On Tuesday April 16 the ping-pong stage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill will commence in the Commons. As readers of LDV will be aware the majority of Lib Dem peers supported Baroness Jane Campbell’s amendment to the section of the bill that proposed the repeal of S3 of the Equality Act 2006, the section that sets out the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s central purpose. As has been eloquently pointed out by Baroness Meral Hussein-Ece and many others there is a clear read-across between S3 and the preamble to our Federal Constitution. There are however several other reasons why, in the imminent ping-pong match, Lib Dem MPs need to ensure that Baroness Campbell’s amendment stands.
Considering that the purpose of the ERR Bill is to help business and that S3 does not compromise that, one has to ask why it should be repealed. Consider also that at the moment a Home Office panel is currently reviewing the Public Sector Equality Duty, a process causing concern amongst many civic society organisations. Add the EHRC having its resources disproportionately cut and you have to ask what the purpose of the sustained pressure on equalities legislation might be.
Remember that the Tories were supportive of S3 in the 2006 Act but also remember that at the time they were trying to reposition themselves. The Lib Dems on the other hand argued for the 2006 Act to go further. Nowhere in our 2010 manifesto do we renege on that. Nowhere does the Coalition Agreement refer to the dismantling of existing equalities legislation. There is certainly no mandate for repeal from the response to the government consultation ‘Building a fairer Britain: Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’. The ratio of respondents that were against the repeal of section 3 was nearly 6:1.
The Tories will have no problems justifying the repeal to themselves but where is the justification for the Lib Dems? The indications are that Labour will be whipping heavily for the retention of S3. Where will it put us should a future Labour government (or senior partner in a coalition with us) decide to re-introduce it? If we don’t support Jane Campbell’s amendment now it will suggest we have lost sight of our core beliefs.
Further, there are real fears that the proposed repeals and budget cuts are likely to threaten the Commission’s ‘A’ status as a National Institution for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (pdf). Ministers have consistently stated that retention is a high priority for the UK government, particularly the FCO. The UN is currently monitoring EHRC’s fate and has hinted at a review of its status later this year. The Kazakhstans of this world would be happy to see us lose the status because of our habit of preaching to other countries about human rights. Remember that Lib Dems are internationalists.
We are of course in government. Like it or not we have an obligation to our coalition partners, up to a point. The repeal of S3 goes beyond that point. If our partners don’t accept the Lord’s amendment our MPs should abstain from a vote on it, and our leaders should so enable them.
* Robin is a member in Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Inside the secret world of Eel Pie Island
Phil Hutty re-selected for Torridge and Tavistock
Extraordinary cover-up of leak that could have cost lives
St Peter's Free Church Holiday Bible Club #dundeewestend
Brenda Will
Robert Heale
Tristan Ward
Linda Chung
Ruth Bright
10 Comments
Good comment Robin, I could have written it better.
Excellent piece Robin. The General Duty is good for business precisely because it promotes an approach to equality and human rights which does not rely upon intrusive and costly legal enforcement and which requires EHRC to contribute towards developing the sort of society in which successful companies generally say they want to do business.
Repeal of the General Duty could have very immediate practical consequences as well regarding the EHRC’s monitoring role – instrumental to both its status as our national human rights institution and national equality body – as I explain here: http://www.neilcrowtherconsulting.com/blog/is-ehrc-s-monitoring-role-to-hold-up-a-mirror-to-society-or-only-to-itself-
Were this the consequence of reforming the EHRC’s General Duty then this would be yet another major step back for government accountability and the protection and promotion of equality and human rights in Britain.
I hope that if the government seeks to overturn Baroness Campbell’s amendment, Liberal Democrat MP’s will see sense and abstain as you suggest
Best wishes, Neil
Well said! Our MPs just not merely abstain: they should vote against this latest piece of Tory wickedness.
You are wasting your time asking Lib Dem MP’s to vote against this bill and stand up for Liberal values.
Nick has already done another deal with Dave, another sell out to add to a growing list of sell outs.
Abstention in the current Parliament on a motion to approve (as opposed to an alternative amendment) is the same as approval as it is an empty gesture of protest with the knowledge that it will be passed because the Liberal Democrats did not vote against.
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/legal-and-policy/parliamentary-briefings/enterprise-and-regulatory-reform-bill-final-stages-briefing/
At least the EHRC has come out in favour of retaining Section 3 of the Equality Act, “Unless the government can provide additional robust reasons for removing the general duty in the current situation, our analysis suggests the case for removing the Lords’ amendment in the Commons has not been made. The Commission therefore continues to support retention of the general duty and maintaining the position established by the Lords”.
Sadly the Government has now tabled a motion to remove Jane Campbell’s amendment. This will be debated tomorrow (16 April) in the House of Commons. I hope Nick Clegg will be prepared to explain himself and not leave it to others. This is now an issue of Leadership.
There seem to be several reasons for the repeal of s3. Firstly ATOS have lost a case over disability discrimination, saying that they weren’t bound by the act. The courts disagree.
Secondly, of course, it gives the Tories an excuse to introduce draconian legislation against immigrants.
Last but not least, it makes a mockery of all the disabled legislation forcing employers to provide adaptions etc for disabled people. and to treat them in a positive way as regards employment etc. No tribunals either, saving the Government a bit of money but most of all pleasing the readers of the Daily Fail.
There’s no wonder the country is turning to other parties in droves if this is the way our MP’s who were elected on a Liberal agenda carry on like this.
What a coincidence that ATOS have just recently been forced to make a £2000 out of court settlement on the grounds of this act. You have sat back and allowed them to virtually strip away legal aid support and now this. Shifting the goalposts may make this legal, IT WILL NEVER MAKE IT RIGHT.
“Like it or not we have an obligation to our coalition partners, up to a point”
Personally I do not see that any obligation went as far as dismantling the hard fought for equalities legislation that we could be proud of in this country.
We are the Party that stands for human rights, equality and diversity, yet under our watch we have seen the further erosion of civil rights with the ruling on secret courts, significant reductions in welfare provision, and the removal of equalities legislation that existed to level the playing field in employment, and provided some safeguards against abuse.
If we truly are committed to the “Building of a Fairer Britain” then we need to male sure that safeguards exist so that the vulnerable are afforded appropriate protection or redress, but not undo what already exists.
A the polling booths in 2015 we will be judged by our actions and in actions over the past five years. I for one wish to see our number of Parliamentarians grow, but I fear that the Parties apparent lurch to the Right will mean that we will actually lose many traditional Centralist supporters, not to mention the many Left of Centre members that would have historically supported the Labour Party of old.
I would commend all of our Parliamentarians to seriously consider what is being proposed, and to protect the current legislation and not inflict further suffering on the vulnerable. Please show this country that Liberal Democrats are motivated by ethics and integrity, and not merely possessing power, and vote against these draconian Tory inspired proposals.
Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
English Party Diversity Champion
Vice Chair EMLD
Why is this hidden in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill 2012-13? Is it because the coalition are hiding what they are up to from the public ?