It's here!! (almost)

Harriet Harman today launched the government's plans for a new equality bill.

Some of the media reaction has been a little hysterical, to say the least.

The bill seems to me to be quite balanced and sensible (and needed). Seems there are proposals to incorporate public sector prcurement and a unified public sector equality duty across all equality strands (albeit a streamlined 'duty' - I am sure this will attract some comment and indeed oppostion).

There still remains a few details to be resolved like statutory recognition for equality reps in the workplace and representative action.

On the whole I think it has the potential to be a really good, landmark bill. There will be huge opposition to it, not least from the ranks fo the Tories who are already lining up to oppose it.

It has the potential to do that very rare thing - actually send out a powerful message to society over the next generation that we value equality and diversity.

Link here to Harriet Harman in Parliament (including early opposition from Tory backbenchers as well as general cross party support from other parties).

Excerpt from an exchange with John Bercow:

John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): Although her statement meets with denunciations that are as furious as they are predictable from Members of the Taliban tendency, may I tell the Minister that her statement is right by those who have long suffered discrimination, and right in the interests of the country as a whole? Will she confirm that the equality Bill will contain robust measures to tackle homophobic bullying and to deal equally robustly with the gender pay gap among part-time workers in the public sector, and that the legislation will be on the statute book by the summer of 2009?

Ms Harman: I think that I can confirm all those points to the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his question. He has proved that not all Conservative Members are still stuck in the stone age. Given his comments, I would say—although I would have to reflect on the matter with my colleagues—that he ought to be regarded as an honorary member of the sisterhood.

During exchanges the Govt also gave assurances that the Govt would be supporting the new proposed horizontal EU Directive .

Statement of support from Stonewall here.

Article in Pink News explaining the importance of the public duty including sexual orientation.

Links to the document outlining the plans can be found on the Government Equalities Office website.

Phew! Government survives with its dignity intact

Finally we have seen that the Government has come through.

I think that hybrid embryos and saviour siblings were such issues that should have been resolved by a free vote. The Government had significant majorities.

Reinsertion of a need for a father for IVF treatment, although sounding commonsensical, would have been damaging and discriminatory in its impact.

From a Government that has legislated in favour of same sex adoption, Civil Partnerships and against discrimination in adoption services defeat on that would have been symbolic but a catastrophic loss of nerve on an issue of principle.

Although it was a completely free vote it would have been the wrong move to lower the limit for abortions.

What is worrying is the extent that politicians are demanding that their religious beliefs exempt them from the social policies of the Government, especially around fairness and equality. Worrying trend for the future.

Govt wins both votes on 'need for a father'

RESULT VOTE No1 217-292 maj 75
RESULT VOTE No2 222-290 maj 68

I shall be posting here as things develop this afternoon.



Ian Duncan Smith's speech was very well crafted and delivered, especially in its peroration, though still dogged by his 'frog'

Dawn Primiarolo gave an assured, impassioned and spirited performance - by far the best I have seen from her

Evan Harris as good and lucid as always

John Bercow gave his usual performance in intervening helpfully on speeches on his own bench

Good speeches by a number of Labour MP's, especially Chris Bryant.

Of the antis Geraldine Smith (Lab) was infuriating opining that discriminatory treatment was 'just common sense' - lost count of how often she repeated that particular mantra but also said that Lancashire Lesbians were 'more down to earth' than Lesbians elsewhere......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HFEB Day 2 (Tues)

Today's votes will be on the need for a father and the debate to lower the abortion limit.

From today's Guardian - Do families need fathers?

Duncan Smith claims that, without fathers, boys join gangs and teenage girls become pregnant. But "there's nothing magical about fathers," says Susan Golombok, professor of family research and director of the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge, and co-author of Growing Up in a Lesbian Family. "Fathers who are very involved with their children are good for children. But fathers who are not very involved - they aren't as important, and can even have a negative effect. It's a very simplistic notion to think that fathers are important just because they're male."

From today's Times - Abortion: a worrying tale of leeches by David Aaronavitch.

So this is what all this nonsense about “compromise” boils down to - telling women who are less than 24 weeks pregnant and who don't want to have a baby that, legally, they must go through with the birth. We then leave them the terrible choice of procuring an abortion elsewhere or of bearing a child they do not want.

To me, this is immoral. It is not a conjecture about lives that could be led, but an action that will damage lives that are being led. Tonight conscientious MPs should put on their leech-socks and vote against all these parasitical amendments.

On both issues we get the merest glimpse of the kind of Chamber we would have with a Conservative majority after the next election - not nice to behold.

Meanwhile, Louise has blogged extensively on yesterday's votes including Labour MP's who voted against the Government.

Ping Pong debates on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

Very interesting debates in the House of Commons last night on Lords amendments to aforementioned Bill.

These concerned Lords amendment to the very important provision covering the incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The reference to Hansard is here.

The Government majority (to disagree with the Lords amendment) was 202. Reports on how individual MP's voted here (Public Whip).

The next big debate with a lot of interesting and quite illuminating interventions from Conservative benches (much more than I expected) was on the repeal of the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel (I blogged previously on the debate on this in the Lords).

Hansard here.

The Lords amendment was carried by 321.

In both cases the Government majorities were very large. The ping pong now goes to the Lords where they have a chance to reinstate their earlier amendment. If they do so it will return again to the Commons and so on.

.

Joint Committee on Human Rights Report into Sexual Orientation Regulations

The Joint Committee on Human Rights (members both of Commons and Lords) was set up at the time of the passing of the Human Rights Act to seek to ensure that provisions of UK law were consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The 6th report of this session scrutinises the Northern Ireland Sexual Orientation Regulations from the point of view of compliance with human rights law.

Whilst our human rights law derives from the European Convention the International Covenant on Civil and Political (ICCPR) rights and other human rights instruments cover the same ground, in addition, for example, to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (text here ).

The 6th report can be found here and its summary and recommendations here.

The Joint Committee:

• expresses its support for the regulations, stating they are substantively part of human rights obligations
• support limited exemptions on doctrinal grounds for religious bodies but don't support wider exemptions
• support the inclusion of harassment (though with narrower definitions of harassment)
• support the inclusion of both the education sector as well as the school curriculum, asking the Government to clarify this with respect to the Northern Ireland regulations.

This is an important act of parliamentary scrutiny and goes to considerable lengths to derail the use by the religious right to seek to use human rights arguments to carve out exemptions the size of a bus within the regulations.

Regulations covering Great Britain are eagerly awaited.

Exchanges in Parliament

An insteresting and sustained exchange in the House of Lords here concerning the effect of the Sexual Orientation Regulations and adoption agencies (31st January)

Also a written answer here (31st January)

Finally an interesting procedural exchange here in the House of Commons referring to alleged failings in the Northern Ireland regulations under a point of order to the Speaker (30th January)