sou · GYB360 · 2010-08-30 00:00:00 — The remit included surveying age restrictions imposed in the various areas. It also included analysing whether, and in what respects, exemptions from a ban are needed. One point of departure for the proposals we make in this report has been that they should be compatible with the Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008) 426 final) submitted by Commission in 2008. A second point of departure has been to survey existing age restrictions in both legislation and practice as thoroughly as possible. However, because age restrictions occur in widely diverging contexts and are very prevalent, it has not been possible to comprehensively survey them all. Instead, the aim of our survey has been to compile the best possible basis on which to be able to consider whether, and in what respects, exemptions from a ban on age discrimination are needed. A third point of departure has been that it is not within our remit to propose amendments to legislation containing age restrictions. In as far as we have deemed such age restrictions questionable from the point of view of discrimination, we have reported this and taken it into consideration in our deliberations concerning the need for exemptions. Finally, another point of departure has been that exemptions from the ban on age discrimination should, if possible, be consistent in their form and be worded so as to avoid restricting their application too greatly to specific circumstances. The Discrimination Act currently contains such an exemption for age discrimination. Goods, services and housing, and public meetings and public events The currently applicable ban on discrimination in these areas of society targets anyone who provide goods, services and housing to the public, outside the private and family sphere, and anyone who organises a meeting or event that is open to the public. Our survey has shown that there are a large number of age restrictions in these areas. In some cases these are rooted in legislation; in some other cases they are based on regulations, guidelines or recommendations from industry organisations; in other cases it is the person providing the good, service or housing or organising a meeting or event that is open to the public who has decided to impose age restrictions. To increase protection against age discrimination in these areas, we propose that age be subject to the same basic protection as other grounds of discrimination. We therefore propose that the current ban on discrimination be expanded to also cover discrimination linked to age. However, many age restrictions are highly legitimate. This applies, for example, to the ban on young people under 18 and 20 years of age purchasing tobacco and alcohol respectively. To avoid such legitimate age considerations being affected by the ban that we propose, the ban should contain exemptions. We consider that the exemption should take the same form as the current general exemption for age in the Discrimination Act, i.e. the ban does not prevent differential treatment on grounds of age if it has a legitimate purpose and the means that are used are appropriate and necessary to achieve that purpose. The key point for its application should be that the purposes identified must, in themselves, be worth protecting and must be sufficiently important to justify them taking precedence over the principle of non-discrimination. Furthermore, the measures must be both appropriate and necessary to achieving the desired purpose. If another, less far-reaching alternative is available to achieve an acceptable purpose, or if differential treatment on grounds of age could even be avoided, the action in principle constitutes discrimination in contravention of legislation. Among the age restrictions that are regulated in law, we have not found any that we consider would not be covered by the proposed exemption. There are many other age restrictions that we consider to be legitimate and covered by the general exemption, while we found grounds to question some others from a discrimination perspective. We consider that discounts for young people and older people on goods and services are normally covered by the general exemption. In our view, such discounts do not, therefore, contravene the proposed ban on age discrimination. restrictions to gain access to a certain good or service often have a legitimate purpose and can also be considered to be covered by the proposed exemption. restrictions for access to restaurants, other entertainment premises, camp sites, etc. that exclude certain age groups over the age of 18 irrespective of the maturity or behaviour of the individual are generally questionable. However, it cannot be ruled out that there may be legitimate grounds for such restrictions in certain individual cases. We consider higher age limits motivated solely by commercial considerations to be dubious. It should be possible to tailor activities to certain groups of using methods other than applying age restrictions, e.g. through dress codes, choice of music and environment. In the case of housing, we consider that the provision of special housing for young people and older people, e.g. senior and youth housing, should be covered by the general exemption that we propose. Both young people and older people encounter difficulties in the housing market and various measures are being undertaken to improve their housing situation; this must be considered commendable, and the application of age restrictions for this purpose both appropriate and necessary. One example of age restrictions that we have found cause to question is those that forbid older people who have reached a certain age, e.g. 72 or 75, from moving into senior housing. We do not consider that a person being denied the right to move into housing intended for older people simply because they have reached a certain age is compatible with