Lynne Featherstone

Talking of extending the range of sport on offer to young people - which is part of the Body Confidence project - last night I attended the launch dinner of the Women's World Rugby Cup. This worldwide tournament is taking place from mid-August to mid September in Surrey - and our team is in with a real chance. You can find out more about the World Cup here.

What a committed group of both women and men (the sport is well integrated) completely dedicated to promoting and expanding participation in this game - on which I had a crash course during the dinner.

From even four years ago the women's game has mushroomed. Amongst the guests were the real pioneers of the sport - those women who had pushed and pushed for the success they now have. From the time where there were so few women interested that to get a team together you had to gather girls from whole regions - nay - the whole of the north of England - now the numbers are growing.

Having the World Cup here - and it being televised by Sky (full marks to Sky for televising women's sport - something other broadcasters might like to follow suit in) will undoubtedly spawn a whole new avalanche of interest.

Good luck to the team and look forward to watching you.

In order to help aspiring young journalists from a local school do a special piece on youth issues in Haringey for the BBC, Lynne Featherstone MP was interviewed by students at Hornsey School for Girls.

The Crouch End school is participating in the BBC school report for the third year running. The project allows students, with the help of mentors from the national broadcaster, to learn about making TV and to develop journalistic skills.

The Liberal Democrat MP was quizzed on issues such as unfair school funding and youth crime in the student-led piece, which will be shown on the BBC website, and hopefully on TV and radio, on the 11th March.

Lynne Featherstone MP, comments:

“I was really impressed by how expertly the interview was carried out, how well researched the questions were, and how much the students had learnt about technical stuff like filming and sound.

“This is a great way to teach the girls about making TV and to help them develop an interest in current affairs.

“And who knows, they may even end up working for the BBC one day! Hopefully their report will go all the way to the top - I’ll certainly be keeping an eye out for it on the 11th March.”

Here's a column I've written for Liberal Democrat News:

The Channel 4 fly-on-the wall series, The Family, is about an Indian family - the Grewels. The wife of one of the sons hasn’t spoken to her own mother for over five years because her mother did not approve of her choice of husband. The Grewels believe that their daughter-in-law was rejected by her mother because their son was not from a high enough caste – that rigid system of social groups determined by birth or occupation.

Whilst we might well disapprove of this situation, we would think it inappropriate for the law to intervene in what is essentially a family matter. However, it is a very different situation when it is a matter such as a doctor refusing to treat a patient in the NHS because they are from the “wrong” caste – if that were to be the case.

So whilst the issues around caste have their roots in society – and much of the issue is not a matter for law – this is not an issue the law should continue turning such a blind eye too.

That is why I moved an amendment at Committee stage of the Equality Bill which would make it against the law to discriminate on grounds of caste, just as it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, gender and so on.

Labour refused to support the amendment, claiming there is no problem that needs fixing. But they have consulted essentially those organizations which condone the caste system. No surprise then they said there wasn’t a problem!

However, in my closing statements to that stage of the Bill, I did manage to get the Government to agree that if new evidence came forward - they would consider it.

So the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance began the research to provide new evidence to submit for the next stage of the Equality Bill. The findings from the new study were published last week.

The new report shows that caste discrimination is rife in the UK, with more than half of those from traditionally lower-status Asian backgrounds finding themselves victims of prejudice and abuse. The findings show that the caste system is evident in education, the work place and health and that thousands of people are affected.

Of the 300 people surveyed fifty-eight percent said they had been discriminated against because of their caste and 79% said that if they tried to report a caste-related ‘hate crime’ the police would not actually understand.

The findings are significant, and whilst the law is already in place to address cultural horrors such as honour killings (criminal law) and forced marriages (civil law), there is nothing to protect those who find themselves the victim of caste discrimination in less dramatic circumstances.

From the report, it is clear that discrimination on grounds of caste is occurring, for example, in the provision of public services. The report is illustrated with evidence such as a physical therapist refusing to treat someone of low caste and many tales from under 12s who have been subject to discrimination because of their caste at school - not just by fellow pupils but also by some teachers.

These days Catholic adoption agencies may not discriminate on religious grounds as to who they will place a child with. It is now illegal to refuse to register a civil partnership. There are many examples of conscience and belief no longer being an acceptable reason to refuse the provision of a public service to someone entitled to it.

The world has changed and we are grappling with finding the right dividing line between the freedom to practice beliefs and customs and the consequences of that freedom.

