B963 - Sex Discrimination Prevention Bill 2016

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    B963 - Sex Discrimination Prevention Bill 2016, TSR UKIP
    Sex Discrimination Prevention Bill 2016

    A
    BILL
    TO

    Stop political parties from using sex discrimination to select candidates.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    1 Repeals

    Part 7, Section 104 'Special Provision for Political Parties' of the Equality Act 2010 is hereby repealed.

    2 Commencement, short title and extent

    (1) This Act shall come into force immediately following Royal Assent
    (2) This Act may be cited as the Equality Act Part 7 Section 104 (Repeal) Act 2016.

    Notes

    Part 7, Section 104 'Special Provision for Political Parties' of the Equality Act 2010 gives political parties special provision to use the sex of an individual when choosing a candidate to stand for a position in office. This bill repeals the relevant section of the Equality Act 2010 to stop political parties from using sex discrimination; sex should not be a barrier to deciding who can, or cannot stand for election.


    This bill is the follow-up bill of the bill to end sex discrimination in politics; this bill repeals the clause in the Equality Act 2010 to apply it to the whole of the country.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Rather awkwardly I defended the act, but after an interesting debate with my politics teacher I've had a change of heart ( and / or mind ).

    Aye.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I support the pairing system used by Welsh Labour for the National Assembly for Wales (which looks to split the sex discrimination equally) and this would stop this.

    I'm leaning towards a Nay.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This is using a pain roller when a small brush would suffice.

    All you have to do is re-word (7) of that section to make (6) apply to sex and you are fine.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    This is using a pain roller when a small brush would suffice.

    All you have to do is re-word (7) of that section to make (6) apply to sex and you are fine.
    Section 104 of Part 7 is making an exception to everything in Part 7 before Section 104, if every line of Section 104 was reworded there would be no need to include Section 104; this is the easiest way.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye a step in the right direction
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Section 104 of Part 7 is making an exception to everything in Part 7 before Section 104, if every line of Section 104 was reworded there would be no need to include Section 104; this is the easiest way.
    I see you haven't read that part then...

    "(7)But subsection (6) does not apply to the protected characteristic of sex; and subsection (3)(c) does not apply to short-listing in reliance on this subsection"
    Also for reference:
    "(6)Selection arrangements do not include short-listing only such persons as have a particular protected characteristic"

    So rewording 7 to just the latter part would fix the problem you have much more eloquently.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I see you haven't read that part then...

    "(7)But subsection (6) does not apply to the protected characteristic of sex; and subsection (3)(c) does not apply to short-listing in reliance on this subsection"
    Also for reference:
    "(6)Selection arrangements do not include short-listing only such persons as have a particular protected characteristic"

    So rewording 7 to just the latter part would fix the problem you have much more eloquently.
    Previous subsections before Subsection 6 would not be needed so amending the wording as you suggest would give an entire section in an Act that does nothing; removing it makes things neater.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Previous subsections before Subsection 6 would not be needed so amending the wording as you suggest would give an entire section in an Act that does nothing; removing it makes things neater.
    That section doesn't just apply to sex though. It allows parties to take affirmative action based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation...

    If you have an issue with just gender then an amendment is better.
    If you have an issue with all affirmative action then the title of this bill is miss-leading as you are doing more then just dealing with gender.

    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Aye
    I suggest you both look at the above what they are doing is also preventing parties from putting more disabled people, people from ethnic minorities or people from disadvantaged backgrounds on short lists then there would otherwise be as well as ending single gender short lists.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Wait, so because you've lost a vote on amending the legislation you've decided to submit a Bill.

    That's just sly and subverts democracy.

    Nay.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    That section doesn't just apply to sex though. It allows parties to take affirmative action based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation...

    If you have an issue with just gender then an amendment is better.
    If you have an issue with all affirmative action then the title of this bill is miss-leading as you are doing more then just dealing with gender.



    I suggest you both look at the above what they are doing is also preventing parties from putting more disabled people, people from ethnic minorities or people from disadvantaged backgrounds on short lists then there would otherwise be as well as ending single gender short lists.
    You are wrong, the section does not include an special provisions that are not included in previous sections; if section 7 is removed all political parties will have to abide by the rest of the act.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Wait, so because you've lost a vote on amending the legislation you've decided to submit a Bill.

    That's just sly and subverts democracy.

    Nay.
    No, this is an extension of a popular bill currently in the Division Lobby which applies to Northern Ireland; this bill extends the achievement of the bill in the Division Lobby to the whole country.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Wait, so because you've lost a vote on amending the legislation you've decided to submit a Bill.

    That's just sly and subverts democracy.

    Nay.
    Actually this is completely different, after all, different legislation and different area

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I suggest you both look at the above what they are doing is also preventing parties from putting more disabled people, people from ethnic minorities or people from disadvantaged backgrounds on short lists then there would otherwise be as well as ending single gender short lists.
    Which would only make it even better, if somebody is opposed to discrimination on the basis of gender you you think they will be okay with it in the same area on the basis of wealth, not being disabled, being white etc?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    You are wrong, the section does not include an special provisions that are not included in previous sections; if section 7 is removed all political parties will have to abide by the rest of the act.
    Care to point me to these other provisions? Because I can't see them.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which would only make it even better, if somebody is opposed to discrimination on the basis of gender you you think they will be okay with it in the same area on the basis of wealth, not being disabled, being white etc?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes I do. If it were just gender I would be far more inclined to vote aye.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Wait, so because you've lost a vote on amending the legislation you've decided to submit a Bill.

    That's just sly and subverts democracy.

    Nay.
    And actually if you weren't so lazy and looked there has been no amendment to this Act, or any similar act, put forwards, the closest we get is a similar bill that you are yet to vote on that is sailing through the division lobby and on course to pass by a country mile.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Care to point me to these other provisions? Because I can't see them.

    Yes I do. If it were just gender I would be far more inclined to vote aye.
    I suggest you read the entire Act because every chapter, part, and section of the Act prevents public organisations, private organisations, and individuals from discriminating against other individuals with protected characteristics. Section 7 is a special provision for political parties to allow political parties to not follow all of the Act, removing the special provision for political parties forces political parties to follow the laws all other organisations must follow.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I suggest you read the entire Act because every chapter, part, and section of the Act prevents public organisations, private organisations, and individuals from discriminating against other individuals with protected characteristics. Section 7 is a special provision for political parties to allow political parties to not follow all of the Act, removing the special provision for political parties forces political parties to follow the laws all other organisations must follow.
    So you have admitted that I am right.
    I know it prevents discrimination against in general but section 7 allows for positive discrimination. It lets parties create a shortlist which is all but 1 BME LGBTIQ+ candidates. I wasn't saying that it allows parties to discriminate against the disabled but for them...
 
 
 
Updated: April 8, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
Study resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.