Mr.
Boswell: To embellish my hon. Friend’s point, would
it not be a dereliction of duty by a financial adviser if he or she
were not to differentiate the advice according to the age and
circumstances of the
client? 2.30
pm
John
Penrose: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and there are
a number of factors that a reputable and professional financial adviser
would take into account.
Other sectors
are heavily affected. I have already mentioned travel insurance but
holiday provision as a whole is important. The two examples most often
cited are Club 18-30 and Saga, both of which the Government expressly
mentioned in the consultation document. Their starting point for the
consultation—the “ingoing” assumption—was
that those business models are entirely legitimate and sensible and
should be allowed to continue in
future. Interestingly,
the Government are less happy with organisations that have a blanket
ban on, for example, people under 21. I would be interested to see if I
have divined the underlying purpose of the Government’s thinking
and would like the Minister to address that. The Government seem to be
saying that they are minded to accept things that are of positive
benefit to a minority—a particular band of the age
range—such as cheaper discounts on food for people over 60, and
I am trying to divine a common thread here, but something that is in
some way derogatory or negative about a minority group, such as
“We don’t like people under 21”, is an example
with which the Government are generally much less happy. I would be
interested to see whether that is the underlying thread and logic of
the Government’s thinking, or whether they are trying to
introduce a different kind of principle. It would be helpful to
understand
that. I
have one additional question, which is to do with enforcement. The
range of different areas that have to be covered in the consultation
document, which the Government will have to enact in a schedule or
secondary legislation, means that the enforcement of the duties might
have to take a different form. I expect the Government to say that
their approach to enforcement and to preventing age discrimination,
once they have defined what is and is not allowable, in the health
service is likely to be different from their expectations of financial
services firms, which will be different again from their expectations
of insurance firms—financial services firms and insurance firms
are regulated, but not public
sector. The
way in which the Government expect to regulate the hospitality and
catering or holiday trade will again be different. I would be
interested to know whether the Government envisage this being done, for
example, through the tribunal system, which we have already addressed
when considering other aspects of the Bill—I suspect that that
will not be satisfactory for the matters
that I have just described—or whether some of it will be done via
the existing regulators. I am not sure that that is a sensible
approach, but it would be interesting to understand what the Government
are planning, and how they expect to deal with the services provided
entirely or primarily through the public sector, such as health and
social
care. With
those points, I hope that the Minister will accept the different
intention behind amendment 30 and the fact that we are trying only to
probe the Government’s intentions, which have already been
outlined in the consultation document. I hope that she will also accept
that we are broadly supportive of much of the approach in that
document. Clearly, we will have to wait and see what the results of it
are, and perhaps the Minister can answer the questions that I have
raised. John
Howell (Henley) (Con): I want to pick up on a point that
stems from a remark that my hon. Friend made about interfering
unnecessarily. I want to probe where the boundaries lie and try to get
a feel for the extent to which the Government are prepared to consider
what one might call an additional granularity. I suppose it becomes
apparent in the financial services sector, particularly in the
insurance
part. I
am conscious of the discussion that we had in the fourth sitting of the
Committee, particularly the discussion that the Minister and I had,
when we looked at the current business model for the insurance
industry, which tends to have broad bands. She made the valid point
that if we had a band between 65 and 75, the risk lay at the 75 end
rather than at 65 plus one day. I would like to get a feel for how
“interfering”—if I may use that word; I do not
mean it pejoratively—the Government are prepared to be as a
result of that, and whether they would look for a different risk model
that was more finely
tuned. I
know that that prejudges the consultation to a certain extent, but the
Government have already prejudged some aspects of it. Page 11 of the
consultation report gives an indication of the changes that might come
out of such a measure, one of which is that it will be easier to find
travel and car insurance. There is be much to be welcomed in that, but
there is also a question about whether travel and car insurance will be
easier to find at a better and more differentiated cost. In that
context, it would be nice to know where the Government see the
boundaries—and the boundaries of their actions—starting
and stopping.
Mr.
Boswell: I suppose that, in a sense, we all have an age,
and therefore any of us could potentially benefit from relief from
discrimination under the clause. It is probably appropriate for me
formally to declare my interest as a pensioner before we start. I
welcome what the Government have done so far, as well as the
endorsement of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare. We are
edging towards something that looks like a sensible conclusion and, not
for the first time, I think that the consultation document is good and
workmanlike. It exposes the issues and provides a chance to take us
further forward.
Beyond that,
two things are welcome. First—a subject touched on by my hon.
Friend—is that there is a clear wish to avoid issues of age
differentiation that are seen
as beneficial to the service user. That seems entirely sensible and to
encapsulate it, we could call it the Saga Holidays problem. That is now
on the way to being sorted, although I might come back to it in a
moment. Within
the rubric of the Bill, or at least in the practice of Ministers when
looking for exemptions after the consultation process, perhaps we
should say that anything that is of positive benefit to the service
user is all right. The concerns are about avoiding actions that are
discriminatory or derogatory to anyone else who is not able to avail
themselves of something, or is excluded from the service. A paradox of
the situation is that it has tended to focus on the non-availability of
Saga Holidays to the over 50s, rather than the fact that there might be
other services that are more appropriate for other
people.
