Report of the L-E-A-D Seminar

29th November 2000
House of Commons

Roger Berry MP welcomed participants to the seminar.
John Lipetz of L-E-A-D chaired the event.

The effects of ageism in the fields of employment, social security, health & social care.

Literature Review carried out on behalf of L-E-A-D.

Professor Malcolm Johnson & Lesley Cullen, Research Fellow, (Full Text Article)
International Institute on Health & Ageing, University of Bristol.

Introduction

· People over 65 will be 18% of the population in 2001 and ageism is now a structural issue that causes confusion at policy levels. Those over 65 consume 45% of social services expenditure (1997) and 42% of NHS expenditure (1999) - mostly by the over 85's. 60% of those considered disabled are over the retiring age
· Looking at discrimination across the whole life span is now important because "discrimination on grounds of age" is a reality at many ages, not just the older groups
· An intergenerational conflict arises and prompts the question "where is the vision for an all age society?"
· Current literature on ageism addresses issues at the macro state level and at the micro individual level. Both raise key questions about:
- 'age neutrality' (Debate of the Age 1999)
- challenging explicit ageist policies in health, social care & benefits
- the need to identify and challenge covert ageism
- the value of legislation

The literature indicates that:
· 'Ageism is a process of systematic stereotyping of and discrimination against us when we are considered old' (Bytheway 1995) which, when embedded in contemporary culture, undermines status, creates dependency and devalues a whole segment of society. It focuses on the negatives
· Rationing of resources (particularly in health and home care) takes many forms and is very often not based on evidence. Practitioners tend to act on their own without guidance and independent standards are needed
· Overt discrimination in government policies and clinical practice has been revealed by a series of studies and challenged as wrong by the BMA, Age Concern and others
· Many employers enforce retirement and this has created a large structural group who are both economically dependent on others in work and maintained by low pensions
· In social services, discrimination is more covert: in training, decision making and resource allocation
· Setting age limits in Benefits is now increasingly common
· The right to work and to services raises a host of moral issues for all. The principle of equality is fundamental and 'applies as much in the face of discrimination on the basis of age or life expectancy as it does on the basis of gender, race or other arbitrary features' (Harris 1998)
· To date lobbying in the UK has not had the impact of similar work in the USA, but changes may be in process because:
- A declining workforce means labour shortages so that the value of mature workers may be recognised
- European legislation is imminent
- In the UK a voluntary code of practice is in place in relation to employment
- Human Rights legislation will open up challenges to discrimination
- Legislation may have symbolic value
- Investment in structural and organisational systems on the principle of age neutrality may bring about change.

Discrimination against young people

Gabrielle Cox, Director of The Greater Manchester Low Pay Unit.(Full Text Article)

Introduction
· Although young people today might be generally better off and may have more opportunities, for many their prospects are not bright: currently a place in the labour market is at best uncertain
· In employment terms, a young person is someone aged 16 or 17 and this group is treated differently within the labour market and benefits system
· Little attention is paid to discrimination against young people who are vulnerable and liable to exploitation

