Equalities
We previously invited general comments on the Equality Act. To make things simpler, the measures in the Equality Act have been divided into the eight themes, and this page is now closed for comment. To comment, click here. All the comments received below will be considered in the Equalities challenge process.
I do not think the regulations should be scrapped. A good employer who cares about their staff and having an efficient business will want to recruit, train and promote the best staff. However, the employment tribunals remain busy with cases involving employers who have actively discriminated, for example women staff members who are pregnant. There remains plenty of verifiable evidence – including Government commissioned research published by DWP – which demonstrates that discrimination remains rife in the labour market. If Britain wants a competitive economy then it needs to use all the talents and abilities available, regardless of people’s background or characteristics, and end closed recruitment/promotion practices which are bad for business. Businesses would not find equality costly if they acted fairly in recruitment/promotion, but they do when they end up at employment tribunal because they have been unfair or have discriminated – these regulations support good employers and can & should be positively used to encourage other businesses to bring their practices into the twenty first century.
SCRAP THE STUPID RULE THAT ASKS PEOPLE FOR THEIR ETCHIC BACKGROUND, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE SERVICES IF THEY PROVIDED SHOULD BE COLOUR BLIND. THE CST IS HUGE TO STATE AND INDUSTRY AND CREATES RESENTMENT. IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY USEFUL INFORMATION AND LEADS TO FALSE CALIMS OF DISCRIMINATION.
Mark Calway said on April 8, 2011 at 7:48 am
Which one of the following best describes you:
I am commenting on my own behalf
Reply to specific or general regulation:
Feedback:
SCRAP THE STUPID RULE THAT ASKS PEOPLE FOR THEIR ETCHIC BACKGROUND, OR SEXUAL PREFERENCE SERVICES IF THEY PROVIDED SHOULD BE COLOUR BLIND. THE CST IS HUGE TO STATE AND INDUSTRY AND CREATES RESENTMENT. IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY USEFUL INFORMATION AND LEADS TO FALSE CALIMS OF DISCRIMINATION.”
Mark- you obviously have a very incorrect understanding of the legislation and what it does and does not say and what it does and does not require, perhaps you should seek informatuion about it from a source other than the Daily Mail, the Sun or Telegraph?
“These should be strengthened not abolished – equality makes business more efficient …”
Companies spend billions every year trying to make themselves more efficient. If this assertion was remotely plausible, companies would be fighting to make themselves social welfare organisations, and havens for care in the community, and the hosts of the local creche and coffee mornings. Doubtless Anne would support the repealing of the Equalities act, and sex discrimination act, to watch all those businesses which didn’t “embrace diversity” go out of business due to their inefficiency.
This legislation is so complicated that I humbly believe it serves little purpose.
I think I am no wrong in believing that the only way for a “minority” to highlight discrimination is through the Courts and that it is through the Courts that this law takes effect. But this is highly counter-productive when you aim to be treated as an equal citizen …
The clear aim should be meritocracy when it comes to employment, promotion and redundancy and somehow businesses should start to understand this …
Perhaps the best way for governments to help in this field is through access to education and through ensuring that all jobs are always advertised. After that it is down to employers to decide whether they want the best person (often from a minority group) or the person with whom they will most comfortably share a beer with.
I feel that the government should repeal the left-wing militant Equalities Act 2010 as it is anti-British and decides things for the people without letting the people make their own minds up which is very Big Government and public sector, authoritarian and not supportive of common sense, or supportive of the Big Society that will make decisions for itself based upon values of common sense and liberty. The Equalities Act 2010 stifles freedom of choice as well as capitalist values, democracy and the private sector with too much red tape.
And it is equality only in name but actually promotes discrimination and should be really called the Inequalies Act 2010, instead. This makes no sense to me, it is an anti UK, anti private sector and full of hate for the male of the British species. Please, just get rid of it before it costs us the right people for the job that could be appointed by merit and not by numbers, appoint quality not quantity, who could work hard and make cash to get the country back into profit again. That makes sense to me, common sense, while the Equalities Act 2010 makes no sense to me at all.
Hi ya Mr Cameron, hi ya pal
Scrap every law to do with equality, and outlaw anything to do with “diversity” or similarly used politically correct words or phrases.
Allow simple common laws to be used in their place – that is the laws of the fathers of our land that protect all decent people whoever they may be, wherever they are from, and whatever lifestyle they choose for themselves, and which incidentally are also the same laws that would allow agrieved people to seek their redress if wronged.
This government should be ashamed to even suggest that this legislation should be repealed. The Coalition Agreement said in terms that it supported the protection of equal treatment now it seems it is willing to consider abolishing an Act which is the product of ten or more years of hard work by many many people.
Secondly it would not be possible to abolish equality law without leaving altogether the family of nations in Europe all of whom have agreed to have similar equality laws. Thirdly how can a government led by a Prime Minister educated at Eton and a deputy Prime Minister educated at the poshest school in central London hope to lead a country made up of people who do not have those advantages without laws to secure equality?
So to all those who intend to comment on this cite please do not waste your breathe suggesting that this law can be abolished. It is simply not a political reality.
Please scrap the entire Equalities Act 2010. As a male I feel that I am discriminated against because of this Act, and now politically correct employers can finish off my career by using quota’s as a legal excuse and not appoint me on merit.
Also I find it a policy of state control over the private sector through the backdoor, which is socialist and communist and we are a democratic capitalist country not a communist socialist one, with all its ridiculous monitoring and rules which quite frankly are very dangerous for employed and self employed businesses to make any money or more importanly, any profit at all.
But to summarise, I find quotas and discrimination, even positive discrimination, morally and ethically wrong. The wrong people could be employed and that could cost businesses money they could not afford to lose, The best person for the job should be employed on merit alone, and perhaps another step to genuine economic recovery, and common sense, can finally be taken.
All companies have a strong interest in employing and rewarding the best and most capable staff, regardless of background. We know that companies that practice favouritism of any kind often end up paying the ultimate price. Whilst we strongly agree there should be a guarantee of equality incorporated in the law, we fear that the Equality Act 2010’s undoubtedly good intentions actually work against us in operating our company in a meritocratic manner. We treat everyone equally because it is fair and in everyone’s best interests that we do, not because we have an increasing number of laws telling us to do so.
It’s great to hear that you are operating your business in a fair way, consistent with the values in the Equality Act 2010. So, surely you have nothing to fear from the Act then?
Without it there would be a free-for-all, with your competitors deliberately operating in the most unscrupulous of ways to get an advantage on you. It wouldn’t be long before your morals went out of the window in an effort to undercut them, and then it would be a rapid race to the bottom.
Well done for doing the right thing – I wish you every success. But please don’t support abolition of the protection that your business needs to continue operating in a way that reflects your decent values and looks after the marginalised and vulnerable.
The Equality Act 2010 is an Act not a set of regulations. Why is it here? It is not red tape, it is a crucial piece of protection against discrimination. It mostly consolidated and harmonised existing legislation, there are very few ‘new’ rights in it, and those that are have for the most part not been brought into force by this government.
One of the early commentors complains about ‘people with protected characteristics’ being given protection. the point is, the Act is an Equality Act and protects all of us. We all have the characteristics that are protected – we all have a sex, race, religion (or none), sexual orientation, age etc The Act protects people from boing discrimianated against because they are heterosexual as well as gay, atheist or christian as well as Muslim or Sikh, old as well as young, men as well as women etc.
Nor, contrary to what the Daily Mail has been peddling, does the Act mean that people can win large amounts of compensation over petty matters -I work in this area of the law and believe me Courts and Tribunals are very alive to the problem of the oversensitive employee who resigns or brings a claim at the most trivila of comments.
in respect of disabled people, we are told that they are costing us too much because they are all on benefits. The Act therefore saves the UK huge amounts of money by giving disabled people protection at work, so that they can remain in employment and paying taxes rather than claiming benefits.
Do perople really want to go back to the days when landlords could put ‘No dogs, no Irish, no Blacks’ signs up in their windows?
The term ‘red tape’ has negative connotations of a piece of very complicated regulation that appears to have no real purpose. To catergorise the Equality Act 2010, Hate Crime law etc as red tape is to totally misunderstand why such legislation is necessary. Committees who wrote the Act may have made a simple idea complicated but Equalities law is a very necessary measure to put a halt to disrimination and abuse of power in our society.
Treating fellow human beings with respect and dignity, allowing them fair chances to be all that they can be, is to unleash the full potential of our most valuable assett – our people. All comments about the equalities regulation being expensive should be replaced with full backing across the political spectrum of the cost savings to be made when people are treated well. The business case model for good practice in regard to equalities evidences lower staff and customer churn, increased loyalty, attendance, productivity, customer spending etc as well as good PR.
This legislation gives rights to men and women, the young and the old as well as other minority or under-represented groups. One in three households currently has at least one family member with a disability and hopefully many of us will face the challenges of old age. If it’s not you facing discrimination today it could be you tomorrow.
This well hidden website may only be viewed by those with a very active interest in the issues, but is unlikely to fully capture the voice of those facing discrimination in today’s society. Many will have no access to a computer or not be able to use one. This exercise should not be about giving a soap box to mainstream society who are in the situation of being more aware of the responsibitilies this law brings than about the rights of those facing a less fortunate life. Much has been done by government to capture the missing voice of disempowered people and it resulted in the Equality Act.
It is to our national shame to see this UK government picking off whole clauses and sections of the recent Equality Act under the excuse of costs to business. We would be in a sad state indeed if we couldn’t afford to treat people fairly and with respect. The real cost is when someone contravenes the Act and it would seem that the message from this ‘consultation’ is to remove the penalty for discrimination. George Osbourne’s comments in the recent budget show this when he declared he would not enforce dual discrimination or 3rd party harassment or rights to flexible working on grounds of costs to small businesses.
The minute the Act was published last October, the socio-economic duty was scrapped. All mention of pay gap audits have been down-played and public authorities in Scotland and England are without specific duties under the single public equality duty as no-one can reach agreement on what these should be. It certainly feels as though this Act is being unravelled from within. I am therefore not so gullible as to think this website is a sincere move to remove burdensome red tape – it is more about getting a groundswell emotional response to use as a mandate for political aims.
Rather than scrap the Equality Act, please put some political weight and support behind it, strengthen it rather than weaken it and get across the BENEFITS of how good practice makes life better for all.
P.S. Same arguments go for human rights – stop highlighting negative aspects, explain the benefits and protection given to us all
Equality legislation is regarded by our company as being of vital importance to enshrining in law the well-being and fair treatment of our staff. We have always believed that discrimination of any kind in the workplace is unacceptable, and having the weight of the law in agreement with our company ethos helps us ensure that all current and new members of staff are clear that any behaviour which contravenes these regulations will lead to immediate disciplinary action.
The Equality Act 2010 was rushed through as a final act of gesture politics in Labour’s 13 years of tokenism and social engineering. The Coalition was misguided in leaving it largely unchanged – despite the numerous concerns voiced by members of the public, businesses, MPs, legal professionals and the media – and now has the chance to put things right.
The Act has a multitude of provisions that are unreasonably restrictive on businesses and harmful to employees, as the potential for legal action increases drastically when working with so-called ‘protected groups’ and they inevitably come to be viewed with scepticism. As well as simply being counter-effective, it engenders bad morale by forcing us all to dwell on personal differences which would be otherwise unremarkable.
I hesitate to mention a specific problem with the Act, as it is my belief that the entire thing is harmful and should be scrapped, but of particular note is the clause which bans statements that merely have the potential for causing offence in the subjective opinion of another employee. It is as if Labour thought our employment tribunals were underworked and compensation culture insufficient entrenched.
I hope the government will take the right steps in listening not to those would use this bad law for personal profit at the expense of business and wider society, but to the numerous voices that desire a level playing field for all employees and not just ‘protected groups’.
These should be strengthened not abolished – equality makes business more efficient and society fairer. It requires the kind of legislation and regulation we have and need more of to promote best practice and punish bad practice and support communities and individuals. It is a total insult to discuss abolishing these essential laws.
If ‘equality makes business more efficient ‘ then the market will ‘promote best practice and punish bad practice’. Thus we can abolish these laws and the various diversity coordinators who hang on its coat-tails.
I think it is ridiculous to suggest that this legislation is ‘red tape’, even if it emerges that a large amount of people and employers in the ‘mainstream’ of society might consider it so. People who do not regard this as important are obviously not the ones facing discrimination, so therefore their opinion is null and void, because it’s not there for them. It’s there to protect the marginalised and minority groups in our society whose needs and rights are too often not considered and/or understood by the very people who are supposed to be providing their services, education and employment opportunities and influencing their social and economic wellbeing. And remember, many of these disadvantaged groups may not even have access or even the ability to use a computer, so how do they come on here and express their views to this “consultation”?
The Equality Bill became the Equality Act 2010 in April 2010. As other commentators have noted this is a major piece of primary legislation supported by a series of statutory regulations. If people are to be asked to comment on any statutory regulations surely these should be on the website so that people can make meaningful comments. Why is the Equality Act listed here? The Equality Act 2010 and the supporting regulations should be retained as the main parts of the Act and the supporting regulations only came into force in October 2010.
This is not regulation – it is primary legislation that outlaws discrimination so people can live and work free from prejudice. The protections and the freedoms enjoyed by the people of the UK are some of the best in the world and this Act is fundamental to this. Any removal of it would shame the UK and legalise some of the worst abuses of women, ethnic minorities, the LGBT community and people with disabilities that Europe has ever seen.
This Act has already been simplified by merging several pieces of legislation. To change or reduce the Act now would send a very negative message – the UK Government needs to prove its commitment to equalities and fair treatment for everyone – the Act should stay. Don’t be pressurised by the media to change it – the media do not represent the wishes or opinions of the general public.
I can’t really believe this is meant to be taken seriously, although it seems rather belated (and inappropriate) for an April Fool prank. A website that purports to be addressing unnecessary waste is inviting comments on the principle of a piece of legislation that was discussed for countless hours before being passed into law only last year with the backing of all the major parties. ‘Should they be scrapped altogether?’ sounds like the sort of inane question you might expect from Alan Partridge but not from a responsible Government Department. What is going on in the Cabinet Office?
under equality regs I would like to say that the NHS rule applied to UK citizens who are domiciled in UK, possibly like us pensioners and taxpayers but may spend more than 6 months in the year out of the country is inequible and positively grossly unfair to people who may have spent 40+ years living and working in the UK. There is NO fairness.