John
Howell: In the spirit of making an open statement, my hon.
Friend pointed towards me when referring to the under 50s. I must tell
him that regrettably I am eligible for a Saga
holiday.
Mr.
Boswell: We must not turn this into a commercial and we
shall not do so. I will not ask the Committee collectively to declare
eligibility, as that could even amount to harassment. Let us say that
if something helps people and widens the market or the range of choice,
that is
fine. Speaking
as an older person for the purposes of the argument, there will be
occasions on which people hear something that may be a little
disturbing, such as when someone at the age of 65 has to ring up their
insurer and say, “I’m going to Tuscany next week. Am I
still covered or is there a loading?” I have had no difficulty
with that yet, but I realise that it could become a problem. The
consultation paper touches on some of those
issues.
John
Penrose: To encourage my hon. Friend, if he finds that his
existing insurer ramps up the price to what he suspects is too much,
research shows that there are other providers out there. The range is
narrower, but in most cases people can find themselves insurance in
most sectors, although not all, if they look further and provided they
refer to other providers in due
course.
Mr.
Boswell: I will use that opportunity to alter the order of
my remarks. A few years ago, the Government introduced a rather good
concept, which, like some of their other initiatives, seems to have
petered out. It is the concept of no wrong door, which is usually
considered in the context of public service. It says, “If we are
not the people to deal with the issue, we know someone who
is.” In
the same way, one of the areas that is touched on in the consultation
paper that is quite important is where individuals find that their
particular insurer is getting pricey, maybe just because they do not
have particular experience of the market for older people, for
instance. The insurer might have some obligation—perhaps built
in through the great financial regulation system—to say,
“We are no longer economic in this area, but you ought to go and
see the following six people.” A fit, older person who wishes to
travel does not want to have a row about the particular underwriter.
They want the insurance, and they want to get it reasonably simply,
without a great deal of hassle.
We are
genuinely feeling in the right direction on this. However, I sense a
tension and I do not wish to contribute on the next amendment. I feel
that there is a genuine concern here, because I have obviously read
what I take to be the import of the next amendment. Among those on the
Liberal Democrat Benches, there is a wish not to sit back and let the
whole thing take a huge amount of time. The benefit of a proper
consultation, whether or not the Solicitor-General can bring it to the
House before we conclude the consideration of the Bill, or perhaps even
after its consideration by another place, I will not debate now, but we
need to take our time.
There is one
specific that the Minister needs to do concomitantly now, which is to
make it clear that the consultation is happening. I have reason to
think that Saga will be aware of it. Having reread its earlier
briefing, one realises, as it said, “If something is not done,
or we do not get clear assurances, we will be illegal and be in
potential difficulties.” I am using shorthand here, but it is
important that the word go out that there is
reinsurance. People
do not have to rewrite their, in my view, reasonable business models
now. They must first, of course, contribute to the consultation
exercise. They will then have a perfectly reasonable time to
restructure their activities. I notice that the Parliamentary
Secretary, Government Equalities Office, is nodding. The point is
understood: if we are to do this properly, which clearly we are setting
out to do, we need to do it in good faith and get it
right. Moving
on, I want to make two points, which, in a way, are designed to inform
my view of the consultation exercise. The first is something I touched
on in earlier exchanges with the Solicitor-General. If one is looking
at the negative side of discrimination, one should keep that to the
minimum by trying wherever possible—I do not mean in an
artificial way—to unbundle and segment the particular sets of
business decision being
taken. The
case that I was most struck by in the consultation document was that of
vehicle rentals. It is well-known that young people have a difficult
insurance experience. The question is, should the cost be tailored
according to the age at which they take hire of a vehicle? Should it be
for service providers to seek objectively to justify age-based pricing
or to provide a specific exemption? That is the sort of issue that was
set out in the
document. My
view is that it is a lot easier to deal with those issues if the
particular services are broken down—the car rental and the
insurance accompanying a car rental. It may be that people will want to
bundle those off. However, if we are concerned to deal with the
discrimination, we should look at whether, for example, it is possible
to say, “Renting a car has the same kinds of cost per kilometre
whether someone is 21, 71 or 51, and that should be a flat rate,
although of course we take into account your insurance and driving
experience, which might affect the total net you have to pay.”