The evidence
· For a long time 16/17 years olds were seen as vulnerable and legislation prevented night working or working for more than 44 hours
· But during the 80's:
- these protections were removed
- under 21's were removed from the protection of wage councils
- 16/17 year olds were excluded from Income Support but entitled to a training allowance
- if the 'guarantee' of a training place did not materialise it left many without an income and this contributed significantly to youth homelessness
· the current government continues to operate differential labour market and benefit policies for 16/17 year olds (based solely on age) and the restriction on night working of longer than 44 hours has not been restored
· The lack of a minimum wage for young people remains, supposedly on the basis that this encourages training, but this assumption is greatly undermined by the facts: almost 50% of this group are already in employment (or forced to work whilst at school/college - some 93,000 since May 1997) and discriminated against as above. Exclusion from the minimum wage is, again, solely on grounds of age - no other criterion is used
· this arbitrary situation derives in part from a prejudice that young people are not or should not be in employment and are less useful than older workers: there is no objective evidence for this view
· There is evidence that some companies (e.g. Fast Foods) decide to pay adult minimum rates to all workers because the younger ones are just as useful and there are no grounds for paying them differently
· In a study into young peoples pay (Low Pay Network 1999), a comparison of hourly rates of pay by age and occupation shows the average for 16 year olds to be £2.36, for 17's £2.50. This compares with £3.17 and £3.43 for 18 & 19 year olds.
· There are extremely low rates for 16/17/18 year olds for hairdressing (£1.53 and this is much lower than it would have been had the Hairdressing Wages Council been able to continue) and such inappropriate occupations as driving and care work. The highest % of jobs paying below £1.75 are hairdressing (84%) care work (66%) and motor trade (52%)
· The comparison also shows that young people work very long hours ranging from 42 or more to 52 hours and these hours appear to be linked to lack of minimum wage protection - the hours can be increased because there are no cost implications. The only conclusion is that exempting 16/17 year olds from wage protection is highly discriminatory and has led to their exploitation - one17 year old worked 60 hours in a week for £40, and, in another case, a 17y.o. was tricked into being self employed, working for commission only! Because this young person was under 18 she did not qualify for help from the Inland Revenue Minimum Wage Compliance team, despite doing exactly similar work as older employees
· European legislation on working time has brought benefits to this group but this does not protect against the exploitation and discrimination arising from exemption from minimum wage for young people. If it is essential for adults how much more so for young people?
· If workers were to be excluded from basic rights on grounds of race or gender there would be an outcry. The exclusion of young people from minimum wage protection is manifestly discriminatory and since half of this age group are in employment there is real cause for concern about the consequent exploitation.

A member of LEAD's Steering Group, Michael Craft, using overheads, illustrated a critical distinction between the conventional view of age discrimination and that taken by LEAD. Conventionally, age discrimination is seen only or principally in older groups, mainly in employment, health and social care. The government view is even narrower. However, LEAD believes there is evidence to show that discrimination on grounds of age occurs, in combination with other factors such as poverty, across all ages and over the full spectrum of life in society: employment, social security, health and social care, education, finance and insurance, etc. Social exclusion is certainly not restricted to older people, exemplified by the Low Pay Unit report on 16/17 y.o.'s just presented.

The Political Party Presentations

Margaret Hodge MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Employment and Equal Opportunities, for the Government

· The working population is shrinking: 84% of men were in work in 1979 but in 1999 it was 66%
· By 2010 40% of the working population will be over 55
· Government research shows that there is no easy solution to the problem of age discrimination and the issue is - how to judge what works best. It seems that combining legislation with incentives is one approach that can work
· Government action includes:
- New Deal 50+: providing employment credit, personal advice and access to training grants. 18,000 had moved into work since April 2000
- An occupational health strategy (that includes disabled people) is being piloted
- The report, "Winning the Generation Game", recommended action in a number of areas: promoting changes in attitudes and practices, changing the culture, improving the position of older people in work, helping older people back into jobs and improving opportunities and incentives to volunteer.
- Government is adopting a culture change in its pension structures and in its publicity & adverts
- European Legislation (Article 13) on age discrimination in employment is to be implemented by member states by 2006
- The Government is examining the effects of the current compulsory retirement ages
Following discussion, Margaret Hodge stated that the government intended to introduce legislation but that she first wanted to see a broad
consensus in order to increase impact, since legislation on its own did not always lead to change, as in the case of Race Relations.
The point of application for legislation would be at the end of the 6 year Article 13 period. The Minister concluded by saying, "We are with you, but we must take our time".

Paul Burstow MP, for the Liberal Democrats

· A step change was needed to overcome stereotypes and major problems of language and communication
· The Voluntary Code of Practice issued for Employers will probably not work
· In Health rationing on grounds of age was rife
· Comprehensive legislation was needed and the Liberal Democrats wanted a new Commission on Human Rights that would include discrimination on grounds of age
· Several principles should apply: age neutrality; ability rather than age; improving attitudes and removing stereotypes such as the perception that people are too young, not old enough, too old
· It was important to indicate how the Benefits System works against young people
· It was also important to accept that there is a problem in overcoming discrimination in times of unemployment.

Following discussion, Paul Burstow made it clear that he disagreed that legislation must wait for 6 years - it must come first.

Note: John Hayes, Opposition Spokesperson on Education, Employment and Social Security, would have been glad to speak but for reasons beyond his control was unable to attend.

