Oral question asked in the House of Lords, by Lord Geddes (Conservative). It was answered on Tuesday, 12 December 2006.

Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006

Question: My Lords, I think I thank the Minister for that reply. Do not the regulations make it at the very least a deterrent in practice for an employer to reward long, loyal service with such benefits as sabbaticals, incremental holidays or even gold watches? Are they not a classic example of the law of unintended consequences?

Answer: No, my Lords, I do not believe that to be the case. Fundamentally, the regulations outlaw age discrimination in employment and vocational training unless objectively justified. When it comes to benefits—for example, insured benefits—the regulations are specifically framed in such a way as not to discriminate against various groups, such as women. Where there is a limit of, for example, five years’ service, beyond which it would be unfair to discriminate against certain groups such as women who may take career breaks, employers have an exemption up to that point; if they wish to retain staff by offering other benefits and can objectively justify those benefits, they can offer them.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 687 c1447-8
Session: 2006-07
Oral question type: 1st Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Lords chamber
Related items: Deposited Paper HDEP 2007/005
Tuesday, 19 December 2006
Deposited papers
House of Lords
Subjects: Age Employment Fringe benefits Discrimination Long service awards
Legislation: Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006
Link: View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk