House of Lords insists on equality duty

Update on the government's determination to remove the EHRC's general duty.   Last night the House of Lords insisted on its amendment to keep the duty.  Ping Pong continues.   Come on Liberal Democrat MPs ! Wake up !

You can see how the Lords voted here at Column 1294.    Surprising how the Lib Dem Lords split.  Not entirely predictable.

Equality legislation: Lib Dem MPs hand free gift to Labour

Last Tuesday the Commons voted 310 - 244  to reject a Lords amendment to keep Section 3 of the Equality Act.  In other words they supported the government's proposal to repeal  Section 3 which sets out the general duty of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission which says:

The Commission shall exercise its functions under this Part with a view to encouraging and supporting the development of a society in which- 

(a) people’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination, 
(b) there is respect for and protection of each individual’s human rights, 
(c) there is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual, 
(d) each individual has an equal opportunity to participate in society, and 
(e) there is mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights. 

As we can see, there is not a single word there that a Liberal Democrat could disagree with.  Yet 41 Lib Dem MP's voted to scrap it.  MPs John Hemming, Adrian Sanders, Sarah Teather and David Ward rebelled against the government and deputy leader Simon Hughes abstained after speaking against the government line but the whips still won the day.  11 of our MPs were absent. Party president Tim Farron urged ministers to back down but when they did not he voted with the whip.

Jo Swinson, the minister responsible argued that the section has no effect in law.  Cambridge law professor Sir Bob Hepple QC begs to differ.   As the Welsh Liberal Democrat Conference  pointed out yesterday:

* Section 3 is entirely congruent with the preamble to our party’s constitution and repealing it would be to act against all our fundamental beliefs and instincts. 

* Our MPs had no mandate to vote against it last Tuesday because: 

1. The party fully supported the 2006 Act. 
2. In our 2010 manifesto the Party reaffirmed its commitment to further advancing equality and human rights. 

3. This commitment was carried forward into the coalition agreement. 

I cannot see that the government has made out its case to repeal Section 3. If, as they argue, it has no effect, then why waste time debating it. If, as others argue, it has a beneficial effect then leave it in place. Repealing this section hands a gift to the Labour Party who will quote Liberal Democrats' opposition to Section 3 every chance they get. What were our ministers thinking of when they agreed to this ?

Fairness ?

The Today programme discussed the Equality and Human Rights Commission's report How fair is Britain ? Humphries asked Trevor Philips what fairness means and Philips demonstrated the vagueness of the idea. Such discussion often ignores two issues.

Firstly, outcomes are often measured in monetary terms which take no account of personal life choices. Some people seek other things than wealth.

Secondly, discussion of ethnic issues is often taboo. Interesting that there is no gap in educational achievement between rich and poor Chinese children but a 20% gap for Indian children. I can't find the figures for white or Caribbean British children (forgive me if these are not the currently politically correct terms). Some people have attempted to identify racial differences in intelligence relying on notoriously vague and unscientific definitions of both race and intelligence. However, it would be equally prejudicial to deny cultural differences between groups which, for example, have enormous impact on children's performance at school.

Oh mother ! Abuse of parliamentary democracy ?

On the Today programme this morning the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster complained that the lack of a full debate in the Commons on the Equality Act and adoption services (see Nonsense on Stilts :devout vs out) was "an abuse of parliamentary democracy". Only a little acquaintance with our archaic and executive-dominated "Mother of parliaments" would show that it is the Commons itself which is an abuse of democracy.

To give but one example, the Trident debate. Firstly, opinion polls show that around half the country would be happy not to replace Trident (figures vary above and below 50%) yet not one MP tabled an amendment putting that position. If such an amendment had been tabled, the Speaker would probably not have called it for debate because he alone determines what is debated.

Finally, there are two reasonable ways to organise debate in legislatures. The traditional way is for debates to begin and end with speakers for and against the motion or amendment under discussion. The European Parliament way is to allot time to each party group according to their strength in numbers. The House of Commons conducts its debates on the basis of opening and closing speeches by the government and the "official opposition" thus ignoring or diminishing the role of any other parties. In the Trident debate where Labour and Conservative agreed on the motion, this meant two speeches in favour of Trident at the beginning and two more at the end.