Debate contribution: Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on 20 October 2026.

MLA: Ms Claire Sugden
Party at the time: Independent
Date: 20 October 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5798454

Text

I thank the Member for that intervention. That is a perfect example of potential indirect age discrimination, and it is operating within a scheme that is currently active in Northern Ireland. The Department might argue that it provides a reasonable alternative through the telephone line, but, from my experience in my constituency office, it is poorly staffed. I would go one further and suggest that it is a form of indirect discrimination but, sadly, the legislation does not exist for us to pursue that avenue. That is why we need to move forward on the Bill. The Bill also recognises circumstances where someone outside the age group can experience "substantively the same disadvantage" as those within the age group. The intention is to avoid an overly rigid approach to identifying those who are affected by a discriminatory policy.
Harassment concerns unwanted contact connected to age that has the purpose or effect of violating someone's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The statutory test considers the person's perception, the circumstances and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. For example, repeatedly humiliating an older customer because of their age may raise issues under the harassment provisions, but the law does not simply treat every instance of offence as unlawful harassment. The relevant legal requirements must be satisfied. Victimisation concerns detriments suffered because someone has asserted their rights or undertaken another protected act. For example, a customer should not be penalised simply because they have complained about age discrimination, nor should someone be disadvantaged for supporting another person's complaint or providing evidence. The Bill also addresses instructions and pressure to discriminate together with the responsibility of employers, principals, employees and agents. Those provisions matter because discrimination may arise through organisational policies and instructions, not simply the isolated actions of individuals. I want to give particular attention to objective justification, which is one of the most important principles underpinning the legislation. The Bill recognises that there may be legitimate reasons for treating people differently because of age. The question is whether the objective being pursued is legitimate and whether the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving it. That is an established legal test; it has not been invented for the Bill. What does it mean in practice? A provider must be able to explain the purpose of the distinction and demonstrate why its approach is proportionate. Consider insurance. Insurance may use reliable, statistical evidence to assess risk. Age may be relevant to that assessment. We should not expect insurers to disregard evidence of genuine differences in risk, but neither should age automatically become a justification for whatever restrictions or premiums a provider chooses. The relevant legal framework must allow the treatment to be assessed. What evidence supports it, what legitimate aim is being pursued, and is the treatment proportionate? The same principle applies in other contexts. A healthcare provider may take account — .
Yes, go ahead.
That is a legitimate concern, given that this legislation departs slightly from what the Equality Act provides insofar as a justification test is applied, whereas there is more of a blanket exception in the GB legislation. I have spoken with the Association of British Insurers, and it wants to revise that. In the Part of the Bill dealing with exceptions, however, there is an opportunity for the association to advocate that and appeal to the Executive Office, and it would be able to make a regulation that might create an exception in that circumstance. There is therefore an opportunity to allay those concerns and, potentially, to make an exception if required. Further to that point, this is about justifying the need through actuarial evidence. Where it can be demonstrated that younger car drivers are a higher risk because of their age, that could be a justified form of age difference. I will get to that further along in my comments.
Yes, go ahead.

657 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification