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

Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on 20 October 2026.

MLA: Mrs Deborah Erskine
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
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 5798737

Text

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you, to the Bill sponsor and to the House: I had to leave for some of the debate. I was speaking at the British Heart Foundation's "Hearts Need More" policy launch. I hope that everybody will understand that that cause is close to my heart, pardon the pun. That is why I was not in the Chamber. Obviously, I will read Hansard. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill and to set out the DUP's position on that important legislation. I thank the Bill's sponsor, because it takes a huge amount of work to get to this stage. It is a big Bill that will have an awful lot of implications that I will probably touch on during my contributions. Nobody should be unfairly discriminated against when accessing goods, facilities or services because of their age. Be it a young person taking their first steps towards independence, a working-age adult or an older person who has contributed a lifetime of services to their family, community and society, they should be treated with dignity, fairness and respect; we can all agree on that. Age should not in itself be a barrier to accessing services that are available to them in the public. My party, the DUP, recognises that principle, one that is consistent with commitments that we have made. In our 2022 Assembly manifesto, the DUP pledged that our MLAs would:
"prioritise age-friendly policy during the mandate by: ... Committing to examine how current legislation protects older people in terms of access to goods or services".
Therefore, I welcome the fact that Ms Sugden has introduced the Bill, which allows us, in a sense, to look at the legislation. Furthermore, in our submission to the Executive Office Committee's inquiry into gaps in equality provision, the DUP acknowledged that arguments for reform in that area had merit and warranted further examination. We specifically recognised concerns about the absence of provision for age- and disability-related discrimination claims in respect of access to goods, facilities and services. Our position, therefore, is not one of opposition; it is one of ensuring that any legislation to be put in place is necessary, obviously, proportionate, workable and fair to all those affected. The Bill seeks to address a gap in Northern Ireland's equality legislation by prohibiting:
"unjustified discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the ground of age in ... the provision of goods, facilities, and services".
As has been discussed, the Bill establishes age as a protected characteristic, defines prohibited forms of discrimination and extends protection across a wide range of everyday interactions, including access to accommodation, banking, insurance, education, transport, recreation, retail and services provided by public authorities. The provisions also address harassment and victimisation; impose responsibilities on service providers and employers; and include a framework for exceptions where:
"differential treatment on grounds of age"
may be justified. Those significant proposals have implications not only for the individuals seeking to access services but for the businesses, charities, voluntary organisations and public bodies that provide them. We must recognise both sides of that equation. For an older person who believes that they have been unfairly refused a service, effective legal protection will obviously be important. Equally, a small business owner, community organisation or public authority must be able to understand its responsibilities and make legitimate decisions without being exposed to unnecessary uncertainty or disproportionate legal risk. Our responsibility as legislators is to ensure that legislation achieves its intended purpose without creating avoidable difficulties elsewhere. I will turn to some clauses for which further scrutiny is necessary. First, there is the question of implementation. I am jumping to clause 49, which is near the end and provides for the substantive provisions of the Bill to:
"come into operation ... twelve months after .... Royal Assent",
with the Equality Commission provisions and the commencement clause coming into effect earlier. My question is whether that 12-month period will be sufficient, given that, as I highlighted in my intervention, there will be a lot of work for Departments to do in looking at how their legislation interacts with the Bill. Furthermore, businesses and organisations will need time to understand the legislation, review their policies, train staff, assess existing practices and make the necessary changes to how they deliver services. Larger organisations may have dedicated legal and compliance teams, but smaller businesses, including those that operate in hospitality, retail and tourism, may not have that capacity. We must ensure that organisations are given a realistic opportunity to prepare. A new legal duty will be effective only if those who are expected to comply with it understand what is required of them.

783 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