| Good morning.
20 years ago I worked for Age Concern, looking at the issues arising
from our ageing population. I'm delighted to return to the fold now,
just two weeks before the close of our consultation - the first ever
consultation on age discrimination.
The IPPR, another former employer of mine, has today published new
research.
I warmly welcome their contribution to the debate, and congratulate
them for attracting Brendan Barber, Howard Davies and Tess Harding to
speak here today. Let me also thank the Third Age Employment Network for
sponsoring today's event. And the Nuffield Foundation for having the
foresight for sponsoring the work the IPPR has done on this.
Huge interest is now gathering around this issue of how we enable
everyone in this country to meet their full potential - for themselves
and their families.
Profound changes are taking place.
First, to our economy.
China's joined the WTO; India's producing a quarter of a million science
and IT graduates a year; and ten more countries are joining the EU next
year. Meaning more opportunities, but more competition as well.
Plus, technology and consumer tastes are now changing so fast that
product life-cycles - once four or five years from design to decline -
are now just one or two years.
Second, to our society.
With
- Life expectancy rising one year every four years;
- Men now taking on a third of childcare duties;
- Half all new jobs over the next ten years going to ethnic
minorities.
In the face of this, you'd think we'd be pulling the stops out. But,
in fact, we're pulling the plug out - on huge chunks of the workforce.
- Women are still held back with a pay gap of 19%.
- African and some Asian communities still suffer far higher levels
of unemployment than white groups.
- Disabled and gay people continue to suffer discrimination.
Since the 70s, gender and racial equality have headed the
discrimination agenda. Ageism has been seen as milder - not as serious
or socially divisive.
But it's the most common form of discrimination. I know it's not
restricted to the workplace. But work is a very important part of our
lives. And this is a good place to start.
- Four in ten discrimination cases are age related.
- 1 in 2 people have either suffered, or seen someone else suffer,
age discrimination at work.
Plus, despite us living longer and healthier, the problem is getting
worse.
There's no reason why we should be thrown on the scrap heap at a
certain age.
Emmeline Pankhurst was 60 when she won her first fight for votes for
women, Mick Jagger's 60 and still drawing the crowds in; Mahatma Ghandi
was 77 when he won independence for India; and Christopher Wren was 79
when he finished St Paul's Cathedral.
Just yesterday, a British scientist set to turn 70 on Thursday, Sir
Peter Mansfield, jointly won the Nobel Prize for his work on magnetic
resonance imaging - which is reducing the pain of surgery for millions
every year.
Age discrimination costs us £16 billion a year in lost GDP and a
further £3-5 billion in extra benefits and lost taxes.
It's difficult to know where to draw the line on age discrimination…
45? 50? 55? I always thought age was ten years older than I was.
Whatever it is, as a fifty four year old, I'm shocked that 1 in 3 over
45s are out of work.
An appalling waste. No wonder Victor Meldrew had such a chip on his
shoulder.
It's not just an "older" issue too. Younger people are
sullied with a perception that they're inexperienced, unreliable,
irresponsible, more likely to throw "sickies" and lacking
organisational skills.
We're all working together to tackle this. In a modern partnership
between individuals, business and Government. The way we took forward
our work life balance reforms.
And, just as we saw with work life balance, age is now rising to the
top of the agenda for our best businesses.
Sainsburys started developing older worker plans back in 1986. They
introduced a scheme so workers could draw partially on their pension
whilst reducing their hours, and still pay into their pension. It's been
a great incentive to stay. 15% of the workforce is over 50. 1% over 65.
Tesco employs 7,500 over 60s. Mark Roberts, their HR manager says,
"Customers tell us that they like having a mix of staff of
different ages working within our stores. Additionally, our staff also
say that they enjoy working in an age diverse environment."
BT has an Age Champion and flexible arrangements to let people retire
gradually, as part of a career/life planning strategy.
Many other businesses, large and small, are finding their own ways.
Different companies find different solutions. There are excellent
examples of best practice out there.
But there are also some bad businesses out there. I know from the
very many letters I receive
- Like the person who had the phone slammed down on them by a
prospective employer when they said how old they were;
- Or the man moved across to admin work when he had management
skills;
- Or the woman who was denied training because their employer didn't
think she were worth investing in…
We want to raise more to the standard of the best.
I can announce today that next year we will be launching a nationwide
campaign, working with businesses to help gear up for the introduction
of the new age discrimination legislation. Building on best practice.
Preparing for the new laws.
Promoting culture change is vital. Because we know that legislation
is not on its own enough. We need the two working hand in hand.
Legislation sometimes gets the loud minority ranting about political
correctness, positive discrimination and employing people who are not up
to the job. It's not about any of this. It's about the right people in
the right jobs.
I'm quite happy to take these critics on. Equality of opportunity is
fundamental to this Government. It's a passion for equality that first
brought me into politics.
When I was at the civil rights group, Liberty, I brought the first UK
test case of indirect discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act.
It involved a civil servant, Belinda Price, who was barred from
recruitment at junior management level because she was "too
old" at 35!
We argued, successfully, that in career terms she was in fact younger
than a 35-year old man because she'd taken some years out to bring up
children. We won the case.
Many of you will have seen last week's Rutherford and Bentley case and
drawn comparisons.
Rutherford and Bentley claimed that the upper age limits on unfair
dismissal and statutory redundancy payments discriminated against men.
An employment tribunal found in their favour but we appealed that
decision.
Before anyone says that this poacher has turned into an unsportsmanlike
gamekeeper, let me be clear why we appealed.
We did so not because we believe the upper age limits should be
retained. We did so because their case was flawed.
And, as you know, because we are consulting on new policy.
One proposal is that employees should be able to seek redress for unfair
dismissal at any age, although retirement at a justifiable age should be
a fair reason for dismissal.
We are also consulting on age-related aspects of the redundancy payments
scheme.
These important issues should not be decided by case law but by
Parliament. On the basis of full consultation. And based on the
experience in countries like the United States where, not only do they
not have a default age, they also don't have any unfair dismissal laws.
I'm a passionate believer in justice and equality. But I'm also a
passionate believer in the primary role of Parliament in policy making
and we will await the outcome of the consultation before we put our
proposals to Parliament.
Consultation was key to the success of our work life balance reforms.
Consultation will be key to the success of our age reforms as well.
I've listened and I'm listening to the views of the IPPR and others
on the controversial issue of whether employers should be able to retire
their employees compulsorily at or after age 70 without having to
justify their decision.
What's known as the "default age".
Some people think that Government, the DTI or I have closed the door
on this issue. I must say, clearly and categorically that we have an
open mind.
We will look at this carefully. Learning from international
experience, but also making sure we come up with a package that reflects
our national traditions.
Another issue raised is around pay and non-pay benefits, like whether
employers should be able to give extra leave after long service. It
rewards loyalty and is a cheap and easy way of cheering up staff, but it
could be indirect discrimination. So we want to know what people think.
And what about graduate recruitment schemes? Of course graduates come
in all shapes, sizes and ages these days, but should there be an upper
age limit for recruitment? That could only ever work in very limited
circumstances. But are there circumstances, usually to do with the
return on investment in training and development, where that makes
business sense?
To close, age has come of age.
The challenge now is to make sure everyone has the opportunity to
contribute to and benefit from rising prosperity.
Creating a stronger economy. A stronger society. A society and an
economy in which everyone has the opportunity to reach their full
potential. For themselves and their families.
|
