I sought this debate to draw attention to the discrimination that older people face when trying to obtain goods and services. It is a timely debate, given that the Government are consulting on their Green Paper, “Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain”.

The issue came home to me in June when I spoke at the National Old Age Pensioners Association of Wales conference in Port Talbot. The subjects raised were many and varied. I heard how older people are unable to have their groceries delivered from Tesco or Asda, because they do not have access to the internet. There was a question about why we force magistrates to retire at 70 years old when they have built up a wealth of experience. I could not help but think that older people still get a raw deal in our society.

The association, of which I am president, has contributed to the pensioners’ manifesto for Wales. Point four of the manifesto says that the pensioners of Wales are calling for:

“Age discrimination legislation to be extended to apply to goods and services, not just in the workplace. It should be treated as seriously as other forms of discrimination with immediate effect.”

I know something about age discrimination in the workplace. When the former Prime Minister telephoned me and explained that he needed me to give up my portfolio as a Defence Minister because he needed me to make way for younger people, I asked whether, at 58, I was too old to become the Minister with responsibility for veterans.

With our ageing population, it is about time that the pensioners’ manifesto demand was taken seriously and that something more was done about it. It seems wholly wrong that people who have so much to offer are often discarded, regarded as disposable and thrown on the scrapheap, simply because society considers them “too old”. As a result, Britain is the less, because we miss out on the special skills, talents and, above all, the experience that the older generation can offer our society and economy.

Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I visit community groups in my constituency, and there always seems to be an older person at the heart of them—running them. This year we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the model village of Oakdale. There has already been an RAF flypast, an art exhibition, a carnival and a schools sports day, all of which have been organised by the Oakdale and Penmaen community partnership. At the heart of the partnership are retired or older people who make it work.

Today, I have in Parliament some guests, Roy and Charlotte Morton. Roy, an active Rotarian and a member of the Newbridge Royal British Legion, has collected 33,005 pairs of glasses, which are sent to people in the developing world. Roy is 85. Who would dare say that he has nothing to contribute to our society? What a commitment to serving others he has. He is a living example of the Rotary Club motto, “Service Above Self”.

The Government have made some progress towards meeting the challenges of age discrimination, but the discrimination is institutionalised and cultural, and it must be exposed and challenged. In 2001, the Government published the national service framework for older people, which stated that age discrimination would be rooted out in health and social care—fine words and very encouraging. Some action has followed, and many age barriers that prevented older people from receiving services have been removed. In 2005 the Government published “Opportunity Age—Meeting the Challenges of Ageing in the 21st Century”, which not only set out a new approach to the ageing population, but urged us to recognise that older people are an asset to our society, not a burden. In 2006 the Government implemented the European equal treatment directive, which banned age discrimination in the workplace and removed barriers for people who wished to undertake vocational training. Although I commend the actions of the Government in effectively outlawing ageism in the workplace, the job is still only half done. A Department of Health report entitled, “A New Ambition for Old Age: Next Steps in Implementing the National Service Framework for Older People”, acknowledged that negative attitudes towards older people were part of a failure to provide adequate services for them.

In 2005, Age Concern criticised an advertisement for the betting company, Paddy Power, which showed two elderly ladies crossing the road. Punters were invited to place bets on the likelihood of a car running them over. Just imagine the outcry if, instead of two elderly ladies, the advertisement had used pictures of a black, gay, Muslim, or severely disabled person. The advertisement was sickening, and it demonstrated how prevalent age discrimination still is in our society. Sadly, it was not an isolated case.

Age Concern tells me that The Carphone Warehouse would not let someone have broadband because they were over 70. The company said that it thought that anyone over 70 could not understand the terms and conditions, and that they would have to be accompanied by someone younger. How insulting, condescending and inconsiderate can people possibly be? At the same time, the Government have been heralding the rise of the silver surfers, and encouraging people to use computers and surf the net. A golf club would not allow members over the age of 65—just trying telling that to Arnold Palmer or Jack Nicklaus.

Some people say that stereotypes portraying older people as doddery but dear are harmless. However, the results can literally be fatal for older people. Older people who suffer from treatable illnesses that would benefit from earlier intervention often have their illnesses put down to old age. Time and again, people have raised such issues with me in my role as president of the National Old Age Pensioners Association of Wales. They have gone to the doctor, who has said, “What do you expect, love? Look at your age.” Or, “You’ve had a good innings, haven’t you?” That is quite the wrong attitude.

Despite being in the group with the highest risk of developing breast cancer, women over 70 do not get called for regular screenings, while younger women do. Older people are at a disadvantage in the provision of mental health services. Certain specialist mental health services are available only for people aged 65 and under, according to research carried out by MIND. That situation occurs despite the fact that 40 per cent. of people who visit a GP, 50 per cent. of general hospital patients and 60 per cent. of care home residents are older people with mental health problems.

