Good question from Jo Swinson, good answer from Nick Clegg

Earlier today there was this exchange in Parliament:

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): Will the Deputy Prime Minister reassure my constituents that the Government will resist any siren calls to water down the Equality Act as part of the red tape challenge?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that, as far as I am concerned, there will be no move to dilute incredibly important protections to enshrine and bolster equality in this country under the guise of dealing with unnecessary or intrusive regulation.


Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • I am surprised to see the Lib Dems defending an Act containing what is known as “socialism in One Clause”.

  • The act was needed.
    The coalition are welcome to improve on the provisions contained within the act but for it to be included in a review where the option is not to amend and improve the working of the act but rather have the default position that it should be repealed is a betrayal of those who are disabled, those who are from different ethnic minorities and those who are not heterosexual.

  • Clegg hasn’t ruled out changing the Equality Act, nor did he say that the Coalition wouldn’t. All we can infer is that he, Nick Clegg, thinks that equality legislation won’t be undermined. It’s personal opinion, nothing more. Disingenuous to imply otherwise.

    Oh, and looks like abortion rights are under attack…

    @Andrew Tennant
    How do you make any change to anything without some people being affected differently to others?

    The point of equalities legislation was to discourage discrimination against groups based on innate attributes such as their gender, sexuality or ethnicity. Not based on their income, employment, location or other non-innate attribute.

    Legislation which negatively impacts on somebody because of an innate characteristic, something they cannot conceivably change, is unfair and illiberal and it would be shocking if government watered down equalities legislation to permit this..

  • ‘Clegg hasn’t ruled out changing the Equality Act’, technically and semantically correct ‘g’. But that is all.

    @Andrew Tennant – I understand what you’re saying, but the Government is not being taken to court for cuts disproportionately affecting women. It is because they did not even assess whether or not this is the case. You have mis-understood the Act if you think it stops anyone making changes, it just requires local authorities, central government and other bodies to at least be aware of the impact they could be having.

    What I love, most of all, is that only two tories voted for the Equality Act – Ken Clarke (aside from his recent mis-speaking, the most liberal justice minister in at least 20 yrs), and John Bercow.

  • @Andrew – well, the point I was making was that the massive headache was probably the Government’s fault rather than the Act, and yes, I think policy making in full possession of the facts is better than not 🙂

  • @Andrew Tennant

    Is equality a government’s sole priority? If not we must ask whether this prevents higher priorities from being achieved.

    What, in your opinion, are higher priorities than ensuring that people are not unduly discriminated against as a result of government policy?

  • Ruth Bright 25th May '11 - 7:03pm

    Poor old Coalition having to summon its collective genius to work out that abolishing Pregnancy Grants disproportionately affects women.

  • @Andrew – your second point, namely that equality is Government’s sole priority was not at all what I was implying. I am a Lib Dem. So there are plenty of bigger priorities! I didn’t realise we were trying to pick the sole one.

    I see the point in your first paragraph, but I think as it stands the EA it is best not to leave the judgment about appropriateness to the body that is having to make that assessment… Thus I think it is right that it is not up to the government to choose whether to consider – when spending its money – the impact on all individuals. [If I were trying to spin it, I would say that this might be an impact on their liberty, which of course should ideally be equally dished out – to everyone.]

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • User AvatarDavid Allen 20th Jan - 12:56am
    Peter Martin: "There’s something about the German psyche that makes them good at building cars but absolutely hopeless at creating functioning economic systems. They can’t...
  • User AvatarPhil Wainewright 20th Jan - 12:40am
    I sympathise with Paul Holmes because I know that most of the voters he talks to believe that Brexit has been settled and just expect...
  • User Avatarppb 20th Jan - 12:27am
    A common trade area (which is much more than a trade agreement) must have minimum standards and part of that is labour rights. It was...
  • User AvatarCarl Gardner 20th Jan - 12:26am
    Malcolm Todd is surely right—NATO has never had a "no first use" policy. Nuclear weapons are meant to be a deterrent against *any* attack, not...
  • User AvatarMartin 19th Jan - 11:55pm
    Paul Holmes: You really think Brexit will becomes a non-issue in a couple of years? Does that include the economic fallout? Party representatives and Vince...
  • User AvatarMalcolm Todd 19th Jan - 11:46pm
    Ruth Bright I dunno - was there ever a time when he was inhibited?