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

Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on 20 October 2026.

MLA: Mr Stewart Dickson
Party at the time: Alliance 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 5798780

Text

Like other Members who have spoken in the debate, I congratulate Claire for the incredible work that she has done, together with her researcher and those who have been supporting her, in the preparation of the Bill. The reality is that Northern Ireland has, for a considerable time, been falling behind when it comes to equality legislation. We have protections against age discrimination in employment, yet, when it comes to accessing goods, facilities and services, there is a very large gap in existing legislation. That is not for the want of trying, however, because, as many Members have referenced, in the past, the Assembly attempted to deal with the issue. Sadly, though, it has been left to an individual Member — I congratulate her again — to tackle it. I very strongly believe that the issue should have been tackled by the relevant Department, which, in this case, is the Executive Office. It has an overarching responsibility for equality legislation in Northern Ireland. Yet, here we are, all those years later, still debating whether people should have the same basic protections when accessing services as they do in the workplace.
We can all agree that discrimination on the grounds of age is wrong. Recognising the principle is one thing, but ensuring that it works fairly and reasonably in practice is another. That is where the Committee will have an important role to play by scrutinising the legislation. We will take the opportunity to go through it thematically and clause by clause. We will group the clauses into themes and then seek the opinions and views of those in the wider community who will want to come forward when we are taking evidence. The Bill proposes that its main protections should apply from the age of 16. There is a reasonable argument for that. At 16, a young person can enter employment, pay tax and take on other responsibilities that we should start to consider as being associated with adulthood. There are, however, other areas of life in which we continue to draw a distinction between 16-year-olds and, for example, 18-year-olds. If a group of 16-year-olds wanted to book hotel rooms, should the hotel be able to refuse them simply because of their age? There may be a perfectly legitimate reason for having that restriction, particularly when it comes to safeguarding and the responsibilities of the business. Equally, however, we need to be careful about presuming that every age restriction is justified simply because it is convenient or is a business's policy. Equality does not necessarily mean treating everyone identically regardless of the circumstances. It means ensuring that, where people are treated differently, there has to be an appropriate, defensible reason for it. We make distinctions based on age in all sorts of areas of public life. Take our concessionary travel scheme. It provides for people from the age of 60, and it is legitimate to offer that support. Why 60, however? Why not 55 or 65? Decisions will therefore have to be made, and there will often be good reasons for making them. The point to make is that treating people differently because of their age is not automatically unlawful discrimination. What does matter is whether there is a reasonable justification for doing so. That takes me back to the argument about whether there is reasonable justification for setting the age at 16 in the legislation. What we want to do is to prevent unfair discrimination without undermining the legitimate reasons for having age restrictions in the first place. There are consequences from how the new protections would interact with existing legislation. As Members indicated, including the Bill sponsor, this is complex legislation, and I really do appreciate the work that Claire has done. We will need a great deal of support from the Bill Office, as well as expert advice and guidance from the Executive Office, which should have brought the legislation to the House. There are complex areas and issues that interact with the Bill on which the Committee will require a great deal of evidence. It should be noted that, when she introduced the legislation, Claire had to wait for the Secretary of State's approval. That adds a further level of complexity to the Bill, because a lot of it interacts not just with existing legislation in Northern Ireland on age discrimination but with age discrimination legislation in a raft of areas for which the Assembly does not even have responsibility. As I said, we all want to prevent unfair age discrimination without undermining the legitimate reasons for having age restrictions. There are therefore questions to be asked about how the new protections will integrate with the other legislation. The equality framework in Northern Ireland is already fragmented. We do not have what we should have, namely a single equality Bill with different protections applying to different characteristics in different circumstances. It is therefore not always straightforward for individuals to understand their rights or for businesses or service providers to understand their obligations. Deborah Erskine mentioned that. The outworking of the Bill will be complex and difficult, particularly for small businesses.
I have long believed that we need a more coherent approach to equality legislation, and, while the Bill will address important gaps, we should be mindful of how it fits into the wider picture. I would like to see further consideration being given to the proposed exceptions, particularly in areas such as insurance and financial services. Colin referred to how age can be relevant in assessing risk, for example, but does that necessarily mean that every distinction based on age is justified?
I would not disagree. A lot of clarification and not only secondary legislation but also regulation will be needed. Unlike employment law, where there is a clear background of employment tribunal and, indeed, court decisions to draw on, this will involve civil litigation, and we will therefore have to rely on the range of available decisions. I have been looking into it. Few cases have come forward in the rest of the United Kingdom, so there is little case law. It will be interesting to see how it might develop in Northern Ireland, given our different demographics and, in particular, as the Member said, the fact that we have a lot of small businesses. Who knew, for example, that someone who is under the age of 16 is not allowed to purchase, pump or serve petrol? There are all sorts of interesting rules and areas in which we will have to have a lot of detailed discussions. There is a wider question about the age threshold. Why should the protections begin at 16? I recognise that that reflects earlier proposals, but the fact that a particular age was considered appropriate more than a decade ago does not mean that we should accept that without further examination. Children under the age of 16 can experience discrimination, and indeed we should be prepared to consider whether the Bill goes far enough to protect them. None of those questions should prevent the legislation from progressing. Indeed, as I have outlined, the detailed work that is required is why we have the Committee Stage. We will have an opportunity to hear the evidence, to examine the practical implications and, where necessary, to improve the legislation. I very much welcome the fact that Claire said that the Bill is improvable and that there are changes that she would welcome us making as we work our way through it. The complexities in equality law should not be an excuse for failing to address discrimination. If we had waited until every possible difficulty was resolved before introducing legislation, the House would have made little progress. The principle is straightforward: people should not be denied opportunities or services simply because of assumptions based on their age. Where distinctions are necessary, they should be reasonable, proportionate and capable of being justified. I welcome the Bill and support its progress to Committee Stage, and I look forward to the detailed scrutiny of it at that stage.

1,342 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