Employment Bill [Lords]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker—I should know better. There are still clear dividing lines in respect of the national minimum wage. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has described the social chapter of European legislation, which includes rights for part-time workers and additional parental leave, as ““a historic mistake””. In the Financial Times of 28 March this year, he said:"““I think that was a historic mistake Tony Blair made to give up the hard-fought opt-out on the social chapter and I'd like it back…of course it will be difficult to win. But if you have enough resolve…then I believe it is possible.””" While this Government are increasing fairness and prosperity at work, the Tories would scrap the help for working people that Labour has introduced. The shadow Chancellor has heaped praise on the report on economic competitiveness by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), which says that regulation to stop small children working is unnecessary and recommends that Britain tears up the entire framework of employment protection agreed with European partners over the past 10 years. In chapter 6 of ““Freeing Britain to Compete””, produced by the economic competitiveness policy group chaired by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, he says:"““You do not need a regulation to stop chimney sweeps sending small boys up chimneys.””" He goes on:"““If our partners could not be persuaded, we should seek opt outs from the areas of regulation that we think are most damaging…This would include all employment and social regulation.””" This is the 21st century, and we need to ensure that we are being fair in the workplace and fair to individuals. I want to deal with a couple of aspects of the Bill. I apologise that I was not here for the start of the debate—I was on a Delegated Legislation Committee—so I do not know whether, in his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs referred to the concerns expressed by Age Concern. It welcomes the review of employment law, but it recommends that the Government should use the legislation to outlaw the process of forced retirement by removing the default retirement age of 65 introduced by the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. It maintains that the Government got it wrong on employment rights for those over 65, leaving them the only group without protection from discrimination when it comes to being dismissed. The default retirement age means that older people cannot choose to work beyond the age of 65 unless their employer allows them to do so. They can be forced to retire, if their employer so chooses, without reference to their capability or conduct, without being given a reason and without being able to challenge the dismissal in an employment tribunal. Evidence from the United States of America, where mandatory retirement ages are already illegal, suggests that abandoning MRAs in this country could lead to more than 50,000 extra jobs for people over the age of 65. Scrapping mandatory retirement ages would be popular, and Age Concern polling has found that 80 per cent. of people think that there should be no mandatory retirement ages. Businesses are increasingly recognising MRAs as burdensome, fraught with practical difficulties and liable to create confusion for management. The employers of two out of five workers already manage without MRAs. The Employers Forum on Age now takes the view that the future of MRAs is unsustainable. I sincerely hope that Ministers will use the Bill to deal with that issue.