Comments on: The Equality Bill

By: chief

chief — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:48:57 +0000

I haven’t looked at the Code yet, but I would think so – both disability and pregnancy/maternity are included in Part IV. As far as the guide dog goes there would still be the potential to justify that.

By: The.Dark.One

The.Dark.One — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:48:27 +0000

I have just read the draft code published today.
One of the protected characteristics is those who are pregnant. Discrimnination is listed as (amongst others):
1. treating you worse than someone else because of a protected characteristic
(direct discrimination); or

2. putting in place a rule or way of doing things that has a worse impact on
you and other people with the same protected characteristic than it would
have on people without that protected characteristic when this cannot be
justified (indirect discrimination); or

3.(if you are a disabled person) putting you at a disadvantage as a
consequence of your disability when this cannot be justified (discrimination
arising from disability) – for example, refusing to relax a ‘no dogs’ rule in a
rental agreement when the dog is an assistance dog and the refusal cannot
be justified.

Would this mean that flats/maisonettes would now have to be advertised/let to pregnant mothers (in some areas they are not), and if someone has a guide dog they would have to be considered for a vacancy even if no pets are allowed because of shared entrances?

By: chief

chief — Mon, 18 May 2009 11:05:33 +0000

When you look at the explanatory notes it seems to be clear that it would apply to these kinds of situations, for instance EN 127 states that Cl 31 “makes it unlawful it unlawful for a person who has the authority to dispose of premises (for example, by selling, letting or subletting a property) to discriminate against or victimise someone else in a number of ways including by offering the premises to them on less favourable terms; by not letting or selling the premises to them or by treating them less favourably, for example in relation to a council house waiting list.” But then Clause 30 explicitly excludes age as a protected characteristic in relation to premises. I haven’t found any explanation in the hundreds of pages of bumph that accompany the Bill, but that doesn’t mean that it might not be in there somewhere ;-)

What I do know is that in the GEO’s consultation on the draft EU Directive that was recently voted on by the European Parliament, the UK Government’s position is that “we are concerned that an explicit reference to housing could have adverse implications for housing providers and could have the perverse effect of limiting people’s options. We do not propose to ban age discrimination in the disposal and management of social housing as part of the Equality Bill, as we have not seen any evidence of harmful discrimination.” Elsewhere in the Consultation document reference is made to the forthcoming consultation on age and the Equality Bill and the Government’s desire to see that “different treatment on grounds of age in respect of the sale of social housing, where justified to maintain a stock of properties suitable for specified age groups” is allowed to “continue without risk of challenge”. To my mind what this, and a number of other objections to the age discrimination provisions miss completely, is that there is already the possibility of justification built into the provisions on direct age discrimination. This is unique, as objective justification is only available in relation to the other protected characteristics in relation to indirect discrimination.

The other aspect to bear in mind is the Cl 143 duty, to which LHAs will need to have due regard.

There is also a Tory party motion to include age in Part 4, which will be moved at some point during the Committee stage, which starts on 2nd June.

By: chief

chief — Mon, 18 May 2009 10:23:30 +0000

I agree that the new power to make recommendations, introduced by Clause 118, seems a sensible improvement. The Tories have tabled a motion to remove this bit. I can only think that this is part of their general objection to anything that remotely relates to gender pay audits.

By: The.Dark.One

The.Dark.One — Thu, 14 May 2009 07:58:12 +0000

What are your thoughts on how it could affect local lettings policies in terms of age restrictions for certain estates or areas? E.g. ‘no one under the age of 30 can apply for these particular properties’

By: 12th May: Insite Law… daily… « Charon QC

12th May: Insite Law… daily… « Charon QC — Tue, 12 May 2009 07:24:40 +0000

[...] Employment Law Blog: The Equalty Bill | Corporate Law and Governance: UK: Takeover Code – extending the disclosure regime consultation | EU Law Blog: Commission Report on Monitoring of Compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights | PSL Blog: Protecting privacy – why bother? | Nearly Legal – a housing law specialist blog: The Equality Bill [...]

By: Wednesbury

Wednesbury — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:11:16 +0000

If the Bill simplifies this area of law then it will be a good thing – it’s a shame that such an important constitutional value has been overly technocratic. It must be bewildering if you’re a Litigant in Person.

I’m particularly a fan of Clause 119 – which states that Employment Tribunals can make what the Green Paper calls ‘wider recommendations’ if, for instance, an employer has an on-going discriminatory practice.

This complements the tribunal’s dispute resolution role with a broader rubric of setting standards of best practice. This is rather like the notional direction of most administrative law – to have the bigger picture in mind – and something I rather approve of.