6 August 2015
Ancient Liberties
by J. R. Thomas
One of the great growth industries of the last 40 years is the anti-discrimination business. Whilst not perhaps solely Britain’s gift to the world – we must offer due deference to the USA in this – we have certainly become market leaders in the rooting out of both conscious and unconscious prejudice in many fields. And, perhaps not so praiseworthy, we have built a system of recognition and reporting, bureaucracy and punishment, that has created profound public awareness of the dangers of both deliberate discriminatory behaviour, and of incipient prejudices and habits. Indeed, so all-embracing has the anti-discrimination culture become that it hovers on the edge of creating a backlash, with persecutions and, sometimes prosecutions becoming the subject of media ridicule and muttered public disquiet.
But in one area, however, prejudice seems to be only lightly checked. That is in matters relating to age. In the UK, legislation against age discrimination was introduced as recently as 2006 and codified in the Equality Act of 2010. This has, in the broadest of sweeping summaries, made it illegal to directly or indirectly discriminate on grounds of age; but the law is riven with exemptions and get-outs, especially in the field of employment. There have already been a number of cases through the courts which have clarified some of the employment exceptions – the BBC has been to the fore here because of its (alleged) habits of replacing older female presenters with younger and (again allegedly) prettier ones. More charitably, one could though cite the Beeb as something of an exemplar by keeping on some of its older male faces. John Humphrys, 71 and John Simpson, 70, spring to mind, to say nothing of Nicholas Parsons, 91.
Employers in many fields have moved along with the spirit of the legislation anyway, seeing the value of older and experienced employees, freed from the burdens of childcare and the distractions of youth, their originality perhaps blunted but their approach warmed through with decades of wisdom and history. They may be a little slower but they are also calmer, more accepting and patient. So long as they do not have to lift too much or run too fast they can do an equally good job – and if they are kept on as employees it delays the day when they become a burden on the, perhaps underfunded, company pension scheme.
Of course, there has for many years been positive discrimination in favour of senior citizens: free bus passes, the dropping away of many charges for health services, discounts for holidays and cinemas. This may seem a trifle patronising but, as the state pension’s purchasing power slowly declines, the odd freebie and discount help make up the shortfall. That does not, however, deal with the deeper questions of self-worth, keeping active, being valued by society, and the morale of a population which, thanks to better living practices and vastly improved healthcare, is much more physically capable than it has ever been before at any given age. Eighty is the new sixty and there are plenty of folk who would be happy to work on into their seventies or even eighties, not least because, as the average life span stretches out towards ninety and the elderly remain capable of spending, it is helpful to have some extra money to keep life fun.
But all of this legislative and progress does not seem to have reached the House of Lords, or at least its Lord Speaker, Baroness D’Souza. Lady D’Souza, we will note immediately, is 71. Notwithstanding her age – as she is a lady and we are old fashioned in our courtesies on the Shaw Sheet we will not mention it again – Lady D’S has called for peers to be compulsory retired at an appropriate age. She has not been drawn so far on what this age might turn out to be – but presumably somewhat older than 71. Her ladyship has been pushing this for some time and indeed several peers have retired (keeping their titles), most notably Lord Jenkin of Roding, the Conservative former minister formerly known as Patrick Jenkin, who went in January this year calling in a valedictory speech for fellow peers to consider when they might lay down the burden of debate and legislative oversight. Lord Jenkin is 88.
Now, one might think that there is nowhere less suited for compulsory retirement at any age, even at 88, than the House of Lords. The working conditions are very agreeable, the dining and sluicing facilities of the highest quality, the seating and surroundings wonderfully luxurious, and the support facilities much better than the average public library. And best of all, there is ample opportunity to unload oneself of a whole range of opinions and expertise and to be heard in mostly respectful silence, not something likely to be achieved when addressing ones grandchildren or ones mates down at the Dog and Duck.
The present composition of their lordships House has admittedly changed since the ejection of the hereditary peers, now represented by an elected rump of 90, over 900 life peerages having been awarded to a mixed selection of the great and good, as chosen by the leaders of the political parties in the other House. Although the ejected hereditaries were mainly male, were rather inclined to be landowners, often had a public school background, had a tendency to have served in the military or attended Oxford or Cambridge or both, and included those with Scottish backgrounds rather more than does the UK population as a whole, they also had a range of interests and obsessions that covered a remarkable spectrum of expertise. Just to look at four holders of earldoms in the recent past: both the Earl of Nottingham and the Earl of Breadalbane had driven taxis on a commercial basis, the Earl of Clancarty was an expert on spacecraft incursions into UK airspace, and the Countess of Mar was a working sheep farmer. You don’t get that sort of cover in the House now.
Even so, the range of interests in the Lords remains exceptionally wide, and without constituencies to nurse and ministerial ambitions to nurture, members can let loose on their special interests and hobbyhorses, and give voice to causes that would not find a slot in the Commons agenda. It must be that at around 800 there are too many members of the Lords – they could by no means manage to sit down there at the same time – and certainly the life peerage nomination system means there are many too many retired politicians but to solve the problem of overcrowding by the forced retirement of many fine and fascinating minds at some arbitrary age gate is surely a mistake. What is needed is an overhaul of the selection system so that the awarding of a title and a red upholstered seat to rest it in becomes a matter of true merit; so that the House of Lords becomes a centre of wide-ranging and much appreciated expertise, above mundane party politics; so that a life peerage becomes a true mark of honour and not just compensation for loss of seat or ministry.
Lady D’Souza is herself a distinguished anthropologist who has worked in many environments and roles with great distinction. (She must find the view from the Woolsack a fascinating study in itself.) It would be absurd, the noble lady should surely agree, to force her demise from a forum where she plays an active and enhancing role simply on grounds of age. One hopes that she will carry out a brief study into the role of older primates in contributing to the collective wisdom of the tribe, and reform her charge to enhance its members’ wiser contributions and originality to our national life.
