So – Tuesday’s two sessions in Bill Committee on the Equality Bill ran about seven hours in two dollops. The key wrangles of the morning were as follows.

The Bill has provisions about discrimination against people on the grounds of disability, but that requires a definition as to at what point something is permanent enough or lasting long enough for these provisions to kick in. Having a broken leg is very different from losing permanent use of your leg for example. The Bill currently uses the phrase ‘long term’ – which means for 12 months or more. If an impairment is long term then an employer has to take reasonable steps to adapt to that.

So the argument around this in terms of employment is around removing the words ‘long term’ because if the impairment is something like depression – it may come and go. The argument went back and forth for some time over whether something was ‘likely’ to reoccur and/or liable to reoccur. The Minister felt they meant exactly the same and brought in dictionary definitions.

However, the Tories agreed with us that the issue of a fluctuating condition was important and they centred their argument specifically on depression. However, the Minister was not having it and indicated that the Government would not accept our amendment. We withdrew our amendment.

Next on the agenda was an amendment from backbench Tory MP Tim Boswell, who has a very good track record on human rights and gender issues and who had supported me in my efforts last week to get the Government to change one of the protected characteristics (those groups that are protected from discrimination under this Bill). Currently this protected characteristic is termed ‘gender reassignment’ in the Bill and we want this changed to ‘gender identity’. The problem is that ‘reassignment’ deals with those who live in another gender to their birth gender and who may or may not have had medical or pharmaceutical input – or those ‘proposing’ to do so. Tim Boswell’s attempt here is to widen the coverage by substituting the word ‘proposing’ with ‘considering’ the process of changing gender or living as another gender. Once again the Minister threw it out arguing until she was blue in the face that the wording in the Bill covered the whole gender spectrum. It doesn’t. She is wrong on this – and I really don’t understand why she sets her face so determinedly against this change which would just broaden the definition to encompass those who have no intention of living in another gender but who perhaps are not identifiably male of female. Nor does it cover those who cross-dress – who are not considering change on any permanent basis. So little is known about this very small group of people – and my fear is that the civil servants and lawyers preparing the Minister’s brief for this simply do not comprehend. It feels as if they can only deal with black and white – whilst the reality is that in terms of those with gender issues about 10% of that group can be classified in terms that the Government wants to give protection to – but the rest will undoubtedly face discrimination, intimidation and humiliation.

One of the other protected characteristics is ‘marriage and civil partnership’. My next amendment was to test why these two types of relationship got the protection of the Bill but cohabiting couples or those who are single are not. If the intention of this characteristic is to stop discrimination on grounds of your relationship status – then why only marriage and civil partnerships? Well the answer from the Minister boiled down to not being able to find any evidence of discrimination against cohabiting couples or singles where there was a little (but not very much) evidence that married couples and civil partnership couples did suffer discrimination.

Then there was the longest wrangle over religion and sexual orientation. It was so long – I can only describe it thus. Basically those of religious faith appear to want to be able to employ people who they think hold their values and beliefs. Obviously it is OK to discriminate in employment if the job is proselytising – i.e. it is obvious that if you are employing a Catholic priest they need to be Catholic. But it shouldn’t be ok to, say, discriminate against a caretaker couple in the same way. Also – it was clear from the argument that there is a suspicion that the religious lobby do not want homosexuals in their employ because they believe that homosexuality – or more accurately gay sex – is wrong. Well – that’s the basic debate!

In the afternoon session I moved an amendment which basically argues that you shouldn’t be confined to one discrimination when taking action. It is possible that someone could be discriminated against racially because they were black and also sexually because they were female. You get the idea. There is often multiple discrimination and people should be able to bring a complaint or claim on multiple grounds. The Government is consulting on this (again – after two years of consulting already) and is minded to allow two protected characteristics but not more. We argued a bit as I felt that it shouldn’t be about business finding it difficult to deal with the complexity of multiple discrimination – but about justice. And if the discrimination was based on any number of issues – so should follow the ability to take action. You shouldn’t be able to get away with discrimination on one ground just because you’re also discriminating on other grounds!

One success of the day was the Government agreeing to our amendment 133, which replaced some really confusing wording around the asymmetry of disability discrimination. I know – it sounds like gobbledygook – but I’ll try. All discrimination law stops us treating people differently because of any of the protected characteristics – race, gender, sexual orientation, age etc. But with disability – it is quite different. The law allows us to treat someone who is disabled more favourably because only by doing so will they achieve equality with others. For example I would provide a ramp for someone in a wheelchair so they could enter a public building. I would thus treat them more favourabley to enable them to have equal access to someone who is able bodied. This is called the asymmetry of disability discrimination. And the Government accepted that the wording in the Bill was confusing.

Our amendment said basically leave out the Government’s wording and substitute with this:
‘If the protected characteristic is disability, nothing in this section shall be taken to prohibit more favourable treatment of a disabled person on the grounds of a disabled person’s disability’.

Yes – and that is the understandable and better version! Bet you can’t wait for the next sitting.