New anti-ageism proposals are themselves unfair, argues Peter Wilby
My belief that this government has a political tin ear was strengthened by Harriet Harman's white paper on equality (A Framework for a Fairer Future, from the Government Equalities Office). "Women to be more equal than men," announced the Daily Mail. "White men to face jobs ban," seethed the Express. The white paper says nothing of the sort. It merely allows employers, faced with two equally qualified job candidates, to take under-representation of groups in its existing workforce into account. No doubt this will usually favour women and ethnic minorities but the proposed law would also allow a primary school head to appoint a man to a hitherto all-female staff.
I know the government cannot be held responsible for press headlines. But this was an unnecessary hostage to fortune when Labour is weak, and the BNP making worrying gains. Many employers, as ministers admit, already discriminate on these lines and the only difficulty is if they admit to it in an official recruitment policy. The forthcoming Equality Bill will do nothing to stop those who continue to favour white men even when they are patently less suitable than black women. It just gives the goodies "permission" (the word used by Harman's department to one journalist) to be more enlightened. Sometimes legislators should leave well alone.
The furore over the "ban" on white men obscures more positive aspects of the white paper, such as proposals to tackle the disgraceful pay gap between men and women of comparable qualifications in comparable jobs. But another set of proposals has been largely ignored: those designed to end age discrimination.
Such discrimination has been unlawful in the workplace since October 2006: for example, there is no longer an upper age limit for unfair dismissal claims and redundancy payments. Harman's white paper proposes that it should also be unlawful to discriminate "when providing goods, facilities or services". Companies could no longer refuse insurance to older travellers, though they could still charge higher premiums on actuarial grounds, while doctors could no longer refuse treatment purely because they think a patient is too old to benefit.
I do not object in principle to measures against ageism. But awkward questions need to be asked. Age discrimination differs from discrimination on grounds of race, gender or sexual orientation in one important respect. I have always been and always shall be a white, heterosexual male and cannot easily imagine what it must be like to be black, gay, female or transgendered. However, I inevitably became old (officially in 2004) and so will the rest of you. The most significant inequality is not between old and young, but between those who live to a healthy old age and those who don't. Men in social class one live, on average, nearly ten years longer than men in social class five. Manual workers in their fifties have the same risk of chronic ill-health as professionals in their seventies.
Age discrimination legislation, therefore, overwhelmingly favours the middle classes because they live longer and stay fitter. Among the over-65s, nearly a third of those from higher managerial and professional occupations are still working, against barely a fifth of those from routine occupations. The Financial Times recently reported that more than a quarter of men and nearly a third of women over 70 who are qualified solicitors are still practising.
It may be argued that the 2006 regulations will allow more working-class people to continue in employment without automatically being written off as too slow and decrepit. We shall see. I suspect many are in such poor health that they have little desire to continue in unpleasant and boring work - and employers will always find it easy to reject them on fitness grounds.
While ministers propose to tackle age discrimination in some forms, they will leave it unchanged in others. We over-60s get free bus passes, free prescriptions, free eye tests, winter fuel allowances and so on. Because these are universal benefits, the longer-lived middle classes get more out of them than the workers. They do help the elderly poor, but levels of pensioner poverty are now lower than for the population as a whole. The availability of travel insurance at any age will again favour middle-class people who can afford the fares and premiums. The same people no doubt take advantage when commercial operators, such as rail companies and cinemas, discriminate in their favour with cut-price rates.
The point of anti-discrimination laws is that they ensure people are treated on their individual merits: solicitors in full possession of their faculties should not be denied work just because they are 65, and 75-year-olds should be insured for travel according to medical condition alone. Nobody can object to any of that. Yet the government's own social policies follow different principles. Discuss.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
