News

Last week the House of Commons debated the Equality Bill.

Everyone is against unjustified discrimination and many of the Bill’s provisions are worthy of support.

But in some respects the Bill is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. One of those unintended consequences is the effect the Bill would have on Saga. As it stands the Bill would outlaw the offering of services like holidays and insurance exclusively to the over 50’s. The effect on Saga could be very severe.

So I naturally spoke in the debate, pointing out that very many of my constituents’ jobs depend on the continuing success of Saga. Its business model is entirely based on exclusively servicing the needs of people aged 50 or over.

I told the House that last year Saga provided a range of services to some 2.7 million people. Its’ robust and highly popular brand is based on trust, quality, dependability and value for older people. It focuses on understanding and then designing bespoke services to meet the changing needs and demands of its target market, a demographic group consisting of about half the electorate, and forecast to grow from 21 million today to 25 million by 2020.

The Equality Bill as it stands risks negatively affecting the ability of Saga’s customers to buy the holidays they want and the financial and other services they need at a competitive price.

Saga’s insurance business, for example, if forced to offer policies to all age groups would become less competitive for the over 50’s because they would have to bear the entire costs of quotations for the under 50’s. Understandably older savers means that Saga can offer better terms. Its holiday business currently serves only the over 50’s and the popularity and enjoyment of its holidays depends in part on their being exclusive to the over 50’s rather than open to all age groups.

Eventually the Solicitor General, who is the Minister in charge of the Bill, rose from her seat to say that she agreed with the points I was making. She said the Government would consider issuing guidance which would protect Saga’s position.

But what we need is for that protection to be written into law. I asked, and did not receive, an assurance that that would be done.

So I hope the Government will think again or that the House of Lords, which will now consider the Bill, will insist on introducing the necessary protection.

It is time for the uncertainty to end and for Saga to receive the assurance it needs if it is to continue to flourish and prosper.