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 5798755

Text

I thank the Bill sponsor for that, because we have started to have some of those discussions in Committee. As she knows, I have asked questions about "assumed age", which raises practical questions. It is understandable that a person should not be able to escape responsibility simply because they have made an incorrect assumption about somebody's age. However, the legislation must also recognise the practical circumstances in which service providers make decisions, including where age verification is required or statutory obligations apply. We need clarity on how the provisions will operate in those everyday situations and how they will interact with other legal requirements. I recognise, as I said when I intervened during the Bill sponsor's speech, that the Equality Commission will play a vital role under Part 5. However, it will take significant work to ensure that the legislation interacts well with other policies and legislation in that regard.
As I say, there is that wider question about young people aged 16 and 17. How will the proposed protections interact with existing arrangements for the likes of parental consent, safeguarding and access to particular services? Have the relevant Departments, including the Department of Health and the Department of Education, assessed the implications for their services and responsibilities?
Those questions should not be interpreted as opposition to protecting anybody. Rather, they reflect the need to ensure that the new equality protections operate coherently alongside existing legislation and established safeguarding arrangements. It will therefore be important for the Committee to seek that evidence from the relevant Departments, service providers and organisations that represent young people before it reaches its conclusions. Fourthly, we must consider the potential consequences for the public sector. Public authorities routinely make decisions based on legislation, policy objectives, eligibility criteria, safeguarding responsibility and allocation of limited resources. The Bill provides an "objective justification" defence, as well as an exemption for a statutory authority under clause 13. Those provisions are important, but, again, their practical operation needs to be understood. What will public bodies need to demonstrate when defending a decision that has been challenged as being discriminatory? Will the guidance adequately explain the evidence and reasoning required? Has any assessment been undertaken of the potential additional litigation cost and administrative burdens that could fall on Departments and potentially arm's-length bodies (ALBs)? We should not assume that every claim will be successful, nor should we exaggerate the risk of litigation. It is, however, reasonable to ask whether the implications have been properly assessed and whether public bodies will have the clarity and support required to comply. Every pound spent dealing with unavoidable disputes is a pound that cannot be directed towards our front-line services. Ensuring that the law is clear from the outset is therefore in the interests of service users and providers alike. I will speak about the implications for tourism and the hospitality sector, which is prevalent in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, as beautiful as it is. Members should come to visit. Hotels, guest houses, holiday providers and other businesses in the sector operate under commercial models that may include age-related services, packages or restrictions. For example, adults-only accommodation and holidays are established offerings in parts of the market. The question is whether, and in what circumstances, those arrangements could be affected by the legislation. Has the Bill sponsor engaged sufficiently with tourism and hospitality representatives to understand the Bill's potential consequences? Have businesses been given an opportunity to explain how age-related offerings operate and why they may be commercially or practically justified? That is an area in which detail matters, because it can affect businesses and our economy. Many guest houses will be small, family-run businesses, and they may be affected. We therefore must distinguish between arbitrary exclusion and arrangements that serve a legitimate purpose. Any final framework should provide clarity about how such distinctions will be assessed, rather than businesses being left relying on guesswork. Is the Bill sponsor looking to come in?
I welcome the fact that that will be considered by the Bill sponsor. I see that with packages and offers in my constituency, particularly at certain times of the year. A related issue is financial services and insurance. As has been discussed, insurance premiums and eligibility decisions can involve age-related risk assessments, actuarial evidence and commercial considerations. The Bill includes provision for regulations covering financial services and insurance. Clause 15 addresses matters that are relevant to financial services. After the Bill passes, I hope, its Second Stage today and enters its Committee Stage, it will be important that we establish how those provisions would work together and protect access to appropriate financial products while allowing legitimate evidence-based risk assessments to take place. It raises a couple of questions. Has there been sufficient engagement with insurers and other financial service providers? Have the potential effects on the Northern Ireland market been assessed? There are some Northern Ireland-specific issues relating to the likes of car insurance. It is also important that access to financial services for people of all ages be maintained. We should not pre-empt the answers to those questions; we should ensure that the legislation is informed by that evidence and that its consequences are fully understood before it is brought into operation. The proposed exemptions also warrant careful examination. Clause 14 would give the Department the power to make regulations specifying circumstances in which differential treatment on the grounds of age would not contravene the legislation. Clause 14(2) clarifies that the areas identified include:
