Enforcing the Equality Act

[RedToothBrush]

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/women-and-equalities-committee/news-parliament-2017/equality-act-role-of-ehrc-report-published-17-19/
Fundamental shift needed for enforcing the Equality Act

The Women and Equalities Committee publishes report on Enforcing the Equality Act: the law and the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The individual approach to enforcement of equality law is no longer fit for purpose, says the Women and Equalities Committee in the report of its year-long inquiry.

The report argues against relying on the individual approach, dating back to the 60s and 70s, and recommends that this must be replaced by a new approach which provides a sustainable deterrent and tackles institutional and systemic discrimination.

While individuals must still have the right to challenge discrimination in the courts, says the Committee, the system of enforcement should ensure that this is only rarely needed: this will require a fundamental shift in the way that enforcement of the Equality Act is thought about and applied.

Recommendations from the Report
The report’s main recommendations are:

Develop a ‘critical mass’ of cases to inform employers and organisations about their legal duties and make adherence to existing equality law a priority for all organisations
Move away from relying so heavily on the current model of using individual litigation to create precedents
Make obligations on employers, public authorities, and service providers explicit and enforceable
Ensure that all who have powers to change the way in which employers, public bodies and service providers operate use their powers to eliminate discrimination and to advance equality
The EHRC must refocus its work and be bolder in using its unique enforcement powers.
The Committee recommends that the Government’s Labour Market Enforcement Director should play a fundamental role, alongside the proposed new single labour market enforcement body.

If such bodies acted consistently on their obligations, then the EHRC could become the strategic enforcer that it should be.

Finally the report recommends that the Government must also make this fundamental shift in the way that enforcement of the Equality Act is thought about and applied.

I'm yet to delve into the report itself, but I do wonder about the EHRC itself and its capability to do this and the danger of it having too much power and being at risk of regulatory capture, and I wonder whether this will give lobby groups more power too - which might be either good or bad from a woman's point of view.

I think it's probably accurate to say there is an issue over enforcement of the Equality act, but part of that is down to definitions and understanding of what the equality acts is supported to do not being well understood.

I have mixed feelings about this and am unsure if it's good or bad.

Red - not saying much because reading and thinking. Thank you for this work.

Fascinating read (or rather a skim through).
At face value it does look positive although the toxic EHRC appears to have been so captured by those seeking to erase women's rights that it worries me they are so central to all this.

Just reading the email and came to find the thread!! Thanks RTB

Yay! Maria Miller has discovered SEX

Even Janet whatsit from women’s aid who came across as a total wet lettuce at the women and equalities committee meeting on refuges seems to get it from her quotes in there

Thanks for posting this

truth, I agree about the EHRC however its pretty clear from the recommendations here that they have been effectively served notice that they need to uphold women's rights too and they are under scrutiny to perform better. They are now in a position where the question of whether they are fit for purpose has been explicitly asked in parliament.

That in itself means the lobbying over trans rights, has its silencing effect somewhat negated, and concerns over womans single sex rights are being supported by government as both proportionate, fair and legitimate.

This report is really really important for that reason alone.

It can not be stressed enough how important the testimony of Karon Monaghan, Karen Ingala Smith and Janet McDermott has been.

And Barracker's quote is cracking and to the point too. No wonder it was highlighted!

twitter.com/FiLiA_charity/status/1156096753235628032

Thread by FiLiA on the sex chapter.

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

Finally some meaningful discussion is starting to take place.

I can see what you mean Red - it is a theme that is running through. I think I'm just having trouble believing that it might happen....

And thank you for posting all this - both this and Michael Biggs' work seem to be game changers?

Thank you again- I'm waiting hopefully for someone to draw a conclusion!

I've only had a quick look through and I'm not a lawyer or even much of a thinker but overall that looks rather positive to me. More positive than I might have anticipated. Lots of the issues that we regularly raise here seem to have been accepted as real problems. Good to see Women's Aid's situation spelled out and an acknowledgement of the need for single-sex organisations and services. And good to see NHS commissioning getting a poke.

And thank you for posting all this - both this and Michael Biggs' work seem to be game changers?

They are both hard for government bodies to ignore for various reasons.