Older people’s mental health is dealt with separately from general mental health provision, even within the Department of Health. Social care for older people focuses on health and safety concerns rather than on promoting independence, participation and social inclusion. For older people, care services are often commissioned in short blocks of time to cover basic needs. For younger people, the blocks of time are often longer, allowing them to participate in social activities and to play an active part in their community. Surely it is wrong to tolerate such discrimination.

Older people’s well-being, like everyone else’s, is linked to a sense of being an important part of other people’s lives. Members of the Woodfieldside old age pensioners association in my constituency will tell you, Mr. Wilshire, that the friendships they develop, sustain and encourage at their weekly meetings keep them going, keep them active and keep them feeling like they still have a great deal to contribute to community life.

Older people come up against the barrier of ageism when they try to obtain goods and services that young people take for granted. If older people want to travel abroad, they are more likely to be refused travel insurance or to have restrictions placed on them to the point that insurance cover costs more than their intended holiday. Companies that operate exclusions based on age include Barclaycard and Alliance and Leicester, which offer benefits to customers who buy their products, but specifically exclude travellers over 65 from the travel benefits that are associated with taking out their cards.

Marks and Spencer offers annual multi-trip insurance cover to travellers up to the age of 70 only. For people aged 66 and over, there is a premium loading of 100 per cent. In contrast, the premium loading for people who take part in winter sports is just 35 per cent. Age Concern tells me that it knows of someone who has been excluded from insurance income protection schemes solely because they are 62 years old. Older drivers face increased car insurance premiums based on their age, not on their driving record and skills. Some companies even refuse to quote for those aged 75 and over. In an extraordinary story, a Barclays customer applied for a loan to pay off debts but was refused because of her age. She is 57 and in good health, and works part-time as an office manager.

We now have an historic opportunity to end such injustice and eliminate age discrimination from all parts of our society. The Government committed themselves in the last Labour manifesto to introducing a single equality Bill, and are considering banning age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services. They are also considering introducing a positive duty on public bodies to promote equality across the board, including age equality. Now is the time for the Government to extend their record to all equalities. So much progress has been made in delivering equality for women, minority ethnic groups, disabled people and lesbians, gays and bisexuals. It would be quite wrong to send the message that it is fine to treat ageism differently from other forms of discrimination.

I appreciate that the matter can be complex, and that some people are reluctant to get involved in challenging and tackling it. Age is widely used as a criterion for access to certain services—for example, concessionary bus fares or reduced admission to cinemas—but that should not hold us back if legislation on equality is needed. There has been enough debate about how to craft exceptions for access to services, but plenty of experience from other equality areas and overseas could overcome the difficulties that I highlighted.

Although older people often realise that they are being treated badly or pushed aside, they rarely call it age discrimination. The time has come for the Government to deliver equal protection against discrimination on the grounds of age. As we move to a single equality Act and a new unified Commission for Equality and Human Rights, it would be a scandal if in Britain in the 21st century a situation were allowed to develop in which some were more equal than others.

Like everyone else, older people want to be part of their communities. They want to be linked in and feel part of other people’s lives. Many offer vital resources to families and support to communities. They pass on knowledge, understanding, love, support and experience. Let us make age discrimination a thing of the past and recognise and celebrate the contribution to our society that older people make and want to make. It is a great challenge to all of us.

I hope that the Minister will give us some positive responses to the issues that I have raised, and that colleagues throughout the House will take up issues of discrimination involving people who find, because of their age, that they cannot access services or support. If we do not highlight such discrimination, it will continue. It is a cultural matter, and we must work hard to change it, but I am confident that if the will exists, we will make a difference, ensuring a better quality of life for a great many people to whom this country owes a great debt.

Thank you, Mr. Touhig. At the age of 63, I am not sure that I feel better at the end of your speech than at the beginning.

At the age of 64, I think that I outrank both you, Mr. Wilshire, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) in terms of longevity, and I hope to serve here for a few more years yet. I hope, in fact, to be one of the extra million people over the retirement age of 65 who are now working, thanks to Government programmes. I am proud of that.

As my right hon. Friend said, the Government have done a great deal for age equality, and we are strongly committed to tackling age discrimination in all walks of life. Last October, we introduced regulations prohibiting age discrimination in employment and vocational training. We have also made a commitment to review the default retirement age in 2011. If the review shows that that is no longer needed, we will remove it. Personally, I am committed to doing so.

This October, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights will come into being. It will work across all equality strands, encouraging our institutions to operate for the benefit of every individual and helping people to ensure that they do so. We have also taken a number of non-legislative steps to address age discrimination in the provision of public services and to help individuals to achieve their aspirations for a better later life. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, “Opportunity Age” is a comprehensive strategy and programme of action for meeting the needs of an ageing society.

My right hon. Friend rightly said that there are contentious health issues that must be sorted. We have introduced the national service framework for older people, which focuses explicitly on tackling age discrimination in service delivery. However, I know from my constituency experience and my mother’s experience that waiting lists for services used heavily by older people, such as chiropody, hearing aids and wheelchairs, are very long. Often, old people must wait an inordinately long time for those services.