But public services are just that – a service for the public – and not something to be given or withdrawn based on personal likes and dislikes or beliefs.

Let’s hope the Government now acts on the evidence before them of caste discrimination in the public services and more widely.

I moved an amendment at Committee stage of the Equality Bill which would make it against the law to discriminate on grounds of caste. The Bill moves to protect a number of 'protected characteristics' such as sexual orientation, disability, race, age and so on - but not caste. The Government would have none of it. As far as they were concerned they had seen no evidence. They had consulted - and there was no evidence in the responses of any problem.

Of course - the Government had consulted with essentially those organisations who condone the caste system - therefore (as I pointed out to the Minister) it was hardly surprising that the responders found there to be no problem.

I did, however (a bit cleverly I thought) in my closing statements to that stage of the Bill get the government to agree that if further evidence came forward - they would consider it. It's in Hansard. They said they would!

So - I tabled another amendment to include caste in the 'protected characteristics' for Report Stage - which will hopefully be scheduled to come to the floor of the Commons soon after the Queen's Speech. I hope the Speaker selects it for debate - but it may not get selected - in which case the next opportunity comes when the Bill is debated in the Lords.

So - action stations the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance and Caste Watch - two organisations who then took up the challenge to go get the much needed evidence.

Yesterday - the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance had an event in Parliament to launch the Report of that evidence. It is compelling. It is quite clear that caste discrimination exists in the UK. There are legions of examples - all put together in ten weeks. The evidence is compelling - so hopefully - the Government who said that they would consider any evidence coming forward will now bring forward their own amendment to include caste.

Fingers crossed!

Here's my keynote speech to the Liberal Democrat Bournemouth conference:

My fellow Liberal Democrats - what a moment in world history for equality.

When we were last here in Bournemouth, the Presidential Campaign in the US was drawing to a close. I don't know about you, but I can still hardly believe it. Who would have thought it possible ... there is now a black man who is president of the United States of America.

The message of hope and optimism, and the potential for change could not be clearer. On that historic day when he made his inauguration speech, the words of our own party constitution kept repeating through my mind: “That no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.”

So conference let's today be ambitious as Liberal Democrats.

Let's agree right here and right now that anything is possible whether by small practical steps or by great leaps of inspired Obama-like faith.

Because if a black kid in America can rise above the noise, the prejudice and the class divides to become the President of the United States - then anything is possible.

But as all Liberal Democrats know, and as President Obama himself said, idle aspiration alone is not enough. On Monday morning I went to Moordown St John's Primary School - here in Bournemouth - with Trevor Phillips from the Equality Commission.

Now the children had been asked to draw pictures of politicians - needless to say - the pictures were almost all male and almost all pale - just like the House of Commons! These children captured Parliament perfectly with the skills of the best sketch writers.

One comment on one drawing said: 'I have drawn a man because I think that men can stand up and talk better to a crowd than a woman can'. Another had written: 'I have chosen a male MP because I have never seen a woman MP'. He has now! And I've had a word with him.

That's the power of the role model, the power to challenge our preconceptions and to bring hope alive.

In my constituency I see kindness and cruelty; fierce intelligence and shocking ignorance; the struggles and successes; the love; the bitterness and the bias that make up the sum of all our experience.

But in small corners of that experience I have seen a shift.

Children for whom the halls of Harvard Law School, or for that matter Oxford or Cambridge, have seemed no closer than the moon can see the possibility.

This new generation pregnant with that possibility should not - cannot be let down.

And for many, far too many, President Obama's triumph remains as irrelevant as the more distant figures in our history books.

That's why we need action - the practical steps - because education and opportunity are the ways to blast away the old order.

The Liberal Democrats offer the bold approach to tackling inequality. Our pupil premium delivers a life-changing opportunity at school by injecting funds where they are most needed. Our name blank job application policy will open doors previously closed for that young boy - or girl - when they come out of education and apply for a job.

Name blank job applications is a simple idea. Just as we give a number for children to write on their exam papers so there can be no bias in the marking - so job applicants can use their National Insurance number. It costs nothing - and by removing the name from job application forms - we remove from that very first sift the unconscious prejudice that sadly can lurk in all of us. And I am proud of our party passing this on Saturday.

Now, you probably already know that 80% of MPs in the House of Commons are male. Lord knows - I've mentioned it often enough!

Even more shockingly, of the FTSE100 companies 88% of the directors are male. That's right - take the 100 biggest listed companies in Britain, and you'll find only one in ten directors, here in 2009 - are female.

Do we really think that if we trawled through to find the best people for the job of running our top companies, we'd find nearly nine in ten are male? Or if we hunted out the very best people to be our MPs, that eight in ten would be male?

Friends, I want to set you a task today.

I want you all to conduct some detailed research. Extensive research. Perhaps at the Highcliff Hotel. Perhaps this lunchtime - perhaps in the bar - perhaps at a fringe.

I suggest that you look at all the representatives there and you ask yourselves this simple question: if you hunt out the best people to be MPs - will 4 out of every 5 of them end up being men?

I think not.

Now don't get me wrong. I love men. I've consulted with them - consorted with them - and even - on occasion - cavorted with them. But they are not the only answer - nor necessarily the right answer - and they are certainly not the right answer 88 times out of every 100.

I sometimes wonder if we really understand the scale of the inequality that women suffer financially?

The Equal Pay Act was sparked by the gender pay gap. For every pound that men were paid at the Ford Dagenham car plant the women earned only 85 pence. So on June 7th 1968 the women went on strike - and when they were joined by the women and men of the Ford car plant in Liverpool the company caved in and the Equal Pay act was spawned.

But the law has not been effective. And at the high end of the pay spectrum - it's no different.

We see the highest paid female director of a FTSE 100 company took home £3.8m last year - but it is a figure dwarfed by the highest paid man - who took home £36.8m - almost ten times as much.

In case you are in any doubt - I think pay levels like that are insane and obscene.

But the issue is - from the highest earners to the lowest earners - women get the raw deal. It is as tragic as it is shameful that these gaps remain 40 years after the Equal Pay Act.

And it happens - and can happen - because that differential is hidden from public or indeed, the employees' gaze.

Liberal Democrats would introduce mandatory pay audits. We would expose a company's overall pattern of pay - not individual salaries - but enough information to show quite clearly where the pay gap lies.

That would put power into the hands of an individual to see for themselves whether they were being discriminated against - enabling them to take forward a case of discrimination -b e that man, woman, someone from an ethnic minority or a person with disabilities.

When it comes to pay, everyone is entitled to greater transparency.

And there are wider inequalities we must tackle.

A primary school child in an inner city constituency is not judged by the content of his or her character or the passion of his ambition. He is judged by the invisible barriers he or she will face because of both the colour of his skin but also his class and family income.

Poverty reinforces class barriers. That's why in difficult times for the taxpayer Liberal Democrats make our priorities clear.

We will cut taxes for those who are on middle and low incomes - so that no one pays a penny on income tax on the first 10 thousand pounds they earn.

And then there's religion. In recent years, sadly the spectre of religious discrimination has arisen again. A party born of revulsion at the treatment of Catholics and Non-conformists stands four square behind all those who seek to practice their faith.

9/11 and the subsequent Iraq war has fostered increasing ignorance and prejudice - on all sides. And it deepens apace - as we saw with the fascist demonstrations against the Harrow Mosque on the anniversary of 9/11.

And there has been so much damage done to the image of Muslims with the reporting of news from overseas and here, where so-called Islamic terrorists often feature - but when those fighting the terrorists, or the victims of terrorism, are also Muslim - this often goes unmentioned.

The drip-drip effect of linking the word 'Muslim' and the word 'terrorism' - but not linking "victim" and "Muslim" in the same way - is pernicious.

And at the same time we have seen a rising tide of attacks on Jewish people too.

It is better to confront and address these challenges before we are at real risk from violent internecine strife or the hideous bile of the far right - especially as there is no doubt that with an economic downturn the far right will be looking to turn the screw on peoples' fears.

Liberal Democrats believe in cohesion - not separation.

Friends, there is not enough time to talk in one brief speech about all the inequalities that exist today. I would love to have the time to tell you exactly what I think of BBC's sacking of Arlene Phillips from Strictly.

What on earth are we doing when we throw someone of Ms Phillips experience - one of the world's foremost choreographers - on the scrap heap in favour of someone young and pretty? No offence to Alesha and I'm sorry she had such a rough ride on her first outing. It's not her fault - it's the BBC bosses.

What message do we send out - other that we don't value what is important but we pay homage to the fleeting, the superficial and the desperate quest for youth?

We believe there should be no mandatory retirement age - something Labour refuses to support.