They legitimise criticism levelled at trans lobbying as fair. Cos it is and always has been.

Its a wholesale smashing of 'no debate'.

The left wing press can no longer ignore or villify either. Its now 'news'. As in proper ball rolling unstoppable jugganaut of its very own, type change.

Pippa Banham @pippajbanham
@EHRC It would be a start if @WomenEqualities used ‘sex’ in their bio instead of gender in accordance with the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010

OUCH.

First, Thank You so much Red for your sterling efforts here I really appreciate the time you have taken to make it easier for the rest of us to access this guidance.

There is a lot to take in, but I am pleased that it is made really clear that single sex provision is legal and necessary in certain situations.

I'm also relieved that they have identified the problems caused by commissioners driving single gender spaces. I'd now like to see a review, at a local level, of all services commissioned in this way. Cash strapped CCGs and councils may plead poverty, but it is clear to me that they need to follow the specific EA provisions, not their preferred version. Inevitably I have concerns about deep regulatory capture here.

Yes, absolutely. I have a sense from a quick read of this that we're no longer the feminists on the fringe raising awkward issues that no one really wants to address. This seems to be saying not merely that our concerns are noted but accepted and will form the basis of change.

If we can do this there's hope that places like New Zealand and Australia will be able to halt their apparently unstoppable journey towards adopting a Canadian stance. Maybe we can also help Canada come to its senses.

So grateful for your work. I have such limited time to do anything due to young kids and job. I'll read your excerpts this evening.

Thank you red. Thank you so much, for your attention to detail and hard work.

I wish they would add a paragraph, each time, putting it in plain English!

I know they have to be explicit, because it must not be open to misinterpretation, but, get to the point already!

Datun maybe we could do an FWR easy read version.

Heck we could have T-shirts & Stickers with the definition of woman and everything. And not be transphobic.

I wonder whether Ruth Hunt got wind of a change of thinking in the WEC and realised that Stonewall's No Debate and TWAW chickens were coming home to roost?

Oh wow, thank you Red!

Will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

Thank you so much Red, for all your time and effort on this - sterling work, as usual!

I'm feeling more positive that the tide really is turning after reading this - and reading Michael Biggs's paper this morning too

I wish they would add a paragraph, each time, putting it in plain English!

I know they have to be explicit, because it must not be open to misinterpretation, but, get to the point already!

I have to say I find guidance documents, legal documents and government documents something of a strange language which automatically creates a barrier.

It makes it hard for those who don't understand their rights to be able to stand up for them. Its long been a bug bear of mine.

They do need almost 'translating' for a layman audience. That doesn't mean they need dumbing down, just properly explained in a way which doesn't lose meaning which is a real skill and something that gets overlooked.

I do believe this is something which is hugely important.

Its noticable this report itself reflects on why there is a problem with the enforcement of rights:
12.The individual approach relies on an individual to initiate legal action, something that many will not be able to do. Inclusion London set out a range of reasons that echoed evidence from other witnesses: poor knowledge of rights; unwillingness to go up against a large organisation with many more resources; complexity of the law; a lack of specialist legal support; the high cost of legal action and very limited access to legal aid.

My bold.

These three points all point to issues relating to communication skills or lack of knowledge - and are exclusionary in their own way - with anyone with lack of education or lack of english as a first language at particular risk.

It means that rights tend to be the exclusive preserve of the middle classes and above at the direct expense of anyone lower than that. Which is significant particularly at a time of austerity. There has been a notable reflection on FWR on how the trans lobby has been driven by a rather blind middle class too.

Its also reflected in all the euphemisms that surround this trans culture and the erasure of the word 'woman' to be replaced with 'people with cervixes'.

Equality law in the uk doesn't reflect on class and maybe thats a fundamental flaw in its own right, purely because in terms of vulnerability and those most open to exploitation thats where rights are most needed.

It also explains something of the backlash against the concept of rights which is coming particularly from a more working class culture. The argument that we need to protect our rights has no traction because in effect there is a whole bunch of people who are being actively excluded from those rights via other means; notably through communication skills and how information and knowledge is shared in an inaccessable way.

