Forum Home → Discussion → Other areas of social welfare law → Thread
localisation and age discrimination
Just a matter of interest, but can someone explain how the localisation of council tax, pensioners first everybody else fights for the remainder does not breach the new laws on age discrimination, a council is surly an organisation carrying out a public function so not exempt.
I’ve always thought that many councils are surly.
I don’t think that this is discriminatory any more than Pension Credit having rates about twice JSA is. It is protective of greater needs.
Do the old have greater needs? Even if they do are they that much greater? I read something by on an American financial blog some years ago justifying the reducing purchasing power of pensioners in the US as they got older (or part of the US, can’t remember) on the basis that you need less money as you get older.
I think an argument could be made that it is contrary to article 14 but that the discrimination could be allowed on the basis that it is objectively justifiable. In Reynolds v SSWP 2005 the HoL decided that the discrimination was objectively justifiable but this was on the basis that most under 25s have lower needs because they live at home with mums and dads (even though poor Miss Reynolds herself was stuggling on a pittance whilst heavily pregnant) and should be discouraged from living independently. I think it is a bit harder to say that 60 year old who can’t provide for themselves should be encouraged to move back in with their mums and dads. I think in reality the current relative shift in benefit support from the young to the old actually reflects where they think the votes come from. (The age of the Gerentocracy?)
But since the judiciary are generally older they will probably find some way to say it is objectively justified. For me the poverty that the government is planning to inflict on the young in particular is frightening.
The Equality Act 2010 is certainly intended to prevent age discrimination across the piece, i.e. it protects older people from discrimination due to their age, but it is also intended to protect younger people in the same way.
Helpfully, EHRC guidance tells us the following in their “Protected characteristics definition”:
Age
Where this is referred to, it refers to a person belonging to a particular age (e.g. 32 year olds) or range of ages (e.g. 18 - 30 year olds).
They also say that “Direct discrimination” is:
less favourable treatment of a person compared with another person because of a protected characteristic
I don’t think that this is discriminatory any more than Pension Credit having rates about twice JSA is. It is protective of greater needs.
Quite right. It is not discrimanatory they are a seperate group.
We know what they want dont we? .......... free television, winter fuel, prescriptions and bus passes…..
I think it’s the sacred cow syndrome. Politicians are scared to do anything that could be interpreted as harming pensioners (think what the tabloid headlines would make of it) so they protect them. There were one or two straws in the wind recently implying they might do something about some of the benefits/privileges after the next election, but I won’t hold my breath!
Still, this lot did make one change - they got rid of Gordon Brown’s free swimming for over 60s as soon as they came in.
Yeah its all a bit of a mystery.
We appear to have devised a new benefit system which will still leave us with the worst work incentives in the OECD.
We have kept in place middle class welfare.
We have a few dramatic gestures, the Caps that are hopelessly unfair and a ticking PR timebomb disaster.
Still a good move on free swimming.
We appear likely to have a total benefit bit that will exceed the old, its just central govt will not be fronting it.