The rights of older people

There is clear evidence that ageist stereotyping, including portrayals of older people as frail, helpless or incompetent, or conversely as wealth- hoarding “boomers”, is highly prevalent across all media in the UK and that this is a significant contributory factor to the normalisation of ageist attitudes. Ageism causes harm both to older individuals, including when self-limiting stereotypes are internalised, and at societal level, pitting generations against each other and breeding unnecessary and unhelpful division. We believe there is a strong case for the advertising and broadcasting codes and guidance to be strengthened in relation to harm and offence arising from ageist stereotyping of all types. We welcome the Advertising Standards Authority’s (ASA) decision to launch a research project to consider the nature and extent of harm and offence caused by ageist depictions of older people in advertising with a view to strengthening its regulatory approach. The ASA should update us on progress, including a clear timeline for change, in response to this Report. We recommend Ofcom launch a similar review, and that both the ASA and Ofcom commit to introducing specific new rules and guidance to advertisers and broadcasters on avoiding harm and offence arising from ageist language and imagery. (Recommendation, Paragraph 36)

We welcome Ofcom’s prioritisation of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and its annual report on EDI in the broadcasting workforce. We note, however, that, despite glaring underrepresentation of older people in radio and television, this is not currently a priority area for Ofcom or the sector. We believe increased age diversity in the workforce has the potential to significantly reduce ageist attitudes in the media. We therefore recommend Ofcom ensure an increased focus on analysis of age diversity in its future reports on EDI in broadcasting, and promote equal prioritisation of age diversity alongside gender, racial and ethnic, LGBT+ and disability diversity across all age groups in the EDI strategies of broadcasters. (Recommendation, Paragraph 40) 47

The Editor’s Code of Practice must balance the rights of individuals to protection from discrimination with freedom of expression in the press. The complete omission of age from clause 12 on discrimination gets this balance wrong, leaving older people unprotected and contributing to a widely held perception that ageism is taken less seriously than other forms of discrimination. There is no reason why age should not be included in the Editor’s Code of Practice with the same caveat on genuine relevance to the story as other categories currently covered by clause

The justification of the omission of age from clause 12, set out in the Editors’ Codebook, that journalists must be free to comment on public figures who are “past their prime” is itself overtly ageist. We recommend the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee include age in clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice and update the Editors’ Codebook accordingly. (Recommendation, Paragraph 49) Digital exclusion

Social broadband and mobile phone tariffs can allow eligible low-income households to make significant savings on their bills, yet few eligible older people are aware of them. The Government should work with groups representing older people and broadband and mobile phone network providers to ensure the provision and promotion of social broadband and mobile phone network tariffs for older people on lower incomes. We further recommend the Government consider strengthening the relevant regulatory regimes to ensure that adequate social tariff options are available and promoted, enforced via financial penalties for providers’ non-compliance if necessary. (Recommendation, Paragraph 63)

Older age is not in itself a cause of digital exclusion but strongly correlates with some of the key measures, including lack of broadband at home and non-ownership of a smartphone. There is also a large number of “hidden” digitally excluded older people: those who appear to be online, having broadband at home and owning a smartphone, but who lack the requisite confidence and skills to complete digital tasks without support. There has been a huge proliferation of digital technology and adoption of digital by default services across society, including in local authority services, banking, and healthcare, driven in part by cost savings and budgets cuts and exacerbated by the response to the Covid-19 pandemic. In this context, it is a considerable failure of government that the Digital Inclusion Strategy has not been updated, nor progress tracked, for a decade. We welcome the Government’s intention to remedy this as a priority. (Conclusion, Paragraph 75) 48

The Government must bring forward a refreshed Digital Inclusion Strategy. The Strategy should have a detailed focus on the needs of digitally excluded older people, including a plan for funding locally delivered digital skills provision and promoting best practice in the public and private sectors in maintaining offline alternatives to digital for as long as needs remain, and a focus on broadband connectivity in rural and coastal areas. (Recommendation, Paragraph 76) Equality law and enforceability of older people’s rights

There is a wealth of evidence that age discrimination is highly prevalent in the UK and widely perceived as less serious and harmful than other forms of discrimination. Age discrimination law, in particular the allowance of objective justification of direct age discrimination, contributes to this perception. The law as it stands deters discrimination claims on the ground of age and severely limits claimants’ chances of success in the relatively few cases that make it to tribunal. The law does not yet appropriately recognise the inherently intersectional nature of age discrimination, which also contributes to a lack of enforceability. The Public Sector Equality Duty has the potential to address ageism but its specific duties, particularly in England, are far too weak to ensure transparency, accountability, and genuine progress. We believe a wholesale review of age discrimination law is a necessary step in tackling the UK’s pervasively ageist culture and internalised age discrimination. (Conclusion, Paragraph 94)

We recommend the Government commission and fund the Equality and Human Rights Commission to review the effectiveness of protections against age discrimination provided by the Equality Act and Public Sector Equality Duty in England, including but not limited to consideration of: • the implications for older people’s rights, and the enforceability of those rights, of allowing objective justification of direct discrimination based on age, and the likely impacts of replacing objective justification with specific exceptions, if required; • the extent to which the Public Sector Equality Duty in England effectively promotes progress on older people rights in areas including access to healthcare, housing, transport, and digital inclusion, and the case for more specific positive duties to drive progress; • the case for amending the Equality Act in relation to employment discrimination based on age, to bring in a stronger “reasonable steps” duty on employers; and 49 • options to amend the Equality Act to reflect the intersectional nature of age discrimination more effectively, including but not limited to commencement of section 14 on dual characteristics. (Recommendation, Paragraph 95) Government focus and wider governance framework

Our growing ageing population presents a range of significant cross- departmental challenges and opportunities, and there is a huge breadth of issues facing an increasingly diverse older population. The lack of a strategy within Government on how to respond to these issues is concerning. (Conclusion, Paragraph 106)

Evidence to us and our predecessor Committee emphasised the importance of joined-up and strategic work to tackle ageist attitudes and discrimination across society, including in access to healthcare, local services, banking and transport. While there is a very strong prima facie case for the appointment of a UK cross-government minister to take responsibility for developing and implementing policy and championing the rights of older people in these and wider areas, a more important first step is the development of a Government strategy for ageing and older people’s rights. Such a strategy could establish the case for, and guide, any new minister. (Conclusion, Paragraph 107)

We recommend the establishment of a unit of data and policy analysts within the Cabinet Office’s Office of Equality and Opportunity to build an evidence base on the key cross-departmental challenges, including intersectional issues, facing older people now and in the coming decades. This unit should be established with a view to informing the development of a UK government cross-departmental strategy on demographic change and ageing, which the Government should consult on and publish during this Parliament. (Recommendation, Paragraph 108)

We recommend the Government examine the experience in Wales, with a view to replicating a similar framework across England. It should conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Commissioner for Older People 50 role in Wales and its comprehensive network of Older People’s Champions delivering a national strategy across local authorities. The evaluation should consider the duties, powers, and resources a Commissioner for Older People in England would need. It should consider whether a single Commissioner for England or a network of regional Commissioners would be more effective in a nation of England’s size. Likewise, the tier of local government at which Older People’s Champions are most likely to be effective should be considered in the context of the Government’s plans for devolution and local authority reform in England. The Government should consider the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission within a new framework for older people’s rights, including the case for formal memoranda of understanding between the Commission and any new Commissioner/s to ensure the division of duties and responsibilities is clear. Careful consideration and consultation should take precedence over speed but we expect progress to be made on establishing a new and effective framework for promoting and protecting older people’s rights by the end of the year. (Recommendation, Paragraph 110) 51