THE PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1987. Labour’s rule on age

Press, 19 February 1987, Page 20

THE PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1987. Labour’s rule on age

The Speaker of the House of Representatives and Labour member, Dr Gerard Wall, has run foul of the Labour Party’s rule on retirement In spite of being in good health, in possession of his faculties, and willing to serve again, he will become 70 during the next Parliament and the party has decided that under its rules he is ineligible to stand for re-election. Dr Wall disputes the interpretation of the rules, although it seems clear that the party intended, when it set the rule, to prevent anyone over the age of 67 from being nominated as a candidate. Still the argument raises the question of compulsory retirement for members of Parliament and the exclusion of candidates, at least by the Labour Party. The party adopted the rule several years ago at a time when the Labour benches seemed to be top-heavy with elderly members who were, perhaps, past their prime. The young and ambitious were finding their hopes thwarted by the inability of the party to set aside those who had done their dash. No-one seemed capable of screwing themselves up to the task of wresting the nominations away from entrenched and, indeed, respected old members. Furthermore, there would have been a great public fuss about the replacement process. The rule, therefore, provided a shelter for those who wanted change.

Whatever the merits of the rule then, the party has been transformed since it was adopted. The whole of the Government front bench is under the age of 50 and one does not have to be very far advanced into middle age to succumb occasionally to the curmudgeonly thought that the country is run by whippersnappers. Compulsory retirement in any field is a relatively recent concept. Only a century ago in England nearly three-quarters of the men over the age of 65 were still employed; now just over 10 per cent are in regular, paid jobs. New Zealand statistics appear to be similar. Older people decline in some respects, of

course, but retain skill, judgment, and the personal experience of what has gone before — all qualities highly prized in a member of Parliament. Many may be no less valuable at the age of 70 or 73 than they are at 67 or younger.

Labour’s rejection of older representatives has come when the influence of the older generation is recognised aS becoming more decisive in the West as babyboomers grow older and birth rates decline. Like other special-interest groups, they may feel entitled to be represented by those who know and understand their problems from direct experience. Political parties that ignore their desire could suffer the consequences.

The House is big enough to accommodate a smattering of older members without denying benches to younger, up and coming representatives. Ari arbitrary upper age limit is inappropriate to Parliament. If members are patently incapable of doing the job, they should not be selected as candidates. If notably better candidates are offering — of any age — a sitting member may have to be displaced. What the party needs is effective machinery to make sure that deadwood is discarded. Already there does not seem to be the reluctance there once was to challenge sitting members. Labour could well abolish its age rule without doing itself any damage. Selection processes should be strong enough to refresh a party with new candidates, and perceptive enough to retain appropriate talent, regardless of age. Labour Party conference delegates years ago produced a general remedy for what they saw to be a defect in the party. What selection committees would not do, or could not bring themselves to do then, might well be done more satisfactorily now at the local level, case by case. The argument about interpreting the rule is just as distasteful as the process of facing up to the selection test on merit.