And I'd love to have time to talk about the severe prejudice encountered by our young people and the many barriers that remain for those with disabilities, I'd like to talk about caste discrimination, and gender identity issues.

So - let's not kid ourselves that there isn't discrimination out there - whether it is on the basis of gender, race, class, sexuality, religion, age or disability.

Discrimination is still rife. After hundreds of years of fighting against it.

But what I do have a moment for - is to persuade you, to continue your fight against prejudice, to use your powers in local authorities and devolved bodies throughout the land to use your powers as the great campaigners that I know you are. To fight and continue to fight until issues of equality no longer need to be on the agenda.

We are called on, as a party, by our history to fulfill our creed and fight for equal rights.

This is not the politics of single issues that should remain in the province of women, or minority groups.
It is a cause to which all those who hold a liberal world view are drawn.

In facing the scale of that challenge - and the urgency of that need - we have to persuade people that doing nothing is letting entrenched discrimination win.

I want to turn on its head the way we approach campaigning on this issue - I want to reframe the debate - so that we don't just present issues in a way that appeals to those who already agree - like us - but which takes the argument to those who don't.

Tackling discrimination helps all of us.

Because when a company discriminates in its choice of senior staff - and ends up predominantly male - it's not just the woman who gets overlooked for promotion who loses out - it's all those who lose their jobs, men and women because the management of the company itself is not up to scratch.

Tackling discrimination helps all of us.

Because when the police carry out stop and search on black and ethnic minorities. Searches which are out of all proportion to the numbers in the population and crime figures - it isn't just those who are stopped who lose out, it's all of us who lose out - from the police wasting time on the innocent rather than catching the guilty.

Tackling discrimination helps all of us.

Because when so many schools assume that information about children of separated parents should be given to their mothers - it isn't just the fathers who lose out, it's all of us who lose out from the damage to our next generation.

Whoever the discrimination is against - even when it is against the less talked about groups such as men - no I hadn't forgotten you - we all suffer.

On many of these issues there is progress.

Not that long ago it was against the law to be openly gay. Now it is against the law to refuse to register a civil partnership

Conference, this is a call to arms. For each and every generation has the opportunity to shape our society and our communities. In this year, an election year, we accept that challenge.

Liberal Democrats are different - we are the real alternative to failed red-blue/blue-red stale old politics. Liberal Democrats are straight talking - we are prepared to stand up for what is right for people - not what is popular with the tabloids.

Liberal Democrats are ambitious - for change - for every woman who is underpaid, for every child who is denied life opportunities, for every person who suffers the insult and injury of discrimination.

The battle lines are drawn at our childrens' feet.

Against us - those who can live with - racial hatred, gender discrimination, and homophobia. Those who point fingers but don't point out solutions. And those who just can't be bothered.

Ladies and gentlemen: be bold, be brave, be active. History will judge us on our action and our purpose.

The Liberal Democrat purpose is to set our nation free.

Here's my speech to the Stonewall/DELGA fringe meeting at the Lib Dem conference in Bournemouth:

When we talk about gay rights in a cold climate – a chill wind is blowing. And I suspect that the temperature is in danger of dropping sharply –in terms of what will happen to the funding both in terms of outreach, support and gay health

LGBT organisations rely on three main sources of income:

- government grants
- private donations
- corporate sponsorship

I don’t have to tell people in the room who are involving in local Government about the bleak funding future ahead of us. As basic services get squeezed the axe will most certainly turn to external funding where cuts will not be so immediately felt.

If you stop collecting rubbish people notice pretty quickly, but this is not the case when it comes LGBT support groups.

Private individuals have inevitably become less generous as household finances become shakier. Even the pink purse isn’t recession proof.

And as companies’ profit margins have evaporated, so does their benevolence.

So what can we do about it?

It is a point I make time and time again - you must spend to save.

A difficult argument when the economy is in dire straits, but now more than ever should this case be made.

Where any of us have a seat at a table where financial decisions are made we must make the case for continued funding. We must make the case for well-targeted projects that support the gay community.

Providing condoms and lube in every gay pub, club and sauna makes HIV/AIDS less likely to be spread.

Spending money to promote clear public sexual health messages saves money on treatment.

Creating safe places for confused teenagers to come to terms with his or her sexuality makes for productive and well-adjusted adults.

I salute the work Stonewall has done in making sexuality an issue of good business. Going out there and making the business case for companies to take the issues of gay people seriously and also dealing with business perceptions.

But further afield one real protection against any roll back to gay rights is by enshrining them in law.