I disgress from the OP, but I do think its a fundamental issue that is dogging this entire debate and has contributed to why so many people have taken so long to wake up to whats happening and how its got so far in the first place.

I do think we need to reflect on it, and yes 'translations into simple english' are essential. And its a very important point to be raising.

I don't think its even a question of 'simple english' - more 'accessable explanations'. Its encouraging people to ask questions when they don't understand, without fear of 'feeling stupid' (this is really complex stuff at time and despite having a nack for these type of documents and actually encouraging the process of decoding them, I don't always understand them) or being labelled as 'bigotted' for not being able to access the language or almost be part of the 'cultural club' as you don't come from 'the right background' or 'the cool generation'.

Why is it that transactivism is never far from word salad or reasoning which gaslights you? Its a deliberate fog to put off those who are not confident in challenging this encoded language which holds top down power, in the very way its phrased and presented.

Nicola Williams from Fair Play For Women here.

I see this an excellent and much needed opportunity for the balancing of the conflict of rights based on sex vs gender to at last happen. New Statutory Code on the use of the single-sex exemptions is long over due and will replace the out-of-date 2011 EHRC guidance that was written without due consideration on the impact of women.

The EHRC interpretation that single-sex services should include transsexuals based on their gender preference undermines the concept of single-SEX. It is very disappointing to see WESC repeat this assumption in their report that a single-sex space for females is still considered single sex if it includes males who identify as females. (See paragraph 162 in the WESC report). WESC have failed to make reference to the 2018 updated guidance by EHRC that makes it very clear that transwomen without a GRC are to be considered male when it comes to sex discrimination and use of the exemptions (link below). The legal and social meaning of sex must be made clear in the new guidance because sex is the protected characteristic that underpins the rights of women and girls. Without this word we can't speak of or fight for out sex-based rights.

It is also crucial that the scope of the new guidance moves beyond just women's refuges. Women and girls their sex based rights to privacy, safety and fairness in all areas of life. Sports, changing rooms, prisons, overnight accommodation, intimate care etc.

Fair Play For Women and many others have pushed hard to extract more clarity on the single-sex exemptions and we will continue to do so over the coming months and expect to be fully involved in policy development. We will accept nothing less.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/our-statement-sex-and-gender-reassignment-legal-protections-and-language

thanks Nic, great to hear you're on the case

This caught my eye in chapter 7

many Clinical Commissioning Groups were taking a gender-neutral approach, reflected in comments like “[A]ll our commissioned services are for men and women equally”

what, breast cancer screening? impotence treatments?

Nicola Williams and redtoothbrush having a go at the women and equalities committee who quote Barracker.

Now there's a bloody dream team.

DoctorW, is that an issue of the committee missing the issue - accidentially or deliberately?

Or is it a question of them too getting caught up in not properly understanding equality law and therefore illustrating their own conclusion that the conflation of sex and gender in law is a total car crash no one understands?

If you look at paragraphs 157 and 158 there is a question raised specifically at what single sex was - which then had exception laid out in para 160. Para 162 is essentially at odds with para 160 in many respects. The issue is that the public have no way of knowing the difference between a single sex service with exemptions and a single sex service without exemptions because of the terminology, rather than what equality law says. Which ironically, removes the ability of women to choose when they decide to access a service, which might inadvertantly be discrimatory in its own right on the basis of sex or religion...

This paradox also seems to have been reinterated in KIS's testomony in para 176.

I think perhaps this might be the heart of the problem rather than the WESC seeming to support mixed sex facilities.

I note that in para 160 where there are examples of exemptions, a specific reference is made to dormatories which I find encouraging because that would by default include anything from prisons to guides to hospital wards.

It doesn't include changing rooms, intimate care nor sports as far as I can see which I do feel is an ommission.

On the whole I lean towards the benefit of the doubt during the course of getting bogged down in legalise rather than something more because of context and other references. I do hope this is something that can be pinned down and tackled though to clarify the position.

I personally think that the conflation of sex and gender across the entire public sector - and having both recorded (possibly with an opt out option for both) - is something that needs to be done, with a promotion of the point that the two are not the same thing but each have equal weight and importance in equality law.