Presentations by Representatives of The Commission For Racial Equality and The Equal Opportunities Commission

Pam Smith, Head of Policy, CRE

· There are parallels between discrimination on grounds of race & age in all areas of our society
· The CRE is seeking to get changes made in all forms of our society to reflect ability and expertise and not only on the grounds of racism
· There is evidence of racism in the treatment by society of elders in the ethnic minority communities in the area of care and language used
· There is a high degree of unemployment among young people from ethnic communities, particularly among black graduates
· There has been a fall in direct discrimination in society but a rise in indirect discrimination
· The Race Relations Act prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, access to goods and services, advertisements, and gives individuals rights to legal redress to Industrial Tribunals and County
Courts. The CRE gives assistance to those taking up such cases; and takes a number of cases to Industrial Tribunals each year although the number taken is not great
· The new Race Relations (amendment) Bill will extend the protection against racial discrimination to police functions, public appointments etc following the Stephen Lawrence Report and will place a new enforceable duty on public authorities
· There is a need for legislation to advise people of their rights if affected by ageism and there is a pay gap between women and men - and ageism in rural areas
· Legislation on its own does not change attitudes but is still important to ensure that equalities in all areas of our life are being promoted
· We could learn from the CRE's work and the Act itself.

Amanda Ariss, Head of Policy and Partnerships, EOC

· The sex discrimination legislation is similar to the race relations legislation
· It gives enforceable rights to all
· Codes of Practice and accompanying guides are useful
· Cases are followed up by the EOC and the impact of one case has affected other cases and the results of such cases have gone further than the individual and affected change for a large number of people;
· Problem is that people are not always aware of their rights
· There is unequal access to the law
· The legislation places an enforceable duty on public authorities to bring into their policies and practice equal opportunities and good relations between racial groups
· However, the law still relies heavily on the burden of proof between the complainant and respondent
· The Sex Discrimination Act covers all areas where discrimination might arise - including health, benefits, employment
· There might be benefit of having legislation introduced on ageism
· But the needs of elders would be useful ammunition in debate
· Consideration would have to be given to the costs to elders of taking their claims to County Courts etc
· There still are loopholes in the law such as the employer deciding to take action which revalues the work force and thus the equal pay claim disappears and the employer is not obliged to change practices
· An important factor is publicity to making everyone aware of their rights
· There is a need for a Commission to enforce and give support to good practice, changes in social attitudes; and take account of economic and demographic factors
· There is also a need to harness the support of the political leadership and to ensure that equality on grounds of age become public policy.

Presentations on the US Experience and
the Effect of EU Directives

Jan Duffy, US Employment Law Professor and Consultant

U.S. Age Discrimination Legislation

· US Federal legislation in this sphere covers age discrimination in employment for those aged between 40 and 65
· Some States have laws which strengthen this aspect of legislation
· The legislation has had a significant effect on employment and employment opportunities across the states
· The legislation was initially of benefit to men but has since been used to benefit women and people from ethnic minorities
· Legislation is compulsory on all US companies wherever they are located.
· Mandatory retirement age no longer exists in the USA
· It is essential to change perceptions and attitudes. Legislation helps to change the culture and, over time, changes perceptions and attitudes

Georgina Keane, UK Employment Law Specialist

The Effect of EU Directives on the UK

· The general framework directive is a legislative proposal which aims to give effect to the equal treatment principle of Article 13
· This covers access to employment and occupation including promotion, vocational training and conditions of employment
· The proposal defines indirect as well as direct discrimination and covers the public, private and voluntary sectors
· Differences of treatment on grounds of age must be objectively and reasonably justified, including protection of young people and older workers on access to employment, minimum age conditions of eligibility for retirement benefits and maximum recruitment ages
· It foresees a shift in the burden of proof as well as protection against victimisation
· How this is to be implemented and applied is left to Member States.
· EU Ministers have agreed a six-year implementation period for individual States' legislation

NOTE: A briefing paper on Age Discrimination and the EU, provided by
Ian Barber from the UK Office of the EU Commission, was circulated at the seminar.

Speakers' notes covering much of the subject matter were distributed on the day. The Literature Review was tabled as a one page synopsis and a six page summary.