header-logo header-logo

16 November 2011 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7490 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

Equality off balance

HLE blogger Declan O’Dempsey considers the behaviour of the government over the equality duties under the Equality Act 2010

"Do we consider equality of opportunity to be a fundamental value of our society? Looking at the behaviour of the government in relation to the equality duties under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), one might be tempted to think not.

In the recent attempt at dismantling the effectiveness of the public sector equality duties under the EqA 2010, two approaches have been adopted by the government. One is the straightforward use of power. The EqA 2010 permitted a government to make regulations on the approach that certain public authorities would have to adopt in relation to the public sector equality duties. The government decided that authorities should not be “burdened” with the requirement to publish the volume of information that the previous government had required them to produce in order to demonstrate that they were complying with the public sector equality duty.

Instead, the government stated that the emphasis would be on authorities being ‘transparent’ about the way in which they were complying with the duty. A piece of red tape burnt quietly on the bonfire, and the regulations that were produced required these authorities to set an objective but did not require them to take any particular steps in pursuit of that objective. They would be judged, it was argued, on the same basis as any other public authority: had they had due regard to the equality objectives contained in s 149 of EqA 2010?

The second line of attack is rather less straightforward. It is a kind of ‘nudge’ approach to the application of laws by administrative bodies. Thus Eric Pickles’s aphoristic best value guidance suggested that local authorities should not feel obliged to gather diversity data concerning service users...”

Continue reading at www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Issue: 7490 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll