Tag Archives: equality bill

Following the Equality Bill through Parliament

Posted on by

OK – so am going to try and blog the process of legislation through the Equality Bill. To date – we have had the First Reading of the Bill (a formality) and then the Second Reading , which happens in the chamber of the House of Commons and where the Bill overall is debated. We have had ‘evidence’ sessions where witnesses (groups with particular interest in the Bill) give their views on parts of the Bill and we get to questions them. And now we have entered the Committee Stage where we (a smaller group of MPs) scrutinise the legislation line by line.

If this gets too long-winded or onerous I will cease – but as I write so often about local issues – thought it might interest some to see the Parliamentary process at work.

The Bill is gone through in order and we, the Tories and the Government, table amendments to the Bill and some are selected each session of the Committee for.

The key issues that came up in the first sessions were:

– the “socio-economic duty”: this would be a new duty on, for example, local councils to consider the impact of their decisions and spending on the gap between rich and poor, and to try to reduce these socio-economic divides where possible.
– which bodies should be covered by this new duty: it would apply to parts of ‘the state’ but how narrowly or broadly should the net be cast?
– the “protected characteristics” – that is, those categories which would be protected by this Bill from discrimination, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

The socio-economic duty is something that the Government bunged in at the last minute. All parties believe narrowing the socio-economic gap is important – but the Tories feel it shouldn’t be in this particular Bill. We Liberal Democrats think it is one of the greatest and most intractable of inequalities – but that this duty is somewhat tokenistic. We have no objection to the good it might do – but believe it far too weak to really deliver change.

When we got to debating the Government’s list of authorities that would come under this duty, the Government was disposed to accept/look at two of my amendments which question why the Greater London Authority bodies like the Fire Authority, the Metropolitan Police Authority and Transport for London were excluded when they are clearly making strategic decisions that can affect the socio-economic status. Ditto for fire authorities across the country.

The ‘form’ for amendments is that even if the Government agrees with them, they don’t support them at the Committee Stage, but instead say they will introduce similar amendments of their own at the subsequent Report Stage. Sometimes this can be for good reasons (they can get their lawyers to pour over the wording to ensure it’s just right) but sometimes also there is a touch of “if it hasn’t got our name on it, we won’t support it” about it all.

Anyway – the Government said they will bring back their own amendments on these issues, so it looks as if the changes I was asking for will end up in the Bill – hurrah!

What would it mean in practice? Well, consider the example of a fire authority making decisions about its fire prevention efforts. The duty would require them to consider the different risks in areas arising from how deprived they are – for example, in poorer areas there may be fewer firm alarms, buildings may be less fireproof, more use of paraffin heaters etc. If it then turns out some areas are therefore at greater risk of fires and death from fires – then they’d have to take this into account when planning their fire prevention work.

Then we debated the list of ‘protected characteristics’ such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability etc – sometimes called the ‘equality strands’. We (Liberal Democrats) were proposing amendments to stop discrimination on the grounds of someone’s caste, their genetic make-up and family history, disadvantaged socio-economic status, paternity (discrimination on grounds of maternity or pregnancy is already covered, but not paternity) and on grounds of being a carer (people who have caring responsibilities are often discriminated against, for example by an employer who won’t take them on in case their caring responsibilities interfere with their work). And then there was the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ – which turned into a bit of an argy bargy.

All were tossed aside by the Minister (Vera Baird) with varying degrees of sympathy. Socio-economic disadvantage got short shrift as the Government couldn’t see how that could be measured – but I don’t see why given they can quantify poverty in terms of children who get free school dinners or the myriad measures of deprivation through which they give grants. We thought it would anchor the new socio-economic duty – as it is free floating and somewhat illogical without a strand.

They ummed and ahhed a bit about genetics as it clearly will be a problem down the line when the moratorium on insurance companies expires in 2014. Currently insurance companies are not allowed to use genetic information to guide their policies – so they can’t select some people and charge their higher premiums because of their genes for example. The sense of fairness behind the moratorium means it’s been widely supported – but although the Bill is the chance to settle the matter, the Government didn’t seem moved to do anything.

On caste – they were pretty unsympathetic – just saying they had tried to get evidence of discrimination because of caste but the organisations they had gone to (Hindu and Sikh) had said they were very against legal steps to outlaw caste-based discrimination and didn’t have evidence that it was needed. But I can’t help thinking that those who support a caste system might not want to volunteer evidence so that we can outlaw it. On carers – they were more sympathetic but didn’t feel it was necessary ultimately and that they would be covered by ‘association’ to someone who was disabled, old etc.

