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

Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on 20 October 2026.

MLA: Mr Colin McGrath
Party at the time: Social Democratic and Labour 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 5798771

Text

I thank the Member for introducing this private Member's Bill. I am speaking on behalf of Sinéad McLaughlin, essentially, who is on British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly (BIPA) duty in England. She will shadow the Bill through Committee Stage. Every single day, we all get a day older. That, of course, means that we get a day closer to needing some of the protections in the Bill. I have the distinct pleasure of becoming a year older in the next 24 hours, so I am getting even closer to needing some of the protections that may come from this Bill. I will speak about the general principles of the Bill, not give a clause-by-clause résumé, because there will be an opportunity to do that in the Committee. The Bill is welcome, because it addresses that significant gap in equality legislation, ensuring that people of different ages have protection against unfair treatment when accessing goods and services.
The Bill comes at a particularly important time. Recent NISRA projections, as referenced by the Bill sponsor in the earlier part of her speech, suggest that, as soon as next year, there will be more people aged 65 and over in Northern Ireland than children aged nought to 15. That shift in demographics is definitely going to speak to a need for a shift in the provision that we have within policy and legislation. People are living longer. Of course, that is something that we welcome, but it means that we need to think seriously about how our public services respond to the fact that we have an ageing population. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that the Executive are doing that; thus the need for the Bill. The Commissioner for Older People, Siobhan Casey, recently warned that we have:
"yet to develop the coordinated and long-term approach needed to prepare for the ... demographic changes ahead."
That speaks to many of the things that the Executive are not preparing for as they drift towards their end, next year. She described how the approach that is being taken by Departments is piecemeal, when what we need is a joined-up response across government. She is probably putting that politely. When we look at the scale of the challenge facing us, we see that the response from the Executive has been inadequate. We have not seen that joined-up approach between Departments; we have not seen policy initiatives being laid out; and we have not seen strategies, and the funding to go alongside them, being developed. As the population ages, growing pressures in health and social care raise serious questions about how older people are treated when accessing that element of public services. From my experience in the Health Committee, I see how our health services are under increased demand by older people, but the service provision is not there for them. It is not a truly positive thing to say that, as a society, we look at our older people and let them languish on waiting lists, leave them at home in pain or leave them needing parts of their body to be changed and replaced, but, rather than doing so, subject them to all the problems that go with their situation. Our Programme for Government contains just one reference to an ageing population. That tells us a great deal about the priority that is given, and has been given, to older people. While our ageing population brings these issues into sharper focus, age discrimination is not something that affects only older people. I was a young person once, and I know what it was like to be subjected to certain discriminations. People of all ages can face unfair treatment. We need to ensure that everyone has the same basic protections when accessing the services that they need. We have seen concerns about age discrimination in health services, including through reports of older people being denied access to certain cancer treatments because of their age. Nobody is suggesting that age should never be taken into account when making medical decisions — there will be circumstances in which that is clinically relevant — but those decisions should be based on the patient, their health and their needs rather than on assumptions about what treatment somebody should receive because they have reached a certain age. Concerns have also been raised about mental health services. We see increasing incidences of isolation and loneliness, and other issues that can impact on older people. There are issues and concerns. The equality impact assessment of the mental health strategy highlighted concerns about the age threshold of 65 and the fact that people can find themselves moving into a different system of care because they reach a particular age. We have to ask ourselves why that is the case. If someone is receiving mental health support at age 64, why should they not have the same type of service on their 65th birthday? Why do they have to change or move? Their need should determine the care that they receive. I have also heard anecdotal accounts of older people who are waiting for hip surgery being asked to undergo cognitive assessments beforehand. There may be legitimate clinical reasons for some of those assessments, but we need to be confident that they are necessary for the patient rather than something that is based on an assumption about their age. Those examples demonstrate why the legislation matters. People should be treated according to their individual circumstances, not the numbers on their birth certificate. Northern Ireland remains the only jurisdiction across Britain and Ireland without equivalent legal protection against age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services. Whilst healthcare is perhaps the most obvious example, the issue extends much further. Whether it is a young person trying to access housing or financial services or an older person seeking insurance or healthcare, they should not face unfair treatment because of their age. We really welcome the fact that the Bill tries to address that. We accept that there will be circumstances where age-based distinctions are justified, and the Bill recognises that. It is good to see that that will embed the practice of accepting that a distinction needs to and can be made in some places. The Bill sets out to address where that happens randomly or where companies do it for financial reasons. Sometimes, I think that companies like to add a zero when providing certain services, thinking that they can do so with older people, for example. I know that I am always lurching towards the older person in talking about the Bill, but I am thinking of areas such as travel insurance. Whilst I appreciate that it is based on risk, having tried to secure travel insurance for my mother, I know that the price that has to be paid is sometimes more expensive than the holiday. When I think about the benefit that people get from a holiday — the exercise, stimulation and freedom that they get from being able to travel a bit — their having to pay a massive amount from their savings just for insurance seems particularly cruel. Where people are treated differently, there should be a legitimate and proportionate reason for doing so. I welcome the general principles of the Bill, and I hope that it prompts a wider conversation about how seriously the Executive are prepared to make those changes and to keep supporting those changes as our population continues to grow and age. We cannot continue with Departments working in isolation without a clear plan for what is coming or, indeed, what is there. We cannot accept people being denied access to services or treatment because of assumptions about their age. I hope that the Bill will allow Departments to coalesce in support of the work that its sponsor is doing. As Sinéad said about her Bill and its development, when it gets to Committee Stage, an almost excessive amount of work will be done to drill down into it, get the detail and perfect it before it comes back to the House. The SDLP supports the principles of the Bill, and we look forward to working constructively with the Member as it progresses.

1,366 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