the principle of antidiscrimination. In the case of insurance services, we consider that differential treatment on grounds of age whereby correct and relevant technical and statistical data is used to calculate, for example, premiums and payments, should be permitted. The conditions for justified differential treatment should in future be governed by a special exemption . However, the introduction of such a in the Discrimination Act should await the outcome of the ongoing work at European level and preparations in the Government Offices on the issue of an equivalent exemption with regard to gender. We therefore propose that the provision of insurance services be exempted until further notice from the ban on age discrimination in the matter of goods, services and housing. The area health and care also covers other activities. This includes measures covered by the Abortion Act, the Genetic Integrity Act and the Act on the Circumcision of Boys, for example. The regulations contained in the Health and Act state that health and care is to be needs-driven. It is not permitted to allow a persons care needs to be given a lower priority on grounds of age. This does not, however, prevent age being taken into consideration in certain cases in health and care. In order to increase protection against age discrimination, we consider that the ban on discrimination in matters relating to health and care and other activities should be expanded to also include a ban on age discrimination. In our survey we have found that there are a number of age restrictions in activities in this area. These include both some that are specified in legislation and others that are applied in practice but are not regulated in law. Many age restrictions are used for legitimate purposes that are worth protecting. Restrictions meaning that a person must have reached a certain age in order to take particularly important decisions are an example of this. Another example is age restrictions that are set to avoid injury or to encourage certain behaviour that is considered important. Since a ban on age discrimination would also affect the kind of age considerations which must be considered legitimate, the ban we propose should be combined with an exemption. This should take the same form as the current general exemption for age in the Discrimination Act, i.e. the ban does not prevent differential treatment on grounds of age if it has a legitimate purpose and the means that are used are appropriate and necessary to achieve that purpose. The key point for its application in this area should also be that the purposes identified must, in themselves, be worth protecting and must be sufficiently important to justify them taking precedence over the principle of non-discrimination. Furthermore, the measures must be both appropriate and necessary to achieving the desired purpose. If another, less far-reaching alternative is available to achieve an acceptable purpose, or if differential treatment on grounds of age could even be avoided, the action in principle constitutes discrimination in contravention of legislation. The area of social services covers not only general social service activities, but also support in the form of special transport services and national special transport services and housing adaptation allowances. General social service activities include activities covered by the Act, the Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act and the Care of (Special Provisions) Act. They also include certain other activities, such as those covered by legislation on support and service for persons with certain functional impairments. Our survey shows that age can be significant in activities in the area of social services. In certain cases legal provisions dictate that age must be considered. In other cases, age-related considerations may be based on municipal guidelines for the fulfilment of municipal obligations. We propose that the ban on discrimination in this area be expanded to also include a ban on discrimination linked to age. Social services – like health and care – are supposed to be needs-driven. Considerations of age must nonetheless often be deemed justified, among other things in light of the fact that the need for protection, support and care generally differs depending on age. To ensure that legitimate differential treatment on grounds of age does not conflict with the ban on age discrimination that we propose, the ban should contain an exemption. This should have the same general wording as previously proposed, i.e. the ban does not prevent differential treatment on grounds of age if it has a legitimate purpose and the means that are used are appropriate and necessary to achieve that purpose. We do not consider any more specific description of what can be considered legitimate to be appropriate. However, the key point should be that the purpose must be worth protecting in itself and sufficiently important to justify a deviation from the principle of equal treatment. Measures taken, such as the use of age criteria, must also be appropriate and necessary to achieve that purpose. When reviewing age restrictions in this area of society, we have not found any that we consider would not be covered by the general exemption proposed. The area of social insurance primarily covers the benefits contained in the Act. These include parental benefit, sickness or activity compensation, child allowance, housing allowance, assistance allowance and car allowance for persons with functional impairments. We propose that the ban on discrimination in the area of social insurance be expanded to include a ban on discrimination linked to age. Our survey shows that this area is widely governed by statute and contains a large number of age-related provisions. Many of the age restrictions aim to delimit various benefits within the social insurance system both from each other