| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.45 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Does my hon. Friend agree that we must consider this matter not just in the employed sector, but in the professional sectors--whether it be in medicine or dentistry, at the Bar or in the Law Society--where discrimination on the ground of gender, as well as on other grounds, often occurs?
Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am particularly grateful to him for highlighting that point. That was precisely why I particularly approved of the intention behind new clauses 4 and 5. A range of issues in this area--not least ageism--should be addressed. I do not wish this debate to be seen as taking place in a ghetto. I agree absolutely that the professions have a particular responsibility in this area, which, in some respects, has been indifferently discharged. It is important that we ventilate this issue. I shall be looking for some assurances from the Minister on it.
Mr. Fabricant: I align myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), although I shall mainly address my remarks to new clause 4, which concerns ageism. I suppose that I ought to declare an interest. My ex-bank manager, Ken Stevens of Lloyds bank in Brighton, said when I was 33 years old that I was a young whiz kid. Now, at the age of 48, I am just an old has-been. Nevertheless, this matter needs to be taken seriously; things cannot continue as at present, for three reasons.
First, ageism is fundamentally unfair and immoral. It is the very issue that the House is here--and has been here for hundreds of years--to address. Ageism is quite simply wrong. The second reason is that older people have a lot to offer new companies--companies with fewer than 50 employees, about which we heard earlier, and large corporations, too. Mature people have not only staying power, but experience and solidity. I shall say more about that later.
The real reason why I say that the present situation cannot be sustained is that we are facing a demographic time bomb. I shall cite a couple of statistics. It is estimated that, by 2000, one person in three in employment will be over 40 years of age. More worryingly, by 2025, if present trends continue, less than 20 per cent. of the population will be working. All the rest will be unemployed, enjoying leisure or students, so 20 per cent. of the population will be paying the tax and the benefits for themselves and 80 per cent. of the population. That is unsustainable, and we should think twice before we reject the new clause.
In opposition, Labour Members also took the view that the position was unsustainable. I, too, am sorry that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), is not here today, and I hope that he will soon recover; but, back in 1995, when he was Labour's employment spokesman, he promised to introduce legislation, when a Labour Government were elected, to make age discrimination illegal. That has not happened.
Mr. Fabricant:
I will give way in a moment, but, in case the hon. Gentleman--my good friend in the corner--
Mr. Bermingham:
I agree that all those comments were made in the previous Parliament; I was there.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any society that says that people who reach 50, 55 or 60--I notice some of my hon. Friends nodding sagely--are therefore barred from applying for jobs is a society that loses and wastes talent?
Mr. Fabricant:
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he does not speak only for people aged 50 or 55; he speaks for the nation. It is in the nation's interest to make ageism a thing of the past.
Sally Greengross, the director general of Age Concern, said,
Earlier in the debate, I talked about my own experience, in which I, too, have found that older people offer not only maturity, but a calming influence. When my mother wants to irritate me, she comes up with German proverbs. I do not know why, because she was born in south Wales. When I went into business with a friend of mine, whom I have known since I was 16, she said, "Freundschaft und Bruderschaft machen keine Handelschaft." I think that that means, "Friendship and brotherhood make no businesshood." I do not think that there is a translation for "Handelschaft", but colleagues will know what I mean. Friendship and brotherhood do not necessarily make for a good business partnership.
Mr. Bercow:
My hon. Friend is developing a powerful case. Does he agree that it would be helpful if businesses followed the example of our institutions of further and higher education, which, on the whole, practise sound policies in relation to this matter? They do not discriminate against, for example, older people--a fact to which, I hope my hon. Friend recognises, I can testify by virtue of my own experience. My mother, who is a lady of mature years, graduated last summer with an honours degree in English.
Mr. Fabricant:
I am delighted to hear that. It was the previous Government's policy to ensure that people could be educated throughout all the ages of their lives.
I thought that I was going to have to disagree with my hon. Friend because I thought, as other hon. Members might have done, that he was about to say that institutions
of primary, secondary and higher education did not discriminate when employing teachers. My hon. Friend did not say that, but they do. The new clause would stop that.
To carry on with my story of Freundschaft and Bruderschaft, my fellow director, a friend whom I had known since the age of 16, and I squabbled like two cats in a bag. Our small company expanded into a much larger company, employing several hundred people, and indirectly more than 1,000--if this Bill had been in place, we would have been strangled at birth and gone bust, never growing at all. I realised that some members of the company felt a little uneasy when, on one occasion only, my fellow director and I had fisticuffs in a corridor. We brought in John Ball--with whom I went out last night for a drink--then aged 64, who brought calmness, stability, wisdom, insight and maturity to the company. Had I been ageist, my company probably would not have survived. Certainly my partner, Mel, and I would not have survived, because we would have beaten hell out of each other, and most of our employees would probably have left. Older people have a lot to offer.
In principle, the new clause is good. However, two matters bother me. I am not exactly sure how the new clause would be implemented. I note that it would require secondary legislation. I am not convinced that secondary legislation is a good thing. More and more legislation goes Upstairs and is passed almost on the nod. Journalists say that the House is being supplanted by Whitehall, and I believe that the Chamber is being supplanted by secondary legislation. I am a little concerned that, if the new clause were passed, it might leave a number of options open.
My other concern relates simply to promotion and promotion prospects. If the new clause were law, could an employee who could not obtain promotion claim that that was due to ageism? That needs clarification.
Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble):
The issues raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), particularly on new clauses 4 and 5, fit fully into the Government's policy. They are, and should be, the Government's objectives. It is unfortunate that these areas of discrimination are not the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry, which sponsors the Bill. I shall be seeking some undertakings from Ministers.
I want to deal particularly with discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual orientation. There have been major changes in the past 10 or 15 years. My judgment is that, if members of the public were asked
whether people should be discriminated against in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, the overwhelming majority would say that it was wrong to discriminate.
I remember the arguments that were advanced when organisations introduced equal opportunity policies. For a number of years, I was a member of Preston borough council, and, as chair of the equal opportunities committee, I was involved in the introduction of equal opportunities employment policy, which included provisions against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. When we discussed that issue 10 years ago, it caused a major row, and there was a big fuss about it. A few years later, when I was the chief officer of a tribunal, I drew up an equal opportunities policy, which included provisions on sexual orientation. It went through the annual meeting of the tribunal on the nod, and was accepted as what a good employer should do.
We must recognise the fact that, in the past 10 or 15 years, many organisations in the public and private sectors have introduced policies to outlaw discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. In that area, therefore, we are clearly moving with the grain.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned the case of the two women who worked for the railways and the discrimination in that organisation. I am sure that he is aware that similar discrimination exists in the House. We cannot say that we have good employment policies in those respects.
"Age discrimination"--
this echoes what the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said--
"is a national shame and should be outlawed. Action to eliminate it is essential. The Government must introduce legislation and not hide behind rhetoric."
I hope that the Minister will do just that and not hide behind rhetoric.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |