Equality Act in force today, but ‘socialism’ clause looks doomed

1 October 2010 by

Most of the Equality Act 2010 comes into force today. But whilst 90% of its provisions are now operating, the Act has been controversial and some key aspects may never see the light of day.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission have published a fully featured online guide to the Act, a videoguidance on good practice and an Equality Act starter kit. Afua Hirsch in the Guardian summarises the main provisions here, as does the BBC and the Human Rights in Ireland Blog. The Law Society has produced a practice note for solicitors.

The progress of the Act, which was passed in the last days of the New Labour government, has been somewhat rocky. Its aim was to consolidate what until now has been a messy jigsaw of 116 pieces of legislationand further harmonise UK law with the four key EU Equal Treatment Directives. It is no secret that the Conservative Party were opposed to some of its provisions (see our previous post), including the those forcing public authorities to take socio-economic factors into account when allocating their resources.

The ‘public sector equality duty‘ is one provision which will not come into force today, and may never do so, at least in the form originally intended. Section 1 of the Act imposes a duty on public bodies to “have due regard to the desirability of exercising [their functions] in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage”. Polly Toynbe, a commentator, called thissocialism in one clause“. It could also be seen as the often mooted human right to money. The duty was due to come into force in April 2011.

But, unsurprisingly, the socialism clause is to be effectively scrapped (see our post). The new government has been rapidly distancing itself from the public sector equality duty and, in the introduction to a recently announced consultation on the clause, said that it does not intend to “prescribe how public bodies go about their business“, but rather will put in place a framework that “empowers citizens to scrutinise the data and evidence on how their public services perform.

So the duty has been transferred to the Big Society (that is, the public) ,which will have to do the legwork in order to hold authorities to account on equalities. This will be a blow to equalities campaigners, but public bodies will be relieved to be free of a potentially onerous and time-consuming duty.

Other duties, such as the requirement for big businesses to report on gender pay gaps, are also being reviewed. The Fawcett Society, an equalities campaigning group, have branded the Act “toothless” for omitting this as well as the positive action clause, which allows companies to positively discriminate in recruitment. The society argue that “Watering down equality law in a recession weakens what little protection some of the most marginalised have.” But again, businesses will be relieved at having escaped an extra financial burden.

Teresa May, the minister for women and equality as well as home secretary, puts the government’s case in this editorial. She says that the Act represents a “milestone” in the journey towards equality, but also stresses that “we also need to recognise that changes in the law alone will not be enough – we need to use many different levers to help close the gender pay gap“. In other words, imposing new rules should be only one plank of a larger equalities strategy.

The provisions which are coming into force today are:

  • The basic framework of protection against direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation in services and public functions; premises; work; education; associations, and transport.
  • Changing the definition of gender reassignment, by removing the requirement for medical supervision.
  • Levelling up protection for people discriminated against because they are perceived to have, or are associated with someone who has, a protected characteristic, so providing new protection for people like carers.
  • Clearer protection for breastfeeding mothers;
  • Applying the European definition of indirect discrimination to all protected characteristics.
  • Extending protection from indirect discrimination to disability.
  • Introducing a new concept of “discrimination arising from disability”, to replace protection under previous legislation lost as a result of a legal judgment.
  • Applying the detriment model to victimisation protection (aligning with the approach in employment law).
  • Harmonising the thresholds for the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.
  • Extending protection from 3rd party harassment to all protected characteristics.
  • Making it more difficult for disabled people to be unfairly screened out when applying for jobs, by restricting the circumstances in which employers can ask job applicants questions about disability or health.
  • Allowing claims for direct gender pay discrimination where there is no actual comparator.
  • Making pay secrecy clauses unenforceable.
  • Extending protection in private clubs to sex, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity, and gender reassignment.
  • Introducing new powers for employment tribunals to make recommendations which benefit the wider workforce.
  • Harmonising provisions allowing voluntary positive action.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;


  1. John says:

    OK, there are some good features to the Act but the Equality Act also comes down firmly in favour of the idea that beliefs cannot be challenged in public. This applies to any beliefs, philosophical or religious. It marks the end of the tolerance of open debate in English society. England is now a different place.
    Equality Act 2010 – read it and be afraid

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


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

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

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.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: