take a deliberate decision to lock out of its labour market tens of thousands of experienced workers?
For young people, one of the biggest problems in the labour market involves on-costs on training. As the Government reduce their training budget and access to training, both in absolute terms of money invested and in terms of some of the discriminatory practices allowed by training and enterprise councils against older workers, companies, if they want to invest in training young people, must increasingly do in-work training. That training can be better achieved with a mix of work force that includes older, experienced and skilled workers. That mix of an experienced work force with a new up-and-coming one gives the best chance, not just for this country in the long term, but for companies to prosper and expand.
Mrs. Gillan:
If we are so concerned to lock out the older worker, will the hon. Gentleman explain why, in April 1994, the Government's main adult training programme, training for work, was extended to people between the ages of 18 and 63?
Mr. McCartney:
As I did not get an answer to a question that I asked some weeks ago on that issue,will the Minister explain why the TEC operating agreement between her Department and the TECs, which, technically, relates to people aged 18 to 63, says on page 52:
Such people will be given priority in recruitment. That means that they get priority over workers of an older generation. The Government say one thing in their publicity and campaigning, but, in the day-to-day working of their financial agreement with the TECs, they will continue to discriminate against older workers. As a consequence, in the areas with the highest unemployment among older people--those very areas where investment and retraining is needed--companies are discriminating against older people.
Mr. McCartney:
I am not giving way. The hon. Lady took almost 50 minutes for her speech. I am trying to complete mine within 20 minutes. I want to be as positive as possible in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North.
The evidence of discrimination is overwhelming. Even the Minister's Department recognises that more than40 per cent. of employers engage in some form of age
discrimination. Officials from her Department recently suggested that when employers pressurise jobcentres, they turn a blind eye to advertisements with agist elements. The truth is that the Government oppose even this small measure to help older workers--
Mrs. Gillan:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
Mr. McCartney:
I shall not give way--[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Lady has her instructions--
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton):
Give way. The hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friend the Minister a question. Let her answer.
Mr. McCartney:
I am not giving way to the Minister. She took 50 minutes for her speech.
The Labour party's position is quite clear. This Conservative Government may not accept my hon. Friend's Bill, but 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. Whether those workplace representatives are or are not in a trade union will not be relevant.
Our legislation will be a proactive approach to skilful management. We want to change the techniques to ensure investment in human capital, the development of training, the widening of employment opportunities within a company, changes in recruitment policy, improvements in performance and better older worker retention. We will respond to the demographic changes in society. We will promote diversity within the age mix of company work forces. We will work with new and old employers to improve the organisational culture of management,to bring about more flexible working practices. We will ensure that training meets the needs of older workers so that they have greater employment opportunities.
Behind our policy is one simple premise. In the two decades of Conservative government, there have been two recessions. There are now 3 million fewer jobs in manufacturing than there were when the Government took office. There are 1 million fewer jobs in the economy than there were when the Prime Minister came to power. Since 1990, 11 million people in England alone have had to seek unemployment benefit on at least one occasion. Since the last general election, 8.5 million people in Britain have had to seek unemployment benefit on at least one occasion. Over the next two years, people will face a one-in-three chance of becoming unemployed in the insecure labour market created by this Conservative Government's policies.
At the same time as there is such high job insecurity, there is merger mania--with thousands of highly skilled, highly paid and profitable workers being put on the dole to meet the short-term costs of acquisition. The Government allow low pay and job insecurity to drive their economic policies. They back people such as Cedric Brown--[Interruption.] This week the Government defended his retirement package, while allowing British Gas, as a matter of course, to sack workers who reach
the age of 50. Those practices are unacceptable, and an incoming Labour Government will give priority to ending them by introducing anti-discrimination legislation.
Following our extensive consultation in the past year with organisations and industry, industry will work effectively with an incoming Labour Government to introduce legislation that will be comprehensive in content and a useful tool for management. Alongside our employment policies of increasing job opportunities in the economy, the legislation will start to end the evil of mass unemployment and, in that context, start to obtain justice for the tens and hundreds of thousands of older workers who have been deliberately placed on the scrap heap by the Government's economic policies.
I ask hon. Members to support the Bill.
Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East):
I welcome the Bill for three reasons. First, it responds to the experience of my constituents. Secondly, it complements the Government's campaign to highlight the unfairness of age discrimination, about which we have just heard. Thirdly, it does not go as far as Labour's commitments, which have just been confirmed, to outlaw age discrimination, which would be a great mistake.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as many hon. Members know from their holidays and from conferences there in which they have taken part, my constituency of Bournemouth is a very attractive place and is one of Britain's most popular places in which to retire.
Many people who retire early tend to seek a second or further career, not only for something to do but to continue to apply their skills and experiences--and,of course, the extra money is useful. All that is natural and to be encouraged. The same applies to those who do not want to retire, and it should never be forgotten by older people that the Conservative Government enabled them to continue in work after reaching the age of retirement by abolishing the earnings rule.
In addition, some people have been made redundant long before their planned retirement and need, and seek, employment. There are also women who have been housewives and mothers for most of their working lives who want to return to the workplace. All those trends will continue.
It is men and women in situations such as those from whom many hon. Members have received complaints about prejudice against older applicants by potential employers. That prejudice at the first stage of recruitment is the major obstacle in returning to the job market.
I applaud the hon. Member for Walsall, North(Mr. Winnick) for pursuing the Bill at his second attempt, in response to the anxieties expressed by our constituents. It will encourage the potential employer to think twice before committing himself to a younger applicant.
There is no doubt of the value to an employer seeking to fill vacancies of employing middle-aged and older people. Several hon. Members mentioned the advantages of employing more mature staff as part of a mixed-age work force. The content of their remarks equates with my experience of having helped to run a family business.
Older workers are more appreciative of their job. They may be slower than their younger colleagues, but they are much more meticulous in satisfying their job description,
not least to protect their job, so they are more reliable and committed. An employer is more likely to employ a 60-year-old whom he took on at the age of 50 than to employ a 30-year-old whom he took on at the age of 20.
Older workers are less prone to absenteeism as a result of sickness or a wide variety of reasons that tempt younger staff to come in late or not at all. Older workers also prove to be less financially demanding of on employer, although that, of course, is no justification in itself for taking them on. Their financial needs and ambitions are less than those of younger people and many enjoy other sources of income--perhaps a pension or investments.
Above all, older workers bring talents that have been discovered, skills that have been developed and experiences that have been acquired from previous employment, to the advantage of a new employer, without the need for costly training. All that must transmit into a better service, increased customer satisfaction and confidence, a more competent work force, lower staff turnover and larger profits.
The essential aspect of the Bill is that no employer will appreciate those talents, skills and experiences that could be available to him unless he sees them on an application form and a CV. He can then make a choice. It is a choice that he can make immediately if the applicant's ability is unattractive--at least the employer will be able to make an informed choice, which is what the Bill provides for.
All those measures complement the Government's Campaign for Older Workers, to which my hon. Friend the Minister has referred. I found the Department's booklets of great interest and very encouraging, as I am sure they are to many of my constituents. It is particularly encouraging that an increasing number of well-known high street stores--such as those mentioned in the booklets and the debate--and the police are reporting the distinct advantages and benefits of an older work force.If that is already a trend that can only be encouraged by the Bill, it will give great hope to the older unemployed, which I welcome.
"an eligible person aged 18-24 who has been Continuously Unemployed for two years or more prior to entry."?
2.4 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |