I refer to the distinction between people aged 40 years and over and those aged 40 years and under. I understand the reasoning behind the elimination of the distinction but the logic to it was that older people who lost their jobs were likely to have greater training needs and more difficulty in getting a job. Whatever the Employment Equality Act states, it is still more difficult for people made redundant in their forties or fifties, having worked for a company for 20 or 30 years, to get a job. They are more legitimately in need of a significant payment to tide them over or give them a seed capital boost. There was, therefore, a logic to the age distinction in the previous legislation.