Equal equality for all!!

[Gob]

The Government’s equality watchdog spent tens of thousands of pounds investigating its flagship Equality Act – to see if it would discriminate against the very minority groups it was designed to protect.

Officials took the ‘unusual’ step of launching the study into the Act shortly before it came into law last year.

The Government Equalities Office ordered the review even though Ministers and officials had already consulted widely with equality experts, interested parties and members of the public before drafting the law.

'Ridiculous': The GEO was unable to say how much money was spent on the study, but admitted that printing costs alone were £22,000

The disclosure that civil servants launched a costly inquiry into the equality implications of their own anti-discrimination legislation will raise further concerns about the controversial Equality Act 2010.

Conservative MP Philip Davies last night described the move as ‘laughable’ and ‘ridiculous’. He said: ‘When you have an equality assessment of the Equality Act, it is so ridiculous you couldn’t make it up.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1CZ6e51p1

[Scooter]

Officials at the Government Equalities Office (GEO) decided to carry out an EIA into the Equality Bill itself in 2009.

The resulting 89-page report admits: ‘This Equality Impact Assessment is unusual in the sense that the entire purpose of its subject – the Equality Bill – is to tackle discrimination and promote equality of opportunity.’
The report also acknowledges that the Bill was drawn up ‘in consultation with a wide range of government departments and stakeholders including equality representatives, trade unions and businesses’.

The EIA examined each of the Bill’s measures in terms of their impact on race, age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, religion or belief. It concluded that the proposals would ‘have a positive impact on all the equality strands’

So prior to passing the proposed legislation into law, the entity that would have responsibility for enforcing it did two things: (1) conducted consultations with a broad range of affected stakeholders, presumably to obtain their views about how the legislation would affect them, whether positively or negatively, and (2) presumably on the basis of those consultations and whatever other information was available, conducted its own assessment of whether the legislation would be effective in achieving its intended objectives.

Last week The Mail on Sunday revealed that several Whitehall departments had spent money on reports – called Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) – to ensure new and existing policies were in line with requirements of the Act.

So the government of the day passed a piece of legislation, and several government departments subsequently conducted reviews of their own policies to ensure that they were operating in compliance with said legislation, presumably so they could make any necessary adjustments to their own policies, if required, in order to bring them into compliance.

Forgive me for being dense, but I'm not seeing anything particularly egregious about either of these courses of action. In fact, I would think that it would only be common sense, and should be REQUIRED for ANY piece of legislation, that there should be evidence provided that the proposed law will do what it sets out to do prior to passage, and that subsequent to passage, any government department affected by the legislation should take steps to ensure that it is operating in compliance.

If I were a legislator considering a change in tax law, I would want there to be consultations with those affected by the tax changes being proposed, I would want some sort of report that shows me that the intended impacts of the tax change (whether in terms of effect on tax revenues or increased economic activity or whatever) will be achievable, and I would want any government departments having a hand in collecting the tax to make the required policy and procedural changes to give effect to the tax changes. Any reason why it should be any different in this case?

[Sue U]

Any reason why it should be any different in this case?

Because the Daily MFail wouldn't be able to manufacture a "news" story?

[Gob]

The fact that it passed scrutiny in both the lower and upper chambers of parliament, before it was then scrutinised by the very government watchdog charged with implementing it, doesn't strike you as;

a) Farcical.
b) A waste of a great deal of taxpayers money.
c) A sign of government incompetence.

The system in the UK, I do not know how it works in your countries, is that bills have to face the most rigorous scrutiny in parliament so they can be put into statute law.

[Scooter]

The fact that it passed scrutiny in both the lower and upper chambers of parliament, before it was then scrutinised by the very government watchdog charged with implementing it,...

No, review the timeline. The GEO reviewed the bill in 2009, before it was passed into law in 2010. Which, were I an MP, would be something I would expect the entity responsible for its implementation to do, as I would expect for any piece of legislation.

The system in the UK, I do not know how it works in your countries, is that bills have to face the most rigorous scrutiny in parliament so they can be put into statute law.

Same system here. Part of the evidence reviewed during such scrutiny would be any reports prepared by the government entities responsible for enforcing the legislation regarding its expected impact.

[Gob]

Cheers Scoot, I missed that first point. My bad.

[Scooter]

It was easy to miss, as the article seems to have been written to provide the opposite impression, by conflating several different processes associated with the passage of the legislation.