That may sound like a slightly logic-chopping argument in terms of how
we get there, but it is designed to expose the fact that there could be
covert discrimination, which may or may not be justified in getting to
the
process. We
come to the final point, and I would value the
Solicitor-General’s comment on the merits. I continue to have an
interest in people of the younger generation, too. Let us consider
rentals for persons under the age of 21. Having been a
Minister with responsibility for
students, I know that occasionally young people are not the best of
tenants and that things happen. I can understand why landlords might
need to be fairly cautious in their lettings. If that is objectively
justified in respect of a particular age group, there is justification
for reflecting it in the
law. 2.45
pm It
is also possible that people will go from the significant age signature
to a proxy, such as students. They are not a protected characteristic
in the context that we are discussing. “No students here”
or “I don’t let to students” might be an
undesirable statement. I personally think that it is, but it might be
an understandable variant, although it might amount to indirect
discrimination in which case it would not be covered. The
Solicitor-General will remind us about
that. If
age-related discrimination is helpful to the individual services, we
should as far as possible accommodate it. In fairness, the Government
are trying to do that. If the age signature can be used as a vehicle
for covert discrimination to reduce the choices for an individual, we
need to be cautious about it. One of the ways to deal with that is
maximum transparency and the pricing structure, so that people know
what is going on, as well as the wider issue of what can be caught
under other discrimination law if it is taken on the specific age
signature. Given
that it would have been great to have got the consultation document out
earlier and into the debate before Second Reading, some of the hares
have started. That is understandable because people have to be
responsible in drawing up their business models and looking at the
potential downside of the Bill. It is important that Ministers should
now explain to people what is going on and invite them to take an
active part in the consultation process. We should not allow ourselves
to be unduly rushed or railroaded by disinformation about what will be
a constructive
process.
The
Solicitor-General: On the face of it, the amendment would
restrict the circumstances in which a Minister should allow specific
exemptions from the ban on age discrimination under the Bill. I am sure
that that is not at all what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare
intended because we want to be free to make distinctions on the basis
of age and to allow good age discrimination—if I can put it that
way. The purpose of the amendment has almost moved away from the
amendment itself, but let me reassure him about matters that remain his
concern. Perhaps in final reference to the wording of the amendment, we
would not want to legislate for problems that do not exist. That is not
how we propose to use the
power. I
reiterate that we shall exercise the power so that exemptions from age
discrimination are in place from the moment that the ban is in place,
and the things that are good can carry on happening without
interruption. We therefore need to get all the provisions right and
frame the exemptions as precisely as we can. That is why we are
consulting and providing, in particular, service providers with details
of the emerging policy. They can then have the opportunity to consider
their own business and help us to get the impact correct and frame the
exemptions correctly.
About 750
representations with evidence of harmful age discrimination were
presented to us in the original representation, so we had to move on
the issue. We hope that on the one hand those representations coming
largely from age lobbies—the representors—will be
satisfied with the way in which we have started the consultation and
how we have set out how we see it. We hope, too, that business will
also feel that we have approached it in a satisfactory
way. I
take the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry that because the
consultation document did not come out early, as it could have done, as
the policy change was announced, it has probably already caused some
false hares to start running. That is very difficult and a shame. I
hope we can all work now to correct those false hares from being
incorrect false hares—mixing my metaphors here. If we can stop
the idea that political correctness gone mad is somehow going to stamp
out the entire insurance industry, it would be a good
thing. Some
specifics were raised. I will come to the timetable in a minute, in the
perhaps forlorn hope that it might help with the next amendment. The
hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare asked how the age discrimination
provisions would be enforced. Since it is about goods, facilities and
services, it would be through the county court, not the tribunal
system. That was one specific question that he raised. He talked about
the timetable and I will come to that in a
minute. The
hon. Member for Henley talked about age bands and
the width, as it were. On pages 135 to 137 of the consultation document
we specifically ask for representations about age bands. We do not at
this stage see great advantage in prohibiting them for simple things
such as travel insurance, but we need to see what comes out of the
consultation. In different ways, Conservative Members have made the
same point, which is that we want to ensure that, while there is no
unjustified age discrimination, we do not make the provisions so
complex that insurance companies leave the sector altogether. We do not
think that that is likely to follow. We are also interested in the
proposal, which I think features in the consultation document and has
come from the industry itself, that where a provider might not
economically be able to cover a particular risk, it would seek to
signpost on to someone who can, so that we have the advantage of choice
being available and adequate coverage as
well. The
hon. Member for Daventry gave examples—the unbundling one and
the one about young renters. He makes the salient point that we have to
be careful and go into the whole issue in as detailed a way as we can,
so that we do not allow discrimination in any disguised way, and that
is what we will seek to do. The hon. Gentleman put his finger on the
reason why we should not rush, because, unlike discrimination under the
other strands, sometimes discrimination for age is good and sometimes
it is bad. It is potentially a vast area and it is a new area, so we
need to take our time to ensure that we get it
right. The
hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare referred to the national health
service inquiry, run by Sir Ian Carruthers. It has started and will
report in October. The Government will then have to respond. Prior to
that, in actual chronology, the age consultation will finish in
September. In October is the Department of Health review, followed by
the Government response. In 2010 is consultation on
the draft secondary legislation, which will be laid before Parliament in
2011, and in 2012 the ban will be in force in respect of financial and
other services. However, for health and social care, we cannot really
pre-empt the Department of Health review, because part of the purpose
of doing a pilot in one authority—how, at what expense, at what
rate and where age discrimination exists—is to give us an idea
of how long it will take to drive age discrimination out of the health
service as a whole. Without getting the results of that review, it is
hard to estimate when we can do things across the health
service. | 
