Q
203Mrs.
Sharon Hodgson (Gateshead, East and Washington, West)
(Lab): There will still be a provision in the Bill for a
default retirement age or forced retirement at 65. You are probably
aware that this issue is currently being considered by the High Court.
Do you believe that this form of direct age discrimination is
justified?
The
Chairman: We have discussed this
issue.
Mrs.
Hodgson: I am sorry.
The
Chairman: So very brief
answers. Stephen
Alambritis: Small employers are helped where the
Government has an indicator of what the retirement age is. We would
leave the retirement age up to the Government. But a small employer
without a human resource or legal department is helped by an
indicator.
The
Chairman: I have given a business voice a sentence or two,
so I shall give the same to a trade union
voice. Sarah
Veale: Just to repeat, we do not think that there is
a justification for having a mandatory retirement age. We think
employers should judge on the individuals ability. It is
contradictory to have within age discrimination laws a provision that
specifically allows employers to discriminate purely on the grounds of
age.
Q
204Dr.
Harris: I want briefly to ask the gentleman from the
insurance industry a question. Do you recognise that there is concern
that there might be discrimination against people who have genetic
factors that put them at risk when it comes to getting fundamental
insurance, such as life insurance associated with a mortgage, if the
moratorium were to
go? Nick
Starling: At the moment, there is a moratorium on
genetic testing. It is an agreement between the Government and the
insurance industry. I believe that it will last until 2014, but I will
have to check
that.
Q
205Dr.
Harris: So if it
went Nick
Starling: There is no question of its going at the
moment. It is there, in
place.
Q
206Dr.
Harris: After 2014, unless you can see the future, it
might well not be there and the insurance industry would presumably
want to stratify, because that is its job. Do you recognise that there
is a riskit may not be your problem, but it may be a public
concernthat there would be an uninsurable group of people who
therefore, essentially, could not get insurance because of their
genetic
characteristics? Nick
Starling: One of the reasons why we extended the
moratorium to 2014 is because that is quite a long time away and we do
not quite know what the position of genetic knowledge will be or what
the situation would be if people could do their own genetic testing and
find out about themselves. So we have extended it precisely because it
is an uncertain future and an unknown situation. That is why we think
that a moratorium, which the Department of Health and Ministers have
agreed has worked well, is the best way forward. I do not want to
speculate on what might happen by then, except to say that we have
agreed that there has to be a lot of discussion leading up to 2014,
based on the current
science.
I
thank Stephen and Nick, Dianah, Sarah and Katja for their
evidence. Ordered,
That further consideration of the Bill be now
adjourned.(The
Solicitor-General.) 12.59
pm Adjourned
till this day at Four
oclock.
|