The protected characteristic currently in the list as ‘gender reassignment’ we wanted changed to ‘gender identity’. This is not a well understood area as the Bill clearly fails to understand the spectrum that exists on gender – where people can feel anything from confused, to any degree of transgender feeling, to – at the other end of the scale – gender reassignment and medical sex change. The wording in the Bill around ‘reassignment’ are all about a process leading to change, and so totally fail to encompass the wider range of situations, conditions and feelings that people have about their gender.

The Minister didn’t seem to know very much about this group of people. They are tiny in number and highly vulnerable as their ‘characteristic’ is barely understood, is reviled and joked about in the way that years ago occurred over other characteristics that we now take as mainstream. It is a hard challenge to grow up not having that certainty about gender that most of us are fortunate enough to not give a second thought to. However, Vera Baird showed no real comprehension of the complexities of this situation and could only argue defensively that ‘reassignment’ wasn’t medical but if you lived in another gender you would be protected. None of that deals with anyone at any stage before living as another gender – and many people with gender identity issues never get to such a place where they ‘change’ gender (whether by appearance or by surgery) – but can still be discriminated against as freakish in some way if they don’t present as male or female identifiably.

Anyway – we will return to that issue at Report Stage, I hope, as it is very important and I didn’t feel that the Minister really got it.

Enough for now!

The Equality Bill

Posted on by

My latest local newspaper column was about the Equality Bill:

Fanfare please! At last – the much trailed, much vaunted, long-time in gestation Equality Bill is here and going through Parliament.

So what’s in it? Well – there’s not space to cover the great tome in just one column – but here’s a taster.

Much of the Bill is a bringing together of all the bits and pieces of equality legislation over recent decades – and that’s one of those small sounding administrative changes (putting all the rules together in one place) that will actually have a big impact (clearer legislation means easier to understand, fewer mistakes and – sorry lawyers! – even a bit less legal work in future). That’s one of the reasons why broadly speaking the Liberal Democrats are backing this Bill, although as it goes through Parliament we (in particular – myself, leading on the Bill in the Commons – and Lord Lester, who basically wrote the book on equalities, leading on the Bill in the Lords) will be working to improve it.

Now getting to the contentious stuff – and making sure than men and women are paid equally for equivalent jobs. I’m a great fan of pay audits – making companies and the public sector check their pay to ensure that they aren’t discriminating in what they pay men and women. Of course, when this issue comes up, there’s always a chorus of voices saying, “Oh, we’re fine in our firm/industry/sector”. Well, if that’s the case – a clean bill of health will be a good mark in favour of a firm that will make it easier to attract good quality staff. And if it isn’t the case – well, that’s the whole point – to bring that to light.

But the Government has wimped out of requiring firms to carry out pay audits. It says something about the struggle there is still to be had for men and women to be treated equally that there are 1,001 things the Government is happy to order firms to do – but at the basic level of not discriminating in pay, it has blinked. Instead, the Bill proposals a weak voluntary scheme for several years, with maybe, perhaps, possibly further action after that.

Better news though – one way firms get away with unfair or unequal pay practices is by banning staff from telling anyone else how much they are paid. Rather a restriction on freedom of speech – and the Bill will ban this sort of censorship.

Next, religion – or more accurately, the Government’s intention to extend the current existing public duties to race, gender, disability and sexual orientation to religion and belief. This would mean that public authorities would be obliged in carrying out their functions to advance equality of opportunity and good relations between different groups. Obviously we all would subscribe to promoting good relations etc – but a public duty? Religious views on things like abortion, alcohol, homosexuality and sex education in schools are varied – to put it mildly. It would be absurd to require public authorities to accommodate all the different religious views in these policies which affect us all. This is a road to hell (if you will excuse the religious connotations) paved with good – but ludicrous – intentions.

And one more major issue to pick out – the proposed new duty for bodies receiving public funding, requiring them to consider the equality gap between rich and poor. In some ways this is no different from saying that when our taxes are spent by public bodies they should bear in mind whether or not they are damaging our environment in how they go about spending them. Thinking of the wider implications of spending makes sense and if you can use the spending to help achieve more than one goal – then that’s even better news as it’s more value for money in the cash-strapped times. But the way this duty is laid out in the Bill is, I fear, simplistic and unfair, it’s wording is broad enough to attract controversy, worry and legal arguments, but too weak to have much of an impact. The worst of all worlds. This is a case where the role of Parliament in amending Bills can be crucial.