and from other systems, e.g. financial support for students. restrictions of this kind cannot usually be considered discriminatory. To avoid such justified age considerations being affected by the ban on age discrimination that we propose, the ban should contain an exemption. This should have the same general wording as is already contained in the Discrimination Act and as previously proposed, i.e. the ban does not prevent differential treatment on grounds of age if it has a legitimate purpose and the means that are used are appropriate and necessary to achieve that purpose. The two age-related provisions that we have found cause to question from a discrimination perspective are the age restrictions on eligibility for persons with functional impairments to receive a car allowance. The first establishes that individuals with no ties to the labour market have a right to such an allowance up to the age of 50. The other concerns individuals who need a car in order to work. In this case there is an upper age limit of 65, despite the fact that the right to remain in employment applies up to the age of 67. Several inquiries have called attention to this problem, but also observed that the financial means to change the rules are lacking. We are doubtful as to whether the current age restrictions are covered by the general exemption proposed. In order to eliminate uncertainty as to whether it is possible to apply the current age restrictions for car allowances following the introduction of a ban on age discrimination, we consider that an explicit, unconditional exemption is required. We therefore propose that an exemption be introduced making it explicitly clear that the ban on age discrimination does not prevent the application of age restrictions on the right to car allowances. The area of unemployment insurance is widely governed by statute. As well as provisions concerning unemployment insurance, it also covers the unemployment insurance funds handling of issues to do with insurance. We propose that the ban on discrimination in the area of unemployment insurance be expanded to include a ban on discrimination linked to age. To avoid age considerations that can be deemed legitimate being affected by the ban that we propose, the ban should be combined with an exemption. Our survey in this area has shown that the age restrictions that exist – for example concerning entitlement to insurance compensation or membership of a unemployment insurance fund – must be considered justified as they have a legitimate purpose and are both appropriate and necessary to achieve that purpose. We therefore consider that the exemption in this area should have the same general wording as the exemption already found in the Discrimination Act and as previously proposed for other areas. Financial support for students The area of financial support for students is also widely governed by statute. It primarily covers regulations concerning upper secondary student aid and post-secondary study support. We propose that the ban on discrimination in the area of financial support for students be expanded to include discrimination on grounds of age. Our survey has shown that there are a number of age-related provisions in this area that are significant, for example in terms of eligibility to receive various forms of financial support for studies, how student loans are to be repaid, etc. To avoid age considerations that can be deemed legitimate being affected by the ban that we propose, the ban should be combined with a general exemption. This should have the same wording as previously proposed. The ban on discrimination in the area of public employment generally targets how government or municipal authorities act and deal with the public or individuals. We consider it obvious that protection from discrimination in this area should also include age, and we therefore propose that the scope be broadened accordingly. We do not consider that there can be any reasonable grounds for the ban to contain any exemptions. As such, the ban on age discrimination that we propose should be absolute. Our proposal will be of significance for any individual currently at risk of age discrimination. Furthermore, and no less importantly, it will hopefully contribute to changing attitudes to age-related issues in the longer term. It will no longer be possible to routinely use age restrictions as a basis for various positions in the areas concerned. Unwarranted differential treatment will thereby be reduced by the new ban. The proposal will affect both public and private sector actors in the various areas, but it does not lay down any new obligations or requirements for actors to take certain measures: rather they must simply refrain from acting in any way that discriminates on grounds of age. It can be assumed that the financial consequences of the proposal will be limited. The increased workload it will entail for the Office of the Equality Ombudsman and the courts is not estimated to exceed what can be dealt with within the framework of existing resources. Lagen (1962:381) om allmän försäkring Lagen (1997:238) om arbetslöshetsförsäkring Departementsserien av offentliga utredningar Europeiska unionens domstol/Europeiska Fördraget om Europeiska unionen Hälso- och sjukvårdslagen (1982:763) Lagen (1976:380) om arbetsskadeförsäkring Lagen (1997:239) om arbetslöshetskassor Lissabonfördraget om ändring av fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen Lagen (1994:137) om mottagande av asylsök- Lagen (1993:387) om stöd och service till vissa Lagen (1990:52) med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga Lagen (1998:531) om yrkesverksamhet på hälso- och sjukvårdens område Socialtjänstlagen (2001:453) lag om ändring i diskrimineringslagen (2008:567) Härigenom föreskrivs att 2 kap. 12–14 och 17 §§ diskrimineringslagen (2008:567) ska ha följande lydelse. 