• Home
  • Subscribe
  • Case table
  • About
  • Topics
    • Legal topics
      • Children
      • Criminal
      • Employment
      • Environment
      • European
      • Freedom of Information
      • Immigration/Extradition
      • Inquests and Inquiries
      • Family
      • International
      • Media
      • Medical
      • Mental Health
      • Politics / Public Order
      • Prisons
      • Religion
      • Terrorism
    • Introduction to Human Rights
    • Article 2
    • Article 3
    • Article 4
    • Article 5
    • Article 6
    • Article 7
    • Article 8
    • Article 9
    • Article 10
    • Article 11
    • Article 12
    • Article 13
    • Article 14
    • Protocol 1 Article 1
    • Protocol 1 Article 3
    • Protocol 2 Article 1
  • Archive
  • Contact

UK Human Rights Blog

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Muslim area CCTV cameras to be covered by plastic bags [updated]
Bloody Sunday report to have a chilling effect on future inquiries? »

Major new equality laws under threat from new government

June 18, 2010 by Adam Wagner

The Equality Act 2010 may be a quiet addition to the Coalition Government’s repealing agenda as the Government Equality Office (GEO) withdraws the timetable for its implementation.

According to Out-law.com, a spokesperson from the GEO said “An announcement on scheduling for implementation of the Equality Act will be made in due course” and also confirmed that the new Government is not bound by the timetable set by its predecessor.

The Equality Act 2010 was passed into law on in the dying days of the New Labour government despite opposition of from the Pope, who complained that it would run contrary to “natural law” due to its likely effect on Catholic adoption agencies. The Conservatives may have more luck, however, in thwarting the Act’s implementation and in particular three aspects of it which they are opposed to. Some of the main provisions were supposed to come into force in October, but this now appears to have been put on hold. The original timetable can be accessed here.

As Out-law.com reports, the larger Coalition partner was opposed pre-election to three aspects of the Act:

  1. Positive discrimination when hiring: A provision that when hiring, companies could discriminate in favour of people from under-represented groups such as women, ethnic minorities or disabled people, but only if candidates were equally well qualified.
  2. Compulsory Equal pay reporting: A requirement that companies report the gap between the amount they pay women and the amount they pay men. In their manifesto the Conservatives said that they would only force equal pay audits on any company “who loses an employment tribunal case on grounds of gender pay discrimination.”
  3. Soci0-economic resource allocation: A provision forcing public authorities to take socio-economic factors into account when allocating their resources.

This is not to say that the Act will be repealed entirely. Rather, the Conservatives are likely to fulfil their pre-election pledges, probably simply by delaying implementation of the less favoured sections of the Act indefinitely.

Equality is at least to some extent on the new government’s agenda, although the clear focus in terms of business and jobs is to support and create rather than to hinder employers with expensive new laws.

The Conservatives pledged in the equalities section of their manifesto to “take action to close the gender pay gap, get more women onto boards of public companies and set up mentoring schemes for female and ethnic minority entrepreneurs to help them succeed in business.” This was reflected in the Equalities section of the Program for Government, where the parties pledged to “promote equal pay and take a range of measures to end discrimination in the workplace.” Nick Clegg, however, said last year that he considered the Autumn 2010 timetable for implementation may delay the economic recovery.

The Equality Act 2010 received royal assent on 8 April 2010. Its aim was to consolidate what until now has been a messy jigsaw of 116 pieces of legislation, and further harmonise UK law with the four key EU Equal Treatment Directives.

The prospects for the Act, or at least certain sections of it, is now in doubt. More importantly, it is also unclear how the balancing act between the coalition partners will ultimately affect equality reform in the coming five years.

Rate this:

Share:

  • Email
  • Digg

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Posted in Employment, In the news | Tagged Coalition Government, Equality Act 2010 |

  • Welcome!

    UK Human Rights Blog is written by members of 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscription is free.

    Editorial Team

    • Adam Wagner
    • Rosalind English
    • Angus McCullough QC

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 10,250 other followers

  • Browse by legal topic

  • RSS Recommended

    • Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) May 30, 2012
      Supreme Court rules by 5-2 majority that Julian Assange must be extradited to Sweden. Definition of "judicial authority" is a wide one.
    • Supreme Court judgment: Assange v Swedish Judicial Authority - Carl Gardner May 30, 2012
    • Julian Assange's extradition stayed thanks to quick legal footwork | Joshua Rozenberg | Law | guardian.co.uk May 30, 2012
    • New Judgment: Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority [2012] UKSC 22 May 30, 2012
    • What if Julian Assange loses in the Supreme Court? May 29, 2012
    • Secret justice concessions won't silence its critics | The Spectator May 29, 2012
    • ICLR's case summaries are now on Guardian Law | Daniel Hoadley | Law | guardian.co.uk May 29, 2012
    • The High Court is unable to agree on Twitter Joke Trial appeal - David Allen Green May 28, 2012
  • RSS Case law

    • Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) May 30, 2012
      Supreme Court rules by 5-2 majority that Julian Assange must be extradited to Sweden. Definition of "judicial authority" is a wide one.
    • SCOPPOLA v. ITALY (No. 3) - 126/05 [2012] ECHR 868 (22 May 2012) May 23, 2012
      ECtHR Grand Chamber: automatic and indiscriminate disenfranchisement of prisoners unlawful but up to individual states how to implement changes were such a ban exist
    • Dishonesty in entry clearance applications May 21, 2012
      An Upper Tribunal (UT) decision confirms that, where an application for entry clearance is “marred by dishonesty” – whether in the applicant’s knowledge or not and even where the applicant is presently eligible for entry – it is not a disproportionate response for the Home Secretary to refuse the application, even in light of Article 8
    • MM and AO (A Child), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 668 (18 May 2012) May 18, 2012
      Secretary of State acted lawfully in not ordering independent inquiry into 2009 protest at Immigration Detention Centre. Challenge by children separated from parents during protest and claiming pschiatric damage as result.
    • British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Chelmsford Crown Court [2012] EWHC 1295 (Admin) (17 May 2012) May 17, 2012
      Sky, BBC, ITN etc. succeed in JR of decision by court to order production of 100+ hours of video footage to Essex Police of Dale Farm protesters: "... there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the footage of over 100 hours included material likely to be of substantial value to the investigation"
    • Humphreys v Revenue and Customs [2012] UKSC 18 (16 May 2012) May 16, 2012
      Supreme Court: paying child tax credit to "main" care giver not discriminatory under art.14 ECHR to father caring for child 3 days per week. The specific test for justifying discrimination in the context of state benefits is that with questions of social and economic strategy the Court will generally respect the legislature’s policy choice unless i […]
  • Wikio - Top Blogs - Law
  • UKHRB on Twitter

    • #Assange loses SC appeal 5 votes to 2. Like to be #ECtHR application to block #extradition 4 hours ago
    • #Assange Supreme Court decision imminent bbc.co.uk/news/uk-182594… #extradition 5 hours ago
    • Also fresh on the blog- The Erika: Cour de Cassation has its thinking cap on by David Hart QC ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/the… 5 hours ago
    • Good morning all, @IsabelMcArdle here. Justive and Security Bill- the govt is not for turning by Angela Patrick ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/jus… 5 hours ago
    Follow @ukhumanrightsb
  • Adam Wagner on Twitter

    • RT @simonmckay: Catt v Metropolitan Police. Important case on #protest and #dataretention. Would be surprised if it was not appealed:htt ... 40 minutes ago
    • For anyone who hasn't read it > Justice & Security Bill: Government is not for turning - Angela Patrick of @justicehq: wp.me/pJiO3-3Gc 56 minutes ago
    • RT @CrowtherSimon: Excellent piece by @justicehq's Angela Patrick on Just& Sec Bill on @ukhumanrightsb ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/jus… #secretj ... 57 minutes ago
    • RT @I_am_peevee: @AdamWagner1 @gideonconn "and excellent artist"... 1 hour ago
    • My friend and brilliant musician @GideonConn has a brand new video: youtube.com/watch?v=tX-ZrZ… 1 hour ago
    • Excellent from @joshuarozenerg on the potentially embarrassing mess surrounding the #Assange ruling is.gd/4Qs0h3 1 hour ago
    Follow @adamwagner1
  • RSS Recent posts

    • The Erika: Cour de Cassation has its thinking cap on May 29, 2012 David Hart QC
    • Justice and Security Bill: The Government is not for turning – Angela Patrick May 29, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
    • We need to think about Kevin May 29, 2012 Rosalind English
    • Key Justice and Security Bill resources May 29, 2012 Adam Wagner
    • Free Speech at Work: A 1COR Seminar and Mock Trial – Wed 27th June May 29, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
    • Time and time again: Article 6 to the rescue May 27, 2012 David Hart QC
    • Prisoner voting, Bratza’s replacement and peaceful protest – The Human Rights Roundup May 27, 2012 Wessen Jazrawi
    • The case for letting prisoners vote – Reuven Ziegler May 24, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
  • Links

    • 1 Crown Office Row
    • 1COR Human Rights Update
    • 1COR resources
    • A(nother) Lawyer Writes
    • Ashley Connick's Blog
    • AVMA Blog
    • BAILII
    • Beneath the Wig
    • British Institute of Human Rights
    • Cearta.ie
    • Charon QC
    • David Allen Green
    • ECHR Blog
    • ECHR News
    • Education Law Blog
    • EJIL Talk!
    • eutopia Law
    • Family Lore
    • Free Movement Blog
    • Garrulous Law
    • Guardian Legal Network
    • Halsbury's Law Exchange
    • Head of Legal
    • Human Rights in Ireland
    • Inforrm's Blog
    • Inner Temple Current Awareness
    • Jack of Kent
    • Jailhouse Lawyer's Blog
    • Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants
    • Joshua Rozenberg's Blog
    • Law and Lawyers
    • Law Think
    • Lawbore
    • Lawyer Watch
    • Legal Week Legal Village
    • Meeja Law
    • Mental Health Law Online
    • Nearly Legal
    • Panopticon Blog
    • PHD Studies in Human Rights
    • Pink Tape
    • RightsNI
    • RPC Privacy Blog
    • Strasbourg Observers
    • The Human Rights Blog
    • The Justice Gap
    • The Magistrate's Blog
    • The Pupillage Blog
    • The Small Places
    • The Time Blawg
    • UK Constitutional Law Group blog
    • UK Freedom of Information Blog
    • UK Immigration Law Blog
    • UK Supreme Court Blog
    • Venables legal resources
    • Watching the Law
  • Disclaimer

    This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Theme: Customized MistyLook by Sadish.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.