That’s only a brief sample of the points covered by the Bill – and even for those, it’s a pretty brief summary of what the Bill does and my views on it. You can keep up with them in more detail as the Bill goes through Parliament via my list of blog postings on the topic.

Meanwhile this week, Parliament debated the Equality Bill

Posted on by

On Monday I led for the Liberal Democrats in the Second Reading of the Equality Bill. The key issues are: the gender pay gap, the duty on bodies to reduce socio-economic inequality; the ending of discrimination on age in goods and services; procurement and much much more – as you can see in my speech here.

But one idea I floated in the speech was how to stop being disbarred from getting a job – before you even get an interview. Lots of people get thrown on the scrapheap because their name is a give away as to their ethnicity, sex or age. This is not (just) about discrimination that is overt – but in a pile of applications it’s about also subliminal and unconscious discrimination – and I have come up with a proposal to eliminate it. It’s in my speech in full – but Personnel Today also picked up on it.

Joan Bakewell on the Equality Bill

Posted on by

She’s got a rather feisty piece today:

Legislation for change has at any time to confront the natural resistance of those who are happy with the status quo. In times of recession it is even more instinctive for businesses to cling to old, familiar ways — they assume that new legislation means increased red tape: in fact, this Bill often frees businesses to act more independently.

Who can now deny that the legislation of the 1970s that launched society towards a more equal future was a fair set of measures to introduce? It wasn’t long ago that a woman could not open a bank account or raise a mortgage without a male signature on the application. Some were denied access to their company’s pension fund. Now such situations strike us as old-fashioned, even quaint. Young women starting out today would be amazed by such restraints. They approach their future expecting and rejoicing in their equality.

We have seen the times and the law change attitudes. The Equality Bill is the next step, bringing a multitude of small but significant improvements where they will be welcome: preventing gay children from being bullied at school; making religious dietary needs available from meals-on-wheels services; requiring job recruitment to consider flexible and part-time working.

Those who oppose it probably don’t suffer too many disadvantages. The chances are that they are white, male, middle-aged, middle-class and in full-time employment. They may have loud voices but they don’t speak for the rest of us.

You can read the full column here.

What's coming in the Equalities Bill?

Posted on by

So – the long, long, long awaited Equalities Bill has arrived. As usual, media first – Parliament second. Published last Friday but embargoed until Monday – presumably so other parties can’t get hands on it to comment. I thought Harriet Harman was better than that – but given her office has refused to brief me or meet with me – should have known.

The man who wrote the book on equalities – Lord Lester – will be leading on the Bill in the Lords for the Liberal Democrats – but in the Commons, that job falls to me.

I notice that the Government has made a huge fanfare over its stance on pay audits. From the media it sounds as if mandatory pay audits will be introduced for large firms, but I suspect from the details it will be the same as before – voluntary for five years and then possibly mandatory after that. We will see when the details are finally unveiled to one and all!

Mandatory pay audits would be a really effective way of adding pressure to end discrimination in pay between men and women – as you can see from the example of Cambridge University. Their audit highlighted some big differences in pay – and so gave me the grounds to refer them to the Equalities Commission whilst also causing the university to hared down to Parliament to justify what they are doing – all in the knowledge that with this in the public domain, things can’t just be brushed under the carpet or not talked about.

The other ‘announcement’ in the Bill is a public duty to reduce the equality gap between rich and poor. Very laudable – the equality gap is widening and if you look at stats around the world you see that those countries that have less of a gap do much better on every scale – including happiness! The Tories will term this class war. I would say that the ambition is right but the methodology is wrong. Or rather – the equality gap should be narrowed – but by bringing the bottom up without lessening the universal services and their standards that all are entitled.

How the Equality and Human Rights Commission is failing women

Posted on by

How many pieces of silver did Peter Mandelson give the Equality and Human Rights Commission to come out in the media this morning basically saying that equality was too expensive during a recession?

Nicola Brewer (Chief Exec of the EHRC) was quoted in The Guardian this morning saying that this was no time to make companies carry out and publish pay audits that would demonstrate the disparity in men and women’s wages.

Mandelson has been sending smoke signals through the trade and right wing press for some weeks now – vilifying any part of the Equalities Bill which might be a cost. But the scandal of women’s pay (compared to men) – even now, 30 years after the Equal Pay Act – is something that this Government said it would address in the Bill.

