Age discrimination laws for goods and services next?

Last October the the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations were introduced to prevent discrimination by employers. The Age and Employment Network (TAEN) and charity Help the Aged now want a similar law to outlaw restrictions in the availability of goods and services based on age.

Ministers are currently looking at how age, race, gender, disability, sexual orientation and religion can be brought together into a set of laws - the Single Equalities Bill.

Chris Ball, chief executive of TAEN said: “Ageism, and its impact, blights more lives than most other forms of discrimination and yet when it comes to legal protection age is at the bottom of the equalities pile.

"TAEN is calling on the Government to extend the current age discrimination legislation to cover goods, facilities and services and to bring in a public sector duty in respect of age."

He added: "Extending the protection against ageism will also have the virtuous outcome of increasing the number of jobs and employment opportunities overall because new markets and provision will open up which will need to be served and serviced."

'Gross inconsistency'

Help the Aged's head of public affairs Kate Jopling commented: "We live in a society where racism and sexism are not tolerated, yet age prejudice is tolerated and even accepted in goods, facilities and services.

"Age is the only equality group left without legislative protection. This is a gross inconsistency, and very short sighted when you consider that older people are active voters and the fastest growing population group."

A poll for Help the Aged revealed 78% of people aged 60 and over would like to see an outright ban on age discrimination, while 63% believe the Government's efforts to legislate against the problem have been "inadequate".

Legislative review

The Government's 'Discrimination Law Review' published in June set out a range of proposals for creating a clearer and more streamlined legal framework.

In the review, the Government stressed it would only want to legislate on age matters beyond the scope of employment where "negative" age discrimination was identified, without preventing different treatment on grounds of age with "positive consequences" or was "justifiable".

For example, it did not want to unintentionally prohibit youth clubs or clubs for older people, holidays catering for people of particular ages, or concessions and discounts which help younger or older people.

However, the document appeared to favour a general not to discriminate against adults aged 18 and over on grounds of age in the provision of goods, facilities, services, premises and the exercise of public functions. At the same time, any such law would allow an 'objective justification' defence - as currently applies in age discrimination in employment.