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 5798793

Text

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I had prepared to speak for another half an hour, but you will be delighted to hear that I will not take that time. I really appreciate the contributions of all Members who have taken part in the debate and given their thoughts on areas of the Bill that we need to investigate further, substantiate or, potentially, amend. I will speak to the themes that have arisen from the contributions and give my perspective on some of the comments that have been made. I will work backwards from Stewart and acknowledge other Members where they have made similar comments. Forgive me if I do not acknowledge you, but I have been listening intently. I will start with the 16-plus threshold. In principle, I have no difficulty with an age discrimination Bill extending to all ages, because I recognise that, by its definition, it raises the question of whether, by introducing the threshold, we are discriminating against people under the age of 16. However, I have to put that into the balance of the conversation that we need to have at Committee — I alluded to this in my opening speech — about what is practical and possible. The decision for me came during the drafting process. I was asked whether I wanted to introduce this for all ages, those aged 16-plus or those aged 18-plus. The conversation around the Bill applying all ages very much suggested that that would significantly extend the scope of Bill and that the Bill would have to read across to a whole other area of legislation in a way that it would not have to do if it applied only to those aged 16-plus. If we did that, we would essentially be creating a new vehicle that has not been seen in England, Wales, Scotland or the Republic of Ireland. I ask Members to consider that this vehicle is a private Member's Bill and that we would be creating something substantially different by extending this to all ages. That is not to say that we as a House cannot do that. However, I do not think that it would be as easy as streamlining it, and I do not think that it would be as easy as just taking the clause out, bearing in mind that the Bill was designed and crafted on the basis that the threshold is 16-plus. All the legislative provisions that the Bill has drawn from have, therefore, been drawn on that basis. If we were to extend it to all ages, we would be looking at a whole other legislative framework. I know that the Committee will look into that. In fairness, it may be possible. It may be within the gift of the Committee to do that, as opposed to me, as an individual Member, doing it. It is something that we have to be conscious of. I am very conscious that there is limited time left until dissolution, and by adding that to the Bill we would essentially be giving ourselves more work. Again, it is up to the House to choose whether to do that. For me, there is an opportunity here to extend to Northern Ireland a provision that exists in other parts of these islands. I am not necessarily trying to create the new thing that other Members have suggested. I am trying to bridge a gap, and I appeal to Members to consider the Bill on that basis. I appreciate the principle and I appreciate Members' comments about equality. However, this is about what is possible, and politics is the art of the possible, not least in this place. It is about asking, "What can we achieve within the realities of, to be fair, political opinion on the issue?" There is history to this. There is a reason why some Members do not want it to be extended to all ages. I do not think that that has changed much in the10 years since it was originally discussed. There is a reality to that. Let us therefore try to ensure that we work towards a practical outcome. That might be all ages, or it might be what is in the Bill as drafted. Bear in mind the work that goes into that. I genuinely do not believe that it would be as easy as taking out the clause, as has been suggested by some stakeholders. You have to look at it and see whether it reads across the legislative framework. Any Member who develops a private Member's Bill will get a lesson on how to look at their Bill in a legislative context to see whether it fits within existing frameworks. Certainly, for a private Member's Bill, that is more critical than anything else. Extending the provision to those aged 16 and 17 warrants particular scrutiny because, essentially, we will be creating something new. However, again, the existing legislative framework gives a precedent for that. What is being suggested in terms of all ages is something quite different, however. A number of Members, not least Stewart, referred to the fact that the interaction with existing legislation is important. The Bill provides for that interaction so that we are not necessarily overriding existing legislation. For example, the law already states that products in an off-licence cannot be sold to someone under the age of 18. The Bill does not intend to override that legislation. Deborah, I think, talked about the fact that, in an off-licence or a supermarket, it is a case of whether you look under the age of 25. Do we need to consider that as part of this, because it is that group? Again, I think that the Bill provides that there is a justifiable reason for doing that. We will, however, have to interrogate what that means in practice, because it is all very well my saying that. I will draw on some of the comments. Paula Bradshaw as Committee Chair, Stewart Dickson and Carál Ní Chuilín talked about the need for a single equality Bill.

1,009 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