As the Equality Bill currently wends it’s way through Parliament, as Liberal Democrats I sometime feel we have been a bit of a lone voice in arguing for what I believe is full LGBT equality.

I won’t bore you with commentary on the whole 205 clauses, but there have been two main bones of contention, transgender issues and second class treatment of gay discrimination rights.

The transgender community continues to be ostracised. Even some parts of the gay community can be a bit snooty about transgender issues.

Maybe this is partly this is because some gay people see their issues been unfairly lumped into one basket, but sometimes I wonder if there is simply lack of empathy.

The Government, however, displayed complete ignorance of transgender issues. They showed relentless and ill-informed determination to keep as one of the protected strands ‘gender reassignment.

They seemingly did not understand or even wish to understand the complexities of the range of the spectrum of gender identity.

They had no awareness that many, many trans people never change sex nor even ultimately pass for the other gender nor even go on that journey nor that some people are just intersex in some form and that those who have gender identity issues will experience discrimination and need protection because they don’t fit gender stereotypes at all.

The current case of 800 metres world champion, Caster Semanya of South Africa highlights just one of the complexities. But the Government completely refused to change the title of that protected characteristic to ‘gender identity’ thereby leaving swathes of people unprotected by the soon to be new laws.

The second point, one that I know I don’t share with Stonewall – and I know this because I questioned Ben when he gave Evidence to the bill committee and he told me so! – is to do with what I call the second class treatment of gay protection.

I think lots of gay people would be surprised to learn that harassing a pupil because of their sexuality is not explicitly outlawed in schools. And just so we understand – harassment in this context means intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive behaviour.

It is rightly explicitly illegal to harass a pupil because of their race, their gender or if they have a disability, but it is not explicitly illegal to harass a pupil because of his or her sexuality.

Direct discrimination is banned and it is thought this will give sufficient protection, but for me a question mark remains as why you wouldn’t put something as important as this in big letters on the face of the Bill – young gay people should not bullied in school. End of!

There should not be a hierarchy between different types of discrimination and we shouldn’t want to slip gay rights in the Bill through the backdoor, no pun intended.

I’ve lost a few skirmishes on these issues in Parliament, but the battle is not over until the fat lady sings, more correctly until Her Majesty gives royal assent.

Then we come to blood.

If any of you were here last year you may remember that I raised the issue of the blanket ban on gay men giving blood and that this as an issue that we needed to campaign on. I am delighted to say that Stonewall changed its position to support our view which is that individuals should be banned according to their actual behaviour, not according to crude categories.

Currently there would be a lifetime ban on a gay man who had had protected sex once. There is no equivalent on a straight man - who may have had more partners. So to me the argument is clear – judgements should be based on people’s actual behaviour and the risks that arise from that. Stonewall agree with me and recently the Anthony Nolan bone marrow transplant trust removed their ban on gay donors. Other countries have a risk-based approach.

Sadly – the government disagrees. Perhaps Stonewall can use their influence behind the front lines on this one.

I hope that give you all a brief assessment what I think the key issues are, I look forward to hearing from the rest of the panel and answering your questions.

Three cheers for Sky TV! At last – a broadcaster has the cojones to try and force a leadership debate. The nation demands. Sky will deliver.

Nick Clegg and David Cameron have accepted the gauntlet laid down by Sky – but guess who’s late to the party?

Now he’s damned if he does – but probably more damned if he doesn’t. Gordon’s nightmare just got worse – and no – he can’t send Mandy in his place.

I remember threatening, when I was Chair of Transport at the London Assembly and South West Trains would not turn up to an emergency meeting to try and avert a strike, to place a ‘tub of lard’ in their empty seat. This wasn’t an original idea – alas – but stemmed from Roy Hattersley’s famous failure to appear on Have I Got New for You as Paul Merton’s team mate.

Could the famous tub of lard be resurrected and placed on the threatened empty chair promised by Sky if Gordon flunks it.

I digress.

The question Gordon really has to answer is which is worse? Going on the show and making a complete stuff up? Not going on the show? A nasty choice. Of course – there is a third way – he could prep for it and answer honestly. That’s his only and best bet.

The 19th and 20th sitting of the Equality Bill. Hurrah – the last chapter – at least of the Bill Committee.