12 § Diskriminering är förbjuden för den som 1.utanför privat- och familjelivet tillhandahåller varor, tjänster eller bostäder till allmänheten, eller 2.anordnar en allmän sammankomst eller en offentlig tillställning. Den som i förhållande till allmänheten företräder den som avses iförsta stycket ska likställas med denne. Förbudet gäller dock inte diskriminering som har samband med ålder. Förbudet mot diskriminering som har samband med kön gäller inte tillhandahållande av försäkringstjänster och hindrar inte heller att kvinnor och män i fråga om andra tjänster eller bostäder behandlas olika, om det har ett berättigat syfte och de medel som används är lämpliga och nödvändiga för att uppnå syftet. Förbudet mot diskriminering som har samband med kön eller ålder gäller inte tillhandahållande av försäkringstjänster och hindrar inte heller 1.att kvinnor och män i fråga om andra tjänster eller bostäder behandlas olika, om det har ett berättigat syfte och de medel som används är lämpliga och nödvändiga för att uppnå syftet, eller 2.annan särbehandling på grund av ålder, om den har ett berättigat syfte och de medel som används är lämpliga och nöd- Förbudet mot diskriminering som har samband med kön i fråga om socialförsäkringen och anslutande bidragssystem hindrar inte tillämpning av bestämmelser om änkepension, hustrutillägg eller utbetalning av barnbidrag.Förbudet mot diskriminering som har samband med ålder i fråga om socialförsäkringen och anslut- vändiga för att uppnå syftet. 13 § Diskriminering är förbjuden i fråga om 1.hälso- och sjukvård och annan medicinsk verksamhet, och 2.verksamhet inom samt stöd i form av färdtjänst och riksfärdtjänst och bostadsanpassningsbidrag. Förbuden gäller dock inte diskriminering som har samband med ålder. Förbuden som gäller hälso- och sjukvård och annan medicinsk verksamhet eller verksamhet inom hindrar inte att kvinnor och män behandlas olika, om det har ett berättigat syfte och de medel som används är lämpliga och nödvändiga för att uppnå syftet. Förbuden hindrar inte heller särbehandling på grund av ålder, om den har ett berättigat syfte och de medel som används är lämpliga och nödvändiga för att uppnå syftet. 14 § Diskriminering är förbjuden i fråga om 1.socialförsäkringen och anslutande bidragssystem, Förbuden gäller dock inte diskriminering som har samband med ålder. Förbudet mot diskriminering som har samband med kön i fråga om socialförsäkringen och anslutande bidragssystem hindrar inte heller tillämpning av bestämmelser om änkepension, hustrutillägg eller utbetalning av barnbidrag. ande bidragssystem hindrar inte tillämpning av bestämmelser om bilstöd. Förbuden hindrar inte heller annan särbehandling på grund av ålder, om den har ett berättigat syfte och de medel som används är lämpliga och nödvändiga för att uppnå syftet. Diskriminering är förbjuden även i andra fall än som avses i 5 eller 9–15 §§ när den som helt eller delvis omfattas av lagen (1994:260) om offentlig anställning 1.bistår allmänheten med upplysningar, vägledning, råd eller annan sådan hjälp, eller 2.på annat sätt i anställningen har kontakter med allmänheten. Förbudet gäller dock inte dis- kriminering som har samband med ålder. 1.Denna lag träder i kraft . 2.Äldre föreskrifter gäller fortfarande i fråga om diskriminering som ägt rum före ikraftträdandet. 1Utredningens uppdrag och arbete Vårt uppdrag är enligt våra direktiv att föreslå hur ett skydd mot diskriminering på grund av ålder ska införas på de samhällsområden – utom värnplikt och civilplikt – som saknar ett sådant skydd i diskrimineringslagen (2008:567). Dessa områden är varor, tjänster och bostäder, allmän sammankomst och offentlig tillställning, hälso- och sjukvården, , socialförsäkringen, arbetslöshetsförsäkringen, studiestöd och offentlig anställning. Syftet med utredningen är att säkerställa samma nivå av skydd mot diskriminering oavsett diskrimineringsgrund. Mot bakgrund av att det kan finnas fullt godtagbara skäl till att personer behandlas olika beroende på ålder ingår i vårt uppdrag att kartlägga vilka åldersgränser som tillämpas inom de olika samhällsområdena och analysera om och i vilka avseenden som undantag från ett förbud behövs. I uppdraget ingår vidare att följa den fortsatta beredningen av Europeiska kommissionens förslag till nytt direktiv mot diskriminering på grund av religion eller övertygelse, funktionshinder, ålder, eller sexuell läggning. Vi ska också ta tillvara erfarenheter från vissa andra länder där ett förbud mot diskriminering på grund av ålder inom de aktuella samhällsområdena regleras. För den närmare utformningen av uppdraget hänvisas till utredningens direktiv, vilka är fogade till betänkandet som bilaga 1. Utredningens uppdrag och arbete Utredningen påbörjade sitt arbete och har haft sju sammanträden som experterna deltagit i. För att få del av erfarenheter och synpunkter av betydelse för uppdraget har den särskilda utredaren och sekreteraren sammanträffat med olika företrädare för myndigheter och organisationer såsom (), ledamöter i ,1 Seniorkraft, DHR – samhälle utan rörelsehinder och LSU – för Ungdomsorganisationer. Den särskilda utredaren och sekreteraren har också haft ett möte med och i samband därmed sammanträffat med representanter för olika försäkringsbolag. Vidare har sekreteraren deltagit i ett juridiskt seminarium om antidiskriminering i samt medverkat i ett seminarium om åldersdiskriminering i samband med 2009. Sekreteraren har också träffat företrädare för Kommuner och Landsting och sekretariatet för Utredningen om aktiva åtgärder inom diskrimineringsområdet (IJ 2008:05). Underlaget till betänkandet har samlats in på flera sätt. Bland annat har studier gjorts av relevant lagstiftning jämte förarbeten samt innehåll i propositioner och betänkanden som ännu inte lett till lagstiftning liksom av föreskrifter och allmänna råd. Information om innehållet i utländsk rätt har erhållits bl.a. från företrädare för berört departement i respektive land.