The equality landmines that Labour have left the coalition

Chris lancashire

I cannot understand why the Coalition does not use this honeymoon period to rid itself of the more ridiculous pieces of New Labour legislation. Top of the list is Harman's stupidity followed closely by remedying all of the abuses caused by the Human Rights legislation.
Do it soon or wait and suffer Blair's fate of achieving nothing

Carroll Barry-Walsh

"In other words, if anyone can argue that the government's measures might hit, say, women disproportionately, then they can put them up for judicial review."

Presumably, then you could also judicially review on the basis that the policies disproportionately burden men. After all, they too deserve equality, no?

This just shows how idiotic and harmful the creations of these "rights" are - a subject Dominic Raab MP has written about. Best to get rid of this legislation, whatever the howls and all the associated civil servants, advisors and co-ordinators.

Not only can governments not create equality. They should not do so. That way lies equality of misery and the sort of state intervention last seen in Communist Russia.

Neil staton

I dont see how it can be the case. There are set rules on employing people on an equal basis in the first place. Any change of rules will affect a body as a whole irrespective of its individual workers. If they made some new law about premiership football "men" could'nt claim discrimination on the grounds that only men play in the premiership, its 'men only' because women are shite at football. It wouldnt be not deliberate discrimination.

Although I do agree with the general gist of the piece, in that the Labour party were a bunch of useless, bitter, tossers!

Chelsea Uhuru Zi'ppy

What happened to the notion of The Grand Repeal Act? Simply cancel every single piece of legislation that the socialist seeped into our formerly robust constitution?

Any other Conservative (yes, irony intended)prime minister would have done it on Day One. But Dave has bought into this commie crapola. I hated him the minute I saw his smug, vapid, greedy little face.

Dave B

I thought the 'pay gap' wasn't between women and men, but 'women with children', and everyone else?

Mark Cannon

This is a real piece of nonsense. Under sections 75A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1995 (as inserted by the Equality Act 2006) public bodies (including the Treasury) shall in carrying out their
functions have due regard to the need "to eliminate unlawful discrimination and harassment" and to "promote equality of opportunity between men and women".

This is supported by a Code of Conduct issued under s.76B (another insertion made by the Equality Act).

But the complaint of the Fawcett Society is that the budget proposals hit women harder than men. This has NOTHING to do with either unlawful discrimination or harassment or promotion of equality of opportunity between men and women. It is just a bit of mischief making by the Fawcett Society and some "right on" barristers at Matrix Chambers.

As Stephanie Flanders has explained at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/08/spreading_the_budget_pain.html there is not even much in the point that the budget will hit women harder than men.

Anyway, the short answer to the silly claim is that the Houses of Parliament are not subject to s.75A and they have passed the Finance Act (No. 2) 2010 which is NOT, repeat NOT, subject to legal scrutiny.

So I expect (and hope) that the Fawcett Society will have to bear their own costs and pay those of the taxpayer for their silly self-indulgence.

alexsandr

This got an airing on womans hour yesterday (Tuesday 4 August). I am sure it is on Labours radar so they can cause mischief. Get this rubbish repealed pronto. We elected this gov to sort the defecit.

Tom

Does that mean that the army could challenge cuts given that they would disproportionately affect men?

Simon Orr

Dave B:
A report by a statistician who understood such taxing A-level concepts such as causation and multi-variable complexity, which eludes most social researchers, found that similarly educated single women in America earned more than single men. Perhaps this isn't yet completely the case in the UK (but I see no reason why it would be significantly different) but given that the education system in the UK already favours women then eliminating the pay gap means eliminating any sense of gender roles in family in society.

Neil Turner

Rip it up and start again

Or is something the NewTories actually favour ? Yet more evidence methinks that Cameron is NewLab in Tory clothes

Will the real Conservative Party please stand up

Raffles

What nonsense. If there are more women in the public sector then following Harperson's absurd logic the public sector is already discriminating against men so should be getting sued already.

Dennis Churchill

The Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker has more or less demolished the idea that in Free Economies discrimination on the grounds of race or sex could exist for long. Failure to hire the best people simply puts companies out of business.
But this legislation is not about “Opportunities” but Outcomes.
The only way equal numbers of men and women will be employed in every sector and level of the economy is with quotas. These quota need to ignore ability in order to be achieved.
Meanwhile in Asia...

gordon-bennett

Slightly off topic but I see that in the US there is some protest against a tax on tanning goods and services on the grounds that it is racial discrimination because only whites would be liable to pay!

JohnAnt

Then abolish the equality legislation, now, quickly.
And what is 'equality' anyway? If women are highly over-represented in the public sector, just how fair is that? Men didn't get shoved off the appointments list by accident.

JohnAnt

Their slogan ought to be 'Matrix Chambers - Living Off the Taxpayer Since 1997.'
Er, allegedly.

In2minds

Equality issues - I'm still waiting for Christian prayer rooms in government buildings.

Commentator

The Fawcett Society doesn't believe in equality for women. It does believe in active discrimination against men.

Ian Walker

So order a pre-emptive judicial review to come up with a process that is fair within the law, and then stick to the process?