Ms Harman keeps assuring me in Parliament that they are committed to equality but that pay audits must be voluntary not mandatory. Well – we saw how effective voluntary codes were in banking!

Clearly from these weasly words from the EHRC the Government wants to be able to point at their statement as referred credibility for backing away from any commitment to real equality. The EHRC should be ashamed of themselves. They are meant to fight for equality – not be lackies for Labour’s failed commitments.

Ironically, to mark International Women’s Day, we had a debate in the chamber on ‘Support for Women (Economic Downturn)’ – the gist of which was that women are particularly vulnerable in a recession as they usually have less financial resilience and are already much disadvantaged through things like unequal pay etc. As I said in the debate, “The needs of those who face discrimination do not stop where the needs of British businesses begin.”

But clearly Mandelson, Harman and the EHRC are going to let us eat cake!

Cambridge Univesity comes calling

Posted on by

Cambridge came calling. After my blog about unequal pay at Cambridge University – the Director of External Affairs and Indi Seehra, Director of Human Resources, came to Portcullis House. Having referred Cambridge University to the Equality and Human Rights Commission after seeing its voluntary pay audit (full credit for producing one) they were keen to tell me what steps they are taking to improve their gender pay gap. They said that they knew by publishing the pay audit they would expose themselves to criticism.

And they were right on that – and that is why these pay audits should be mandatory not voluntary, because many will balk at exposing their organisations in this way. The Government still is sticking to voluntary audits in the coming Equalities Bill (if it ever arrives) – so will keep on pushing for this to change.

In Cambridge’s case – by publishing the figures, I was able to pick it up, question their gender pay gap and the lack of women particularly at higher grades – and they came and explained what they were doing. I listened to their explanation and also the reviews and the efforts they are now going to put into narrowing that pay gap.

The real proof of the pudding though, will be next year, and the year after – when we can see whether their efforts result in a closing of the gaps. So – Cambridge – so far, so good – let’s see where we are next year.

Women and the recession

Posted on by

Well – the debate in Parliament yesterday on support for women during the economic downturn went pretty much as you might expect. We all (cross party) made contributions highlighting the differential impact the recession will have on women (and it will) whilst being very careful to acknowledge the pain that will hit everyone.

From domestic violence, to bailiffs, child care, discrimination in not giving jobs to women in case they get pregnant and paying them off cheaply if they do, lack of women decision makers, the hit on the service sector and the lack of financial resilience of women – who have often not been able to put anything aside etc etc. Women’s vulnerability to the recession was very, very clear.

The problem is that when the opportunity arises to actually change the rules (i.e. the Equalities Bill – which Harriet Harman had said would be with us in April but in this debate said in a few months – what was that about?) the opportunity is not being taken.

Outside of the Prince of Darkness signaling to the media that anything that costs money to business should be scrapped – the Govenrment is being very faint-hearted in putting in the measures that would expose those companies that do discriminate.

One point I raised was about how keen some councils are to bring in the bailiffs – and less keen to talk about rescheduling debt:

It is heartbreaking and terrifying that the debt is transferred to the bailiffs so quickly, because they are relentless, and impose extra charges that deepen the debt. Would the hon. Lady agree that the local authority—in my case, Haringey—should be far more willing to sit down with the person in debt to reschedule it? People are willing to pay off such debt over time and should not be forced to deal with bailiffs immediately because the council does not have time for people in trouble.

You can read my speech itself (this was an intervention earlier in the debate) here.

Women and the recession

Posted on by

Yesterday Harriet Harman invited me and women from all over the country in key positions to 11 Downing Street for a session on ‘Women and the Recession’. My table, led by Tessa Jowell, were just fantastic – and we examined and tested and trailed ideas on what and how to help women as the recession bears down on their lives. So many good and wise voices contributing to the body of knowledge on what might be the differential impact on women; what support and information might they need and where and what the future would look like.

Tomorrow to mark International Women’s Day we have a debate on women and the recession in the House – and I will lead for the Lib Dems.

Problem is – that all the need, angst and wringing of hands which Harriet wants to be heard by the G20 (and full marks to her for that) will be as nothing if all the measures in the Equalities Bill are watered down as I fear they may be. Battle will commence in April finally – when I hope and hear that the Bill for which there has been no White Paper or Green Paper and is shrouded in secrecy (except from the media) will come forth.