| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend may like to know about the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services, which has helped my Department. It requires all its members to observe a code of good recruitment practice. It tries to find out why an employer is including an age bar in advertisements and it uses its powers of persuasion and reasoning to convince the employer that a person's age will not guarantee ability. The Nationwide building society has dropped age bars from its advertisements and has made great inroads into its thinking and attitudes towards older workers.
Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend is right to mention the codes that are being recommended and the work practices that are being implemented--if they were working effectively, there would be no need for the Bill.
I would not welcome the plans of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats--the Liberal Democrats are not here this afternoon--to put age discrimination on the same footing as racial and sexual discrimination. That policy would not work, but would prove counter-productive to those whom it purported to help. Legislation to outlaw discrimination on the ground of age would be far more difficult to implement than the laws that already exist to discourage prejudice on grounds of race and sex, because performance and skills are so interlinked with age.
Such a policy would encourage employers and applicants to take firms to court for anything that looked like age discrimination. Firms would be at risk if they sent mainly younger workers on training courses. The policy would provide a field day for the legal profession, soak up legal aid and encourage firms to avoid such legislation and regulation. It would not solve the problem of age discrimination, as evidenced in other countries such as the United States of America, where such legislation exists.
The way forward lies with the Government's campaign of persuasion and education, together with the Bill. It will provide a positive sign to older people that age discrimination is unacceptable. It will encourage employers, particularly large ones, to rethink their employment policies so that every person has a right to be considered for work in relation to his skills, capabilities and experience, irrespective of age. For those reasons, I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading.
Mr. Winnick
rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:--
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle):
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made an extraordinary statement this afternoon, when he seemed to imply that simply because a private Member's Bill was high on the list, it should be entitled to a Second Reading. If and when there is a Labour Government--which is an unlikely prospect, with the polls today showing that the Conservatives are creeping up and poised for victory in the light of the gross hypocrisy vouchsafed the nation by the Labour party in recent weeks--they would never allow a Conservative Member to introduce a private Member's Bill and grant it a Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman's statement was absurd.It is a pity that he was too frit to give way to me, so that I could question him on that point.
The arguments supporting my hon. Friend the Minister make it absolutely clear that the Bill would result in more legislation, which would not create jobs for people over 50 but would destroy jobs for everybody. The Government have a proud record of job creation, and it is the best in Europe. [Hon. Members: "What?"]Hon. Members only have to examine the employment statistics, which show that this country has more people in work and fewer people out of work than any other major nation in Europe. The Bill would lead to more regulation of the labour market, which would destroy jobs for everybody.
The Bill is also philosophically wrong, because people should not be forced to do what is right. All right hon. and hon. Members are united in believing that it is wrong to discriminate against people because of their age.We all accept that people over the age of 40 or 45 have much to offer, in terms of experience and dedication. The House is not united on the premise that that objective must be achieved by over-regulation of the labour market.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) failed to prove that his Bill, which a number of hon. Members said was flawed, would be effective. The evidence that prompted the proposed legislation is contradictory.
Mr. Stern:
My hon. Friend is right to say that the House is united against age discrimination, but one principle that has not entered into the debate contradicts
Mr. Leigh:
Of course that is right. There may be good reasons for an employer including certain attributes in an advertisement. It would be absurd to lay down what should or should not be included in recruitment advertising.
Mr. Winnick:
The hon. Gentleman argues, together with other Conservative Members, that legislation that has remained on the statute book for 30 years--certainly that on race and gender--was wrong. In many cases, employers would not have chosen to employ people who were not white. The Race Relations Act 1965 has worked very well.
Mr. Leigh:
The hon. Gentleman has made that point several times, but it is not proven. Age discrimination is different. One cannot change one's race--but one's age, by its very nature, changes as one gets older. It is ridiculous to put age on a level playing field with race.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North said that his Bill would not lead to over-regulation. Last year, I attended debate on the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill, which we were told would not lead to over-regulation. I have now heard a rumour that that measure, which received its Second Reading on a wet Friday morning with half a dozen people in the Chamber, would lead to 1,000 new regulations being imposed on that industry. The hon. Member for Walsall, North said that his Bill would not result in extra compliance costs. What of all the legal bills to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred?
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey):
Will the hon. Gentleman admit that that Bill was carried after the shock that the House felt at the needless deaths of four children in a tragedy at sea? The House was quite right to consider it necessary to pass such a Bill, and I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman has seen fit not to mention the tragedy in this context.
Mr. Leigh:
I did not want to waste the time of the House, or to be out of order, by dealing at length with that Bill. Today's Bill, we are told, will not lead to over-regulation. But it will, and it will destroy jobs.
Under this successful Conservative Government, in the United Kingdom non-wage labour costs are 15 per cent., in France they are 29 per cent., in Germany 24 per cent. and in Spain 25 per cent. That shows the cost to jobs and the creation of wealth imposed by extra regulations. The figures mean that UK unemployment--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |