Prohibited conduct
The Equality Act sets out the different ways in which it is unlawful to treat someone, such as direct discrimination, harassment and failing to make a reasonable adjustment for a disabled person. For example, it is unlawful for a landlord not to let a property to someone because they are Muslim, or for an employer to allow staff to racially abuse a colleague.
The Act mainly brings together what was in previous law. In addition it:
- widens protection to cover more people from direct discrimination. It now includes people who are wrongly perceived to have, or who are associated with, someone who has a protected characteristic (eg age, race etc);
- makes the definition of indirect discrimination more consistent and extends it to cover disability and gender reassignment;
- strengthens protection for disabled people.
The Act also contains new protection from discrimination because of a combination of two protected characteristics. The Government does not intend to implement this measure.
Tell us what you think should happen to these measures and why, being specific where possible
- Should we scrap them altogether?
- Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
- Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
- Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
- Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
- Should they be left as they are?
Should we scrap them altogether?
No. No aspect of the Act should be scrapped. We all fall within one or more of the protected characteristics and therefore, could experience inequality and discrimination. The Act offers us a means by which we can be treated fairly and equally.
Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
No. In order for groups to be able to challenge inequality and discrimination there needs to be basic principles they can draw upon which are enshrined in law. Before the Equality Act 2010 (and previous equality legislation) we were reliant on the voluntary actions of public authorities and organisations. The real experiences of inequality and discrimination during this voluntary period clearly demonstrate why a voluntary code does not work. A voluntary code does not give basic rights as understood by all parties but is reliant on the good will of those deeming to offer it. This is totally unacceptable.
Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
No. The Equality Act 2010 is already a very recent simplification of past equalities legislation, such as the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 (RR(A)A) and Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (DDA). The Act has been developed in extensive consultation with key partners from business and a wide range of communities. The provisions have been developed for all members of civil society, and provide rights and protections from discrimination. The Equality Act 2010 should not be reformed, simplified or merged. If we want a fair and equal society, then we need to enshrine that right in law.
Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
No. The term bureaucracy is not helpful and implies that for a public authority to know its community is a dogmatic paper process, when in fact it can inform the policy and practice more effectively and can play a part in eliminating inequality and discrimination. If public authorities are to be held to account by the community they service, then there need to be clear, demonstrable measures that local communities can access.
Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
It is no doubt a ‘burden’ on local communities and to civil society when communities face disadvantage and discrimination; this can lead to health and social inequalities, education and criminal justice inequalities and so on. For communities to be active and participative, then public authorities must be transparent and accountable for their actions. Far from being seen as burdensome, the enforcement of the Act is crucial in establishing a fully engaged civic society. Equal rights are not a burden, for example, do we consider it a burden when we say every child should have access to education?
Should they be left as they are?
Yes. Given the Act has been developed by extensive working across government departments, with cross-party support and with significant input from a diverse range of communities and businesses, any dilution of the Act will be seen as a regression. For equality and fairness to be reflected in our society the Act is essential. In fact the Act should be strengthened and enforced fully. Government must not and should not consider the rights of society as a ‘burden’.
I feel that it is too early to consider any change at this time. Where the government feels discrimination because of a combination of two protected characteristics is unworkable, it should be brave await to see the impact of the proposed change and recognise people are not one dimensional but individuals who have the right to be protected.
Nice Blog with Excellent information
No chnage required
Why are you even considering changing this legislation? Saving money is not a good enough reason to take away legal protection against any form of discrimination. Also, consider the time and money already spent on implenting the current legislation: as well as being morally wrong, more money will be spent in replacing it. Ridiculous!
it’s a big improvement on the previous and you should let it work for a while longer before even thinking about changing it. i can see you are looking to save money, but justice isn’t cheap and this is something we hould be prepared to pay for.
It is good to have a broad definition to ensure their is wider protection. Dual discrimination should be implemented, as people suffer discrimination on more than one protected characteristic and should not have to choose which they object to the most.
Leave it as it is. Quoting a previous contributor; “It seems strange that an exercise on so called ‘red tape’ should run this consultation twice and require individuals to address their comments to a variety of headings. Should I repeat these comments on each of the options your web-site gave me?”
It appears that this secondary exercise is designed to confuse and obfuscate the very nature of the public’s input into this “red tape” issue. By splitting the issues into various headings, there is less likelihood of the site visitors to contribute again.
The Act has become broader to protect people in more situations. Why change something hence taking a step backwards that protects more situatations for individuals if anything we should be making the act stronger by adding protection for dual discrimination.
We have to implement the dual discrimination clauses to help make a fairer society, lets not start taking backward steps.
The dual discrimination is needed and the govt should review not implementing it. As an asian woman I know that both my gender and my race play a role in how others percieve me and how I am treted in wider society. This is the case for many others, Black men, young gay people, older disabled people, one without the othe cannot stand. This provision must stay as it reflects how peopleidentify themselves.
Actually there’s no need for the dual discrimination provision. If you are discriminated against because of both gender and race then you can claim discrimination based on each of those two protected characteristics.
Adding the dual provision wouldn’t change what you had to prove and wouldn’t make it easier to claim. Dual indirect discrimination would be interesting – but the Equality Act was never written to include that
I have to disagree with Darren (above) and add my support to those who wish to see the originally intended plans for dual discrimination provisions put into force.
The dual discrimination provision is necessary precisely because of the experience that discrimination claims often otherwise fail.
If you are (say) an asian woman who has experienced discrimination then the present law forces you to decide which grounds on which to pursue your complaint – gender or race. However, organisation in question may well argue examples to show that they don’t discriminate against white women or asian men. The tribunal or court is unable to examine the plaintiff’s actual circumstances, which are that her experiences relate uniquely to being both a woman AND asian.
Leave Prohibited Conduct as it is.
The Equality Act 2010 should be left as it is – but the socio-economic duties should be enacted. I am the Policy and Research Officer for the Scottish Council on Deafness. Too many deaf people in the UK and in Scotland are discriminated against in their day to day lives and without this legislation – which states that service providers (now even wider ranging than before) have to make a reasonable adjustment for disabled people – would not have the same rights as other UK citizens. Equality legislation is needed as so many service providers, employers, businesses and associations are not willing to include people who are different.
No change required
There is no change required. Whilst the Act has developed additional areas for claim in terms of the discrimination by perception and association, these concepts have been already established through case law, so the Act has just made things more straight forward and consistent.
This section should be enforced with vigour and intelligence. We owe it to everyone as it is natural justice.
Scrap the section which allows people to bring charges against someone else when they have not directly been affected by it. Work place banter could easily be seen as bullying/harassment by an outsider even if those involved in the banter see it as harmless fun.
If those involved in the banter feel harassed, then by all means let them complain.
Workplace “banter” can affect “outsiders” – I have attended events in other workplaces where the workers are having a “laugh and a joke” and it has been offensive to me and other people attending the event. It also gives a bad impression of the workplace/business. Surely workplace banter is relevant – how do you know if is not affecting anyone else?
I agree with Anne. If, for example, an office full of guys decides to talk disrespectfully about an absent female colleague, even if it’s intended as banter, why should a male colleague who is present not be in a position to put a stop to it if he’s uncomfortable with it?
No Change Required
What enforcement!! This part should be strengthened and in no way watered down
no change required