The big issue of the morning session was my amendment – well new clause – which would insert an Equality Guarantee into the Bill. The problem with the Bill is that it is very prescriptive. The protection from discrimination is delivered to strands – otherwise known as ‘protected characteristics’. As have explained before – these are things like race, gender, sex, sexual orientation and so on. What the Bill doesn’t do is guarantee equality and protection from discrimination if you fall outside of the very precise prescriptions within the Bill. Hence the Equality and Human Rights Commission lobbied for the inclusion of an over-arching Equality Guarantee.

Both Labour and Tories just picked it to pieces in terms of the minutiae of relatively small technical matters or drafting – clever dick stuff - but ignoring the key point. And as I said in Committee – the Bill lacks any real vision for equality on the wider scale. It brings together existing legislation in one place and makes some progress in terms of equality but not much. An Equality Guarantee is very similar to the Human Rights Act in that it gives overarching protection against inalienable rights. But no – how dare I suggest that the legislation might not be perfect and there be any situation or unintended consequence that would allow a Law Lord ten years down the track to make a judicial decision that would undo all the good that was intended in this Bill.

But this is exactly what happened to the Disability Discrimination Act. I am referring to what is called the ‘Malcolm’ case. Without going into long explanations – the Disability Discrimination Act came into being to protect people with disabilities from discrimination. In the Malcolm case the Law Lords made a decision that totally undermined and screwed up the entire intention of that Act. It has taken three years to sort out – and thousands of people with disabilities were put at risk by the intention of the Bill not being clear. Hence an overarching Equality Guarantee would put it beyond doubt that we all have a right to equality before the law and equality in our lives and protection from discrimination. However, the Solicitor General was absolutely confident that we needn’t worry and that such a thing was so unlikely to happen that it would be ridiculous to put such a Guarantee into this Bill. And so on. And so on……………………….

Tim Boswell (Tory) tabled a similar thing – although not so broad and over-arching – but something called a ‘purpose clause’ which basically is a statement of the intention behind the Bill so that a judge, if something one day was unclear, could look at this ‘purpose clause’ and understand the intention of the Bill. Vera Baird was more polite to Tim than myself – but equally dismissed it.

In the afternoon and very last session of the Committee there was an amendment about not inquiring of applicants for jobs as to whether they had a disability. Not unlike my anonymous job applications in theory. Disability organisations have lobbied members of the committee because their experience is that employers do discriminate against applicants with a disability - whether or not that disability would detract from their ability to do the job.

Anyway - that was it. The tradition then is that all the leads of the parties thank everyone, clerks, officials, the committee, the other leads etc etc for a wonderful debate and so on. Vera Baird summed up on the key issues that the Government has promised to consider (change) and come back with hopefully their own amendments at Report Stage which will be in the autumn session.

I quote:

Solicitor-General: However, I have agreed to consider five matters: whether to include various fire and rescue bodies in the socio-economic duty, as proposed by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green; the clarification, if necessary, of the asymmetric nature of disability protection in clause 13(3); the issue around the case of Malcolm and whether we need to make the protection in clause 14 clearer; the case for representative actions; and, very recently, whether to limit the use of pre-employment disability questionnaires. That is a little survey of the work that I still have to do before we gather again on Report. I will seriously consider all those proposals.

I reminded the Minster of the DWP work on anonymous job applications too! So - quite a lot of the arguments we have had in Committee have born fruit - but not nearly enough. So there will be lots to bring back at Report Stage. The issues that the Government needs to change their mind on are things like: the gender pay gap; the issue of discrimination in the caste system; harassment in terms of homophobic bullying not being protected in the clashes with religious freedoms; gender reassignment needing to become gender identity as reassignment has been used in previous terms to indicate sex change - and this needs to be much broader; anonymous job applications and lots lots more. Some exciting new issues to come in the autumn too - as Evan and I are bringing forward the issue of Royal Accession to the Throne - where we feel and have both campaigned on - the discrimination both in the bar against Catholic accession and the tradition of females dropping back in succession in favour of younger born males.
Way to go........................

Coming towards the end of the line by line scrutiny of the Bill. Blogging the little bit of it that I have has been quite a struggle as there is so much to cover - and I simply can't cover all of it. For those who are interested - the entire transcript of all the evidence sessions and committee sessions is on Hansard - so for those who want word by word of each moment - that's the place for you.

The key issues in the 17th and 18th sessions were as follows.

There was an extraordinary response from Vera Baird, Solicitor General, to my Lib Dem colleague, Evan Harris' amendment. This was all to do with the schools being exempted from protection afforded by this Bill. The problem is that this leaves in place, without change, the old laws that are in the School Standards and Framework Act. Here is a little bit of the discussion just at the beginning of this particular argument - to set the scene.