"(a) financial services and insurance; (b) health and social care services; (c) age-related concessions and benefits; (d) safeguarding and welfare; (e) sport and physical recreation;"
and other appropriate matters. Clause 14(3) would require the relevant treatment to be:
"(a) a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim; and (b) no more than is necessary to achieve that legitimate aim."
The regulations would also be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and consultation requirements. Again, safeguards are important. The Committee will need to examine whether the proposed regulation-making powers are sufficiently clear and whether the necessary regulations would be developed in good time, particularly given the requirement for Executive Office sign-off and all of those things. We need to understand how legitimate age-related distinctions would be protected without creating loopholes that undermine the purpose of the Bill. The exemption for statutory authorities in clause 13 is another area in which practical clarity is essential. If a retailer that must comply with a statutory age restriction makes an incorrect assumption about a customer's age, how would the provisions interact? What protection would be available to a service provider acting in good faith to comply with the law? The precise answer would depend on the circumstances and the applicable statutory requirements. That is exactly why clear guidance and careful legal scrutiny are necessary on the Bill. The same principle would apply to safeguarding, health and social care, and services involving young people. We must ensure that equality protections would not inadvertently conflict with other legitimate legal duties. Those important provisions deserve attention. Clause 12 would allow for positive action to address disadvantage, different needs or under-representation associated with age. That may provide a means of addressing genuine barriers faced by particular age groups. Clauses 16 and 17 provide exemptions relating to small dwellings and care in the home. Clause 19 would extend the provisions to qualifying associations and private members' clubs. Each of those areas raises questions about the balance between individual protection and legitimate private, domestic or organisational arrangements. It will be important for us to hear from the people and organisations that are affected directly and ensure that the legislation is sufficiently comprehensive and appropriately targeted. I note the role for the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland proposed in clause 20. The commission will have responsibilities relating to the elimination of age discrimination, equality of access and the monitoring of the operation of the legislation. Those functions will be important to effective implementation. It will be important to seek clarity on the resources, expertise and practical arrangements that will be required for the Equality Commission to discharge its functions under the Bill. Finally, clause 45 requires that the Department review the operation of the legislation within three years of the substantive provisions coming into operation and:
"at intervals of not more than 5 years thereafter".
I think that we all can agree that that review must be meaningful, if and when this comes into effect. It should examine whether the legislation is improving access to goods, facilities and services; how the objective justification defence is operating; whether exemptions are working as intended; and whether the law generates any unintended consequences. Where evidence identifies problems, there must be a willingness to consider appropriate changes. The DUP is already committed to examining what protection is available for older people in respect of accessing goods and services. We have acknowledged that there is a case for the further examination of gaps in equality law, and we recognise the importance of ensuring that people are not unfairly excluded because of their age. We also recognise that legislation of this nature can have far-reaching consequences for businesses, public services and the wider economy, which I have tried to outline. It is a big Bill. We need to get clarity for people on some of those points. As the Bill proceeds through the Assembly, we will look for comprehensive answers to the questions that I have outlined. We want to see meaningful engagement with the affected sectors, robust consideration of the financial and operational implications, clear guidance and appropriate safeguards. We must ensure that the protections afforded to individuals are effective and that the exemptions provided in the Bill are properly defined and workable. There is an opportunity to examine the detail carefully and establish whether the proposed framework will deliver the intended protections in a way that is fair to individuals and those who provide services. I welcome the opportunity to have that further rigorous scrutiny at Committee Stage. The DUP will approach the process constructively and with a focus on the evidence, the practical consequences and the need to ensure and secure a fair and balanced outcome for all in Northern Ireland. We will support the Bill's going to Committee Stage.

1,712 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