Euro-MP calls for Government to scrap Minimum Wage age exemptions

12.00.00am BST (GMT +0100) Thu 10th Jul 2003

Vale Liberal Democrat MEP Liz Lynne has criticised the Government's consultation exercise on introducing age discrimination legislation into UK law for failing to consider the scrapping of age-discriminatory rules for the National Minimum Wage.

The consultation paper claims that under the terms of the 2000 EU Employment Directive, which sets out the framework by which the UK law must abide by, the Government will be allowed to continue to exempt young people from the full National Minimum Wage.

Current National Minimum Wage legislation allows the Government to set different rates and even exemptions for younger people. The Government currently exempts 16 and 17 year olds from any minimum wage whatsoever, and applies a lower "development rate" to 18-21 year olds.

Liz, who is youth spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament and lead for the Lib Dems on the Employment Directive when it went through Parliament, said:

"The Employment Directive only allows for schemes such as the National Minimum Wage to continue to discriminate against young people if it is in their interests in terms of securing jobs and integrating them into the workforce."

This is a moot, and very controversial issue, and the consultation paper should recognise this. Instead it rules out a change in the National Minimum Wage rules out of hand."

"Even the Government's own, notoriously cautious, Low Pay Commission has called for 21 year olds to be entitled to the full minimum rate, and for 16 and 17 year olds to be given some degree of wage protection. Yet the Government has dismissed these proposals out of hand without any justification."

"Relatively few companies bother with setting separate hourly rates for younger employees, and the ones that do tend to be unskilled jobs such as working in McDonalds. Five years on since the National Minimum Wage was introduced, this area is badly in need of a complete review. The current consultation must address this issue."

Liz is writing to Trade and Industry Minister Patricia Hewitt to raise her concerns. (Text of letter below).

I am writing to voice my concern about the decision by your department to rule out consideration on how new legislation to outlaw age discrimination might affect young people who are currently not entitled to the full National Minimum Wage.

In justifying this, the consultation paper states:

The Directive expressly envisages that different pay rates might be set for young people in order to promote their vocational integration. Our goal of helping younger workers to find jobs in competition with older workers is consistent with the Directive (3.22a Age Consultation 2003)

This is simply not the case. In fact, what the Directive states is that:

Member States may provide that differences of treatment on grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination, if, within the context of national law, they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary (Article 6.1)

It is therefore incumbent on the UK Government to demonstrate that age discrimination in the National Minimum Wage rules can be justified – it cannot simply be asserted.

In fact, your own Low Pay Commission disagrees with the Government's own assessment. For several years now, it has called on the Government to include 21 year olds into the full National Minimum Wage rate, and this year has recommended that 16 and 17 year olds be given some form of wage protection.

If the Government is in conflict with its own statutory body which is responsible for making recommendations in this area, how can it be said to be able to justify this form of discrimination "objectively and reasonably"?

I therefore request that your department recognises that the legality of applying the National Minimum Wage differently according to age is at the very least a moot point, and expand the current consultation exercise to explicitly invite submission on this point.

Ultimately, if the UK is considered to be in breach of this Directive, it could cost us billions of pounds in fines. For this reason alone, I urge you to ensure that the current consultation process explores all areas related to the Directive.

Yours sincerely,

Liz Lynne MEP