Minister defends 'confusing' age law

Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling today defended new measures to stamp out age discrimination in the workplace after claims that employers found them "confusing" and "oppressive".

Research among 150 organisations with almost half a million workers revealed that many are retaining practices which would fall foul of the regulations, which come in on Sunday.

Two out of five questioned by law firm Eversheds said they fear they risk breaching the new law.

There have also been complaints that the legislation is unnecessarily restrictive, and will damage businesses' ability to take on the best staff.

But Mr Darling insisted that there was bound to be an initial "uncertainty" about the measures.

He said: "Inevitably, when you've got new legislation, there's always going to be some degreee of uncertainty, and everthing that's been said this morning you could have said in the 1970s when the first discrimination legislation was being introduced.

"We've tried to put in place something that is common sense, and something that also will help change people's general culture and attitude towards age. Because unfortunately there is a minority of people who do discriminate because of age."

Mr Darling told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that one in three workers would be over 50 in 15 years' time, and it would not make "any sense for the country or for business" to exclude them.

Eversheds conducted its research among human resources directors and senior managers over the past few weeks and said the feedback was "worrying".

Fewer than two out of three have trained managers involved in recruitment on the implications of the new laws, which are aimed at tackling age discrimination in the workplace such as including ages in job adverts.

Audrey Williams, of Eversheds, said: "The recruitment process could become a breeding ground for potential claims.

"Continuing to ask for a minimum period of experience is a risky approach and open to challenge from younger employees.

"Similarly, continuing to ask for a date of birth on application forms isn't in line with the spirit of the legislation and opens employers up to be challenged."

But Mr Darling said the measures would still allow companies to differentiate on the basis of age wherever it was "objectively justified".

Physical fitness could still be considered when recruiting for divers, while doctors would still need to have trained for some years, he added.

Mr Darling also said paying younger workers lower wages for doing the same job as older employees would be allowed.

"In this particular case, we do think it's right that for younger people the rate should be slightly lower than that for the older people, because we wanted to introduce the minimum wage legislation in such a way as to encourage more people into the workplace," he said.

Younger workers will be able to launch employement challenges, but according to Mr Darling most complaints were likely to come from "the other end of the age scale".

One in four of those questioned by Eversheds said they have increased their retirement age to 65 as a result of the new regulations.

But the firm said the study suggested that the Government has not been successful in encouraging firms to retain workers beyond the age of 65.

Almost one in five respondents said they would turn down requests for people to work beyond 65 and Eversheds said such an approach was likely to encourage the Government to make further changes to employment law.

Meanwhile, the TUC produced a 10-point "myth-buster" to try to help workers and employers deal with the new regulations.

The union organisation said one of the myths was that the regulations only prevent discrimination against older workers.

Young people entering the labour market often face discrimination, so the regulations are aimed at protecting everyone at work.

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: "These new regulations should put an end to the blight of age discrimination which has made job hunting and career development difficult for the many workers who had the misfortune to work for employers with ageist attitudes.

"From now on, employers will need to prove that job candidates are being recruited on their ability and experience alone and will have to banish ageist banter from the office and the staff canteen."

Matthew Knowles, spokesman for the Federation of Small Businesses, said:

"It is not surprising that this change in the law is causing confusion for businesses. The information campaign has left a lot to be desired and many firms are still unsure of what is required of them.

"We hope that small firms that are caught out in the initial few months will be given support and advice to get things right rather than be hammered straight away. They are more likely to have got things wrong through a lack of knowledge or on a technicality than through a deliberate act.

"This should be kept in mind during the first few months in the courts and tribunals."