Dr. Harris: In the Bill we are dealing with the rights of people to not be discriminated against on one of the protected grounds. Section 60 of the School Standards and Framework Act arguably gives state schools the right to dismiss someone on the basis of their belief, their attendance at worship or their conduct. It is alleged by faith schools that conduct that is not consistent with those tenets, including private conduct related to sexual orientation, comes within sections 58 to 60. The Solicitor-General will know that when hon. Members debated the 2003 employment regulations, which are reproduced in the Bill, there was a long debate about the paragraph in those regulations that said that, notwithstanding the regulations, sections 58 to 60 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 will apply. Therefore, this is very much a live issue; that is what the provisions say.

So you can see - hopefully - where the argument lies. We Lib Dems think that this exemption should be got rid of as it allows discrimination to continue under that older Act. And there is an ongoing argument through many of the discussions about the protection for 'religion and belief' where there is a fundamental disagreement as 'the tenets and beliefs' of some religions are discriminatory - specifically that homosexuality is wrong. Blimey - we've just had a religious Christian leader saying that homosexuals need to repent and change on the news - which I think illustrates the point.

The Solicitor General's response was thus:

The Solicitor-General: The UK negotiated the inclusion of article 4(2) of the framework directive with the intention of preserving the provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act, and we are satisfied that they are compliant. That provides for future legislation to allow differential treatment on religious grounds, where that reflects national practices and where there is a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement. Nothing in the Act can be used to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation, which would be unlawful in employment law.

Let me add — this is all that I intend to add — that we do not intend to override substantive education legislation in the Bill. There is no problem whatever, and we will not mend something that is not broken.

This was all she would say in response to eight key questions that exposed the very real harm that could prevail in schools if the Government's exemption went ahead.

It is fine to disagree - the Government almost always does - but to be so contemptuous and not give a proper response I think is disgraceful and a good example of how the Government disdains real argument. When it can't answer - it falls back on simply being rude!

Then there was then a bit of a row about scouts. The proposition was that you shouldn't have to swear a religious oath to join - and examples are to be forthcoming from Evan Harris (which he will send to the committee) of volunteers (adult) who have been told just to take the oath but cross their fingers - as they are desperate for volunteers to run the scouts but many who would wish to are not of the right religion or are not religious. Government awaits the evidence!

An interesting discussion then ensued, based on two of Evan's amendments. These were about discrimination in sport - most noticeably between men and women. It happens in a number of ways. For example - our women's cricket team won the world cup - and got barely any coverage compared to what would have happened had it been the men's team. So - it's about the different attitude of the broadcasters. And to those who say that the broadcasters broadcast what people want to watch - the discrimination starts in the amount of women's events compared to men's. If you take one sport (like Olympic cycling) there are more men's races than women's. There is no reason for this and the consequence is that women's cycling is secondary or perceived to be secondary to men's cycling. There is no reason - physical or otherwise - for this discrepancy and the media broadcast what is there - so if there are less women's events there will be less coverage.

OK - so am going to try and blog the process of legislation through the Equality Bill. To date - we have had the First Reading of the Bill (a formality) and then the Second Reading , which happens in the chamber of the House of Commons and where the Bill overall is debated. We have had 'evidence' sessions where witnesses (groups with particular interest in the Bill) give their views on parts of the Bill and we get to questions them. And now we have entered the Committee Stage where we (a smaller group of MPs) scrutinise the legislation line by line.

If this gets too long-winded or onerous I will cease - but as I write so often about local issues - thought it might interest some to see the Parliamentary process at work.

The Bill is gone through in order and we, the Tories and the Government, table amendments to the Bill and some are selected each session of the Committee for.

The key issues that came up in the first sessions were:

- the “socio-economic duty”: this would be a new duty on, for example, local councils to consider the impact of their decisions and spending on the gap between rich and poor, and to try to reduce these socio-economic divides where possible.
- which bodies should be covered by this new duty: it would apply to parts of ‘the state’ but how narrowly or broadly should the net be cast?
- the “protected characteristics" – that is, those categories which would be protected by this Bill from discrimination, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

The socio-economic duty is something that the Government bunged in at the last minute. All parties believe narrowing the socio-economic gap is important - but the Tories feel it shouldn't be in this particular Bill. We Liberal Democrats think it is one of the greatest and most intractable of inequalities - but that this duty is somewhat tokenistic. We have no objection to the good it might do - but believe it far too weak to really deliver change.