However, the Government are aware that those measures have not yet fully addressed age discrimination outside the workplace, nor indeed within it, as we have seen in some areas. A recent review of the national service framework for older people reported significant improvement in older people’s experience of health and social care, but it also found that deep-rooted cultural attitudes to ageing are still hampering wider Government plans to improve services. My right hon. Friend correctly mentioned mental health. I will be 65 at Christmas. If I had any mental health problems—which could be induced by being in this place for too long—I would be transferred from adult services to older people’s services, which deal mainly with dementia. Although I sometimes have senior moments, I hope that I am quite far from dementia.

Cultural attitudes to ageing are difficult to shift, and they cannot be shifted just by legislation. On 12 June this year, we published the discrimination law review consultation document “A Framework for Fairness”. I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of that, and I encourage him and other hon. Members to submit their views to the consultation, which will end in September. The review is considering the case for introducing legal protection against age discrimination in goods, facilities, services, premises and public functions, as well as how any such legislation should be framed. That is how such shameful instances as those he mentioned—Tesco internet access, Barclaycard, Marks & Spencer and The Carphone Warehouse—could be addressed.

I am grateful to the Minister. She has a valid point—it is not possible simply to legislate away the culture or the difficulties that we are experiencing in this country—but has she or the Department considered that it would be good to invest in an advertising campaign to bring home the message? Some old people are unaware that they are being discriminated against; it just has not occurred to them. If we can raise the profile of age discrimination, as we have done with drink-driving and other issues, we will convey the message much more effectively than we would with another piece of legislation. I fully understand her point.

I am glad that my right hon. Friend said that. Sometimes we are in danger of over-legislating. We could do with an advertising campaign, rather like the one that we ran to recruit more teachers, to make older people—as well as younger and middle-aged people—aware of how age discrimination might be occurring. Britain is a polite society, on the whole. Once we are aware of something, we pay attention to it. There is concern about the treatment of older people and elder abuse. Help the Aged and Age Concern have done marvellous work in bringing it to public attention.

With regard to the private sector, the Government are aware of the difficulties that some older people face when trying to get a competitive quote for travel insurance. The review is looking into that issue and whether there is a case for legislation or voluntary agreements.

We have a careful balance to strike. Legislation could send out a strong signal that unjustified discrimination on grounds of age is wrong; it could also help to change social and business attitudes, which badly need to change. However, any such law would be relatively complex, to put it mildly, and require a significant number of exceptions from the principle of equal treatment, to avoid unintended consequences and allow justifiable and beneficial age-specific services to continue.

Such services include the free bus pass—I got mine four years ago, with a feeling of shock—and targeted services for older and younger people. We need to consider carefully how to ensure that any legislation would not lead to service providers withdrawing beneficial age-appropriate services because they were confused about what was and was not allowed under the new law. The Government are gathering together all the available evidence and carefully sifting through it to consider how to ensure that any legislation would tackle unfair and harmful age discrimination while safeguarding beneficial differential treatment.

We are also considering whether targeted, non-legislative measures could be effective in tackling issues for which there is evidence of discrimination. My right hon. Friend mentioned age discrimination at golf clubs; we are consulting on whether, if we prohibit age discrimination for goods, facilities and services, we should prohibit it in private clubs such as golf clubs. However, we would still want to allow clubs that exist for the benefit of people in particular age groups to continue.

The discrimination law review is also considering something on which I am personally keen: whether there should be a duty on public bodies to promote age equality. That could address some of my right hon. Friend’s concerns. A positive duty could be particularly effective in ensuring that public service providers take the needs of people of all ages into account when planning and commissioning services and providing staff training. That could play quite a part in the cultural shift that we need to bring in.

My right hon. Friend raised the issue of volunteering. The Government are keen to extend and involve volunteering to all age groups, but a decision has been taken that magistrates should retire at age 70. My personal view is that that could be reviewed later. I remember that when my parents turned 60, they seemed really old to me, but nowadays people do not get old as fast, thanks to our health services and our increased knowledge of the body’s make-up and exercise. Some such limits will probably be stretched in future, although at present that limit remains at 70. I agree, however, with my right hon. Friend: many people of that age have a lot to offer.

The discrimination law review consultation closes on 4 September and I urge all individuals and organisations to respond to it. We will continue to work closely with a wide range of stakeholders, both during and following the public consultation period, to ensure that we take the right approach, which will effectively tackle harmful age discrimination while safeguarding the wide range of beneficial and justifiable practices that treat people differently.

With my right hon. Friend, I should like to pay tribute to Roy and Charlotte Morton. I happen to have been involved with a charity doing similar work to theirs in Africa. In some places there, there is only one doctor for every 27,000 people and there are no ophthalmologists or opticians; in such circumstances, most people just go slowly blind. They cannot read. My right hon. Friend and I are completely dependent on bits of glass if we are to see anything in front of us. Such charities do really wonderful work.

I disagree with my right hon. Friend: the job is not only half done—it is half done, but we are well on the way to completing the whole job. I hope that he will join me in ensuring that there is equal treatment for older people and across all other age ranges in our society.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Two o’clock.