Select Committee on Social Affairs debate -
Tuesday, 26 Nov 1996

SECTION 33.

Dr. Woods

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 31, subsection (1)(a), line 9, to delete "50" and substitute "40".

The section deals with positive action for persons over the age of 50. Subsection (1) states: "Nothing in this Part of Part II shall prevent the taking of such measures as are specified in subsection (2) in order to facilitate the integration into employment, either generally or in particular areas or a particular workplace. . ." Paragraph (a) relates to persons over the age of 50. I appreciate the inclusion for positive action and that the Minister has included the age of 50, which is important. However, there is great need for positive action with regard to younger people. People aged 45 would welcome and benefit from positive action in their favour in employment.

There are high levels of unemployment in areas of considerable disadvantage, such as Tallaght and Coolock, where studies by the area partnership group show that up to 60 per cent of the people in parts of the areas are unemployed. There are families where only one member may be employed. This problem must be tackled by the next Government after the rainbow has passed and the sunshine has returned. Regardless of which Government is in office the extreme disadvantage in particular areas must be tackled. A huge number of people aged between 40 and 45, particularly men, are made redundant and do not get the new jobs.

The interim report of the commission on the family will be published tomorrow. This contains studies of families and reports from groups throughout the country and I am certain it will emerge that men in families in areas of disadvantage are not securing employment. A serious problem faces men who are made redundant and cannot get back into employment.

Young people, who are well educated and trained, are given preference in the new types of employment emerging. Previous forms of employment for middle aged men are no longer available to them. I appreciate the Bill will permit positive action in that area and for people with disabilities and travellers. It gives great scope for future development and innovation which will be productive. However, over the age of 50 would have been realistic 20 years ago. The Bill should cover people over the age of 45. Scope exists for positive action for people aged over 40. The Government of the day can take action at whatever level it considers appropriate, but it is important not to exclude positive action for people aged between 42 and 45. The amendment proposes to delete "50" and substitute "40". Such a move would not cause any problems and would leave the path free for positive action in the future to help people in that age group.

Mr. Taylor

Deputies will recognise from the section that I seek to confine the positive action exclusion to equal treatment under the Bill to a limited number of categories of discrimination. When it came to deciding at what age group positive action measures should be targeted, I faced the dilemma of setting too high an age threshold which would omit some age levels which are beginning to experience some age discrimination or set too low an age threshold which would fail to focus positive action at the age level where discrimination experiences are most acute. I opted to adopt the age of 50, but I do not dispute that younger workers can experience age discrimination. That is why I have legislation like this in the first place. However, I consider that positive action measures should particularly target over 50 year olds. Age prejudices in employment are most acutely felt by this category. If positive action measures for this age category can be stimulated, there will be a ripple effect across younger age levels as the contribution of older workers is increasingly recognised. I am also concerned that by setting a lower age threshold, positive action measures might be concentrated at workers under 50 years of age thus exacerbating the acute discrimination experienced at this age level. In the circumstances, therefore, and on balance, I ask Deputy Woods to agree that the age threshold of 50 is correct.

Dr. Woods

I cannot agree. The Minister represents Tallaght which in many respects is a younger area. I know the Minister appreciates the difficulties which occur but age discrimination is a real problem for men around 45.

Mr. Taylor

It is also a problem for women.

Dr. Woods

I mentioned the men in that case because apparently women are getting more of those jobs. You can say that men should be offered those jobs as well but at present that is not the case. The reality is that when men come out of employment at that age they find it difficult to return to work.

The section deals with positive action. We mentioned three groups in particular and further down training and work experience and so on are mentioned. I ask the Minister to consider on Report Stage, lowering the age threshold to 45. One of the difficulties of Opposition is that while we may realise many of the situations should be fully investigated, the time and opportunity to investigate them and provide data is not there. I am sure that if I dug out the figures I would find those over 45 who are looking for work have considerable problems.

Mr. Taylor

I do not doubt it.

Dr. Woods

That is one of the reasons it would be worthwhile to lower the age threshold in this legislation. The Minister might consider coming half way to meet me between now and Report Stage. If he looks at the statistics he will find there is a real need at that age. The legislation provides backing for the taking of positive action by Government and individual Ministers and that will be very helpful to Ministers.

Mr. Taylor

I fully accept that there is age discrimination at 40 and 45. This is an anti-discrimination measure and it includes age as one of the grounds. It is because I recognise the fact there is age discrimination that I have brought in this measure in the first place which creates a focus on a target for positive discrimination. I will consider everything that Deputy Woods said but if we lower to 45 years the threshold figure, set at 50, it will tend to focus the availing of the positive discrimination measures on those over 45 to the detriment of those over 50. That is why I have a problem with it. I will consider what the Deputy said and ask him to consider my point.

Dr. Woods

I do not see it the same way. I take it that a Minister looking at this measure and having this facility to discriminate would look at the needs as they occur, and the statistics relating to the needs, and decide to make provision for those over 50 or 55 or whatever, but would not be tied to a particular age, such as 45. I appreciate the points the Minister makes in relation to the danger of employers focusing at the lower end of the age limit but measures can be taken to deal with this. I thank the Minister for his comments and withdraw the amendment for reconsideration on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Woods

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 31, subsection (1), between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

"(d) persons who have been on the live register for more than one year.".

This amendment is in the same vein as our previous discussion. It permits discrimination in favour of people who have been on the live register for more than one year. The situation there is fairly obvious. If one were to analyse it there is probably discrimination in favour of people who have been on the live register for more than one year. I hope nothing in this legislation would prevent this. Intervention currently takes place in this area and such intervention is necessary.

Mr. Taylor

I appreciate the concern which Deputy Woods raises in this amendment. The issue occurred to us in preparing this legislation and I reassure the Deputy that the Bill already provides cover in this respect. Special treatment for such a category is not jeopardised by the non-discriminatory provisions of the Bill. When I was drawing up section 32(3) it was brought to my attention that the Bill's provisions, particularly those involving protection against indirect discrimination, could cut across the Government's capacity to implement targeted training or employment experience measures for disadvantaged groups. Such disadvantaged groups might not be distinguishable as belonging to discriminatory groups and would not, therefore, have been explicitly mentioned in section 33 (1).

Membership of the live register for a set period as proposed by Deputy Woods could be a disadvantaged category for the purpose of section 33 (3). The provision allows some flexibility for setting different periods on the live register in determining different levels of disadvantage for different measures. In the circumstances I hope that Deputy Woods will be able to withdraw his proposal because section 33 (3) covers what he seeks to achieve, which is important.

Dr. Woods

I thank the Minister for his comments and withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 33 agreed to.