Or is that too simples.

TomTom

This is fascinating because the Equalities legislation is actually EU Directives pushed through under the Single Market Employment responsibilities of the EU Directorate.

If the Employment Directives as pertaining to Equality of Access to Employment are now used to block UK Budgets it will give The High Court a power not accorded to The House of Lords since 1911.

It would be interesting if the issue that put Lloyd George on a collision course withy The Upper House and the King were now to put the Commons on a collision course with the EU Commission and its proxies in The High Court since the Equalities legislation may be UK legislation but it is only the local representation of EU Directives.

Thus the EU has control over UK Budgets by the usual circuitous route

Irene

I would be more concerned with the amount of leaks that are coming out.

denis cooper

Mark Cannon @ 2:55 pm -

If you're right then the Fawcett Society will be given short shrift and there will be no judicial review.

However, surely it could be argued that if an Act of Parliament sets a condition for the passage of all future Acts of Parliament then a new Act which is passed without fulfilling that condition has not been properly passed and is invalid, unless the condition imposed by the previous Act has been expressly disapplied in the new Act at least for the purpose of its own passage.

To offer an example which has now become more familiar, Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_2

directly relates to "Parliamentary procedure", setting a new condition for the passage of all subsequent Acts:

"(1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill -

(a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights (“a statement of compatibility”); or

(b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.

(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate."

So presumably a court could rule that a subsequent law had not been properly enacted, if the Minister had failed to make any such statement before the Bill was passed?

And presumably such a human rights statement was provided for the Finance Bill, without which it would not have been properly enacted?

As far as I understand without knowing the exact legal background, the Fawcett Society argues that through some other previous Act the Treasury was also under a statutory duty to provide MPs with some kind of gender impact assessment before they voted on the Finance Bill, and as the Treasury failed to do that it is arguable that the Finance Act was not passed according to the required parliamentary procedure.

The Laughing Cavalier

Never mind asking ourselves which laws to repeal, what we should do is start from the premise that nearly all of them need to go and that it is easier just to pick out what needs to remain, Simples. Anything sponsored by the Mad Hattie should not be allowed to remain on the statute book.

Mark Cannon

Dennis Cooper,

There are two points.

First the budget had nothing to do with unlawful discrimination/harassment or not promoting gender equality. So there was no need for an impact assessment (which is not compulsory in order to comply with the statutory duty).

Second, both Houses of Parliment are expressly exempt from the statutory duty. They have passed the Finance Act (No 2) 2010, not the Treasury. If effect is to be given to the exemption (and to the Bill of Rights) then the courts will have nothing to do with the application for judicial review.

David Bouvier

Anyway, the obligation was due consideration. What is required is some boiler plate bureaucracy which identifies the obligations, places them in the context of the urgent requirement to (a) ensure sustainable public finances, a failure of which would have untold consequences for lots of vulernable people and (b) ensure that education is improved so that families and the economy have a better future, a failure of which would have poor results for ltos of vulnerable people ... etc etc, topped off with a thoughtful cabinent decision that the main planks of the coalition policies are all clearly massively in the interests of women, minorities etc.

So long as there is plenty of process showing that consideration has been given, the test is passed. The courts will not get into the question of the conclusions of the consideration.

But of course, the principle should be that the government should give due consideration to do what is best for all the people the country as a national collectively. Judicial review should be limited to cases wherer there is evidence malice in the use of public powers.

Dennis Churchill

TomTom
But have we Gold Plated the Directive as we usually do?

Streeter

Repeal it.

Cjamesk

Just scrap it, it should be based on ability not ability to tick a certain box.
The worlds gone mad.

Tarka the Rotter

Landmines can be defused. This government needs to sweep away the thirteen years of repressive legislation imposed by the last lot - we should keep laws down to a minimum and reassert the liberties of the individual. We should also have a law which says any political party or individual who seeks to undermine, diminish or remove the liberties of the individual should be subject to prosecution (and in the case of political parties, abolition)

Marcher Baron

When are we going to get this Great Repeal Act? It's long overdue. All this equality/diversity rubbish should be binned asap and replaced with "best person for the job irrespective of race, gender, etc."

informer

Well, if Theresa 'out of my depth' May hadnt promised to implement batty hatties equality act it wouldnt be a problem.

The woman is utterly useless.

Charles

I thought that it was a basic principle that one Parliament could not bind its successors.

If so, then surely any legislative programme (including the Budget) that has been properly approved can't be challenged under judicial review unless it conflicts with a body that Parliament has deemed is superior (e.g. ECJ in certain aspects) or in other technical situations such as malfeasance.

That said, the easiest way would be to include a simple clause in any new legislation: "Parliament has considered clause XYZ of the Act ABC and has decided that it shall be disapplied for the purposes of this legislation"

TGF UKIP

Chris lancashire says: "I cannot understand why the Coalition does not use this honeymoon period to rid itself of the more ridiculous pieces of New Labour legislation"

Simple Chris, because Cameron is scared shitless of any semblance of an argument with the Guardian/BBC/Independent classes. Most of all he is terrified of actually appearing to be a member of the Conservative Party.

informer at 9.01 pm is bang on. the clearest indication of what this LibDem government was going to be like was when May indicated some weeks ago that she would be implementing Harperson's Equality Act.