When we got to debating the Government's list of authorities that would come under this duty, the Government was disposed to accept/look at two of my amendments which question why the Greater London Authority bodies like the Fire Authority, the Metropolitan Police Authority and Transport for London were excluded when they are clearly making strategic decisions that can affect the socio-economic status. Ditto for fire authorities across the country.

The ‘form’ for amendments is that even if the Government agrees with them, they don’t support them at the Committee Stage, but instead say they will introduce similar amendments of their own at the subsequent Report Stage. Sometimes this can be for good reasons (they can get their lawyers to pour over the wording to ensure it’s just right) but sometimes also there is a touch of “if it hasn’t got our name on it, we won’t support it” about it all.

Anyway – the Government said they will bring back their own amendments on these issues, so it looks as if the changes I was asking for will end up in the Bill – hurrah!

What would it mean in practice? Well, consider the example of a fire authority making decisions about its fire prevention efforts. The duty would require them to consider the different risks in areas arising from how deprived they are – for example, in poorer areas there may be fewer firm alarms, buildings may be less fireproof, more use of paraffin heaters etc. If it then turns out some areas are therefore at greater risk of fires and death from fires – then they’d have to take this into account when planning their fire prevention work.

Then we debated the list of 'protected characteristics' such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability etc – sometimes called the 'equality strands'. We (Liberal Democrats) were proposing amendments to stop discrimination on the grounds of someone’s caste, their genetic make-up and family history, disadvantaged socio-economic status, paternity (discrimination on grounds of maternity or pregnancy is already covered, but not paternity) and on grounds of being a carer (people who have caring responsibilities are often discriminated against, for example by an employer who won't take them on in case their caring responsibilities interfere with their work). And then there was the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' - which turned into a bit of an argy bargy.

All were tossed aside by the Minister (Vera Baird) with varying degrees of sympathy. Socio-economic disadvantage got short shrift as the Government couldn't see how that could be measured - but I don't see why given they can quantify poverty in terms of children who get free school dinners or the myriad measures of deprivation through which they give grants. We thought it would anchor the new socio-economic duty - as it is free floating and somewhat illogical without a strand.

They ummed and ahhed a bit about genetics as it clearly will be a problem down the line when the moratorium on insurance companies expires in 2014. Currently insurance companies are not allowed to use genetic information to guide their policies – so they can’t select some people and charge their higher premiums because of their genes for example. The sense of fairness behind the moratorium means it’s been widely supported – but although the Bill is the chance to settle the matter, the Government didn’t seem moved to do anything.

On caste - they were pretty unsympathetic - just saying they had tried to get evidence of discrimination because of caste but the organisations they had gone to (Hindu and Sikh) had said they were very against legal steps to outlaw caste-based discrimination and didn’t have evidence that it was needed. But I can't help thinking that those who support a caste system might not want to volunteer evidence so that we can outlaw it. On carers - they were more sympathetic but didn't feel it was necessary ultimately and that they would be covered by 'association' to someone who was disabled, old etc.

The protected characteristic currently in the list as 'gender reassignment' we wanted changed to 'gender identity'. This is not a well understood area as the Bill clearly fails to understand the spectrum that exists on gender - where people can feel anything from confused, to any degree of transgender feeling, to - at the other end of the scale - gender reassignment and medical sex change. The wording in the Bill around 'reassignment' are all about a process leading to change, and so totally fail to encompass the wider range of situations, conditions and feelings that people have about their gender.

The Minister didn’t seem to know very much about this group of people. They are tiny in number and highly vulnerable as their 'characteristic' is barely understood, is reviled and joked about in the way that years ago occurred over other characteristics that we now take as mainstream. It is a hard challenge to grow up not having that certainty about gender that most of us are fortunate enough to not give a second thought to. However, Vera Baird showed no real comprehension of the complexities of this situation and could only argue defensively that 'reassignment' wasn't medical but if you lived in another gender you would be protected. None of that deals with anyone at any stage before living as another gender - and many people with gender identity issues never get to such a place where they 'change' gender (whether by appearance or by surgery) - but can still be discriminated against as freakish in some way if they don't present as male or female identifiably.

Anyway - we will return to that issue at Report Stage, I hope, as it is very important and I didn't feel that the Minister really got it.

Enough for now!