Must make all you daft buggers who voted for the Cameron gang feel really thrilled eh!

PS Not thinking of jumping ship to Spare Rib are you Pete?

Jean Monnet

"We call on the UK Government to make the necessary changes to its anti-discrimination legislation as soon as possible so as to fully comply with the EU rules. In this context, we welcome the proposed Equality Bill and hope that it will come into force quickly," said the man from the EU (November 2009).

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1778&type=HTML

TomTom 4.22pm is on the money.

Andrew Cadman

Yet another depressingly wimpy article from a Metropolitan male journalist who should know better.

the gender pay gap is only 'depressingly large' if that gap is due to discrimination. Broadly speaking it is not for the following reasons.

1. Firstly women tend to slow down their careers when they start a family, whereas men often focus more strongly on work.

2. Men and women tend to view work very differently. For men, its primary purpose is to provide income, whereas women tend to rate job satisfaction much more highly to pay.

Jobs which are vocational tend to pay less, other things being equal, than jobs which people would prefer not to do, for the very obvious reason that you have to offer a greater financial incentive. What is never pointed out by the gender warriors is that most surveys show a substantial 'gender satisfaction gap' with women considerably more contented in their jobs than men. Should men complain? No - and by and large we don't.

Of course it takes women like Ruth Lea or Melanie Phillips to point this out. Most metropolitan male journalists probably know teh truth but quite frankly lack the balls.

denis cooper

Charles @ 11:34 pm -

That is still a basic principle, but in the "Metric Martyrs" case Lord Justice Laws laid down that where a later "ordinary" Act was found to be conflict with an earlier "constitutional" Act the courts should normally assume that Parliament hadn't intended to over-ride the earlier "constitutional" Act, and so should give it priority, unless the later Act had explicitly stated that it was to apply despite the earlier "constitutional" Act.

So an "ordinary" Act is still susceptible to "implied" repeal by a later Act, but in the case of a "constitutional" Act the later repeal must be "express".

Wikipedia has a description of the case, not authoritative of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_Sunderland_City_Council

Lord Justice Laws included the Human Rights Act 1998 within his new category of "constitutional" statutes. Through Section 19 of that Act Parliament decreed that henceforth every government Bill must be accompanied by a human rights statement from the responsible minister, as part of its own Parliamentary procedure. It follows that unless a subsequent Act expressly dispensed with the need for such a statement then in its absence the passage of the Bill would be technically flawed, and so the Act would be open to legal challenge.

It seems to me that the Fawcett Society may be attempting to elevate the 1995 Sex Discrimination Act and the 2006 and 2010 Equality Acts to the status of "constitutional" statutes, alongside the others cited by Lord Justice Laws -Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the European Communities Act 1972 etc.

denis cooper

Mark Cannon @ 5:14 pm -

Taking your second point first, that "both Houses of Parliament are expressly exempt from the statutory duty", I find that Section 6 of the Human Rights Act has a similar provision:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_1#pb3-l1g6

"(3) In this section “public authority” includes -

(a) a court or tribunal, and

(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,

But does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament."

However that doesn't mean that Parliament can casually disregard its own procedure for passing a Bill as conditioned by Section 19, which requires every government Bill to be accompanied by a human rights statement.

On your first point, on the face of it the Finance Act also has nothing to do with human rights, but nonetheless like every other government Bill the Finance Bill will have been accompanied by a human rights statement.

denis cooper

Regarding the EU origin of the legislation, if the 2010 Equality Act was indeed passed to fulfill EU requirements then that must increase the chance that the judges will decide that it should be elevated to the status of a "constitutional" statute alongside the European Communities Act 1972 and subsequent Acts amending the 1972 Act, and I suppose they may even give an unexpectedly wide interpretation of its provisions to ensure compliance with EU law.

MikeF

Labour's 'equality' legislation is not about equality any more than its view of 'diversity' is about diversity. It is about preference, factionalism and enforced conformity. If it gets in the way of sensible reform, whether in the field of economics or social policy, then junk it.

Ken

Repeal all of Labour's 13 years of legislative excess without exception.

Anything which has Hattie Hateperson's fingerprints on it should be shredded immediately -- and the shredder burnt in the name of decontamination.

The Great Repeal Act is surely a job done in a day. Nothing of worth has been left by the last government. "Out damned spots."

Simon Too

"This is not to dismiss the equality agenda out of hand." Why on earth not?

Nicholas

Do we have to have that advert for that smug, anti-Tory, anti-Thatcher, leftist bastard Sergeant at the top of the page? That wanker (and his drag artist alter ego Jo Brand) personifies everything I detest about New Labour and its BBC chums.

Alexander Henshaw

I can't help but noticing most of the commments appear to be from men.

BBear

Of course most of the comments are from men, we are the ones who are going to get properly shafted by this legislation.

Perhaps the best thing is for the Fawcett society to bring their claim, at which point it is shot down in flames. Good evidence supporting the repeal of an unworkable piece of legislation.