Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

B1059 – Quota Discrimination Bill 2016 (Second Reading) Watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    B1059 – Quota Discrimination Bill 2016 (Second Reading), Nigel Farage MEP MP
    Quota Discrimination Bill 2016

    A
    BILL
    TO


    A bill to outlaw the use of quotas in Britain which are used as a form of discrimination

    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 Use of quotas

    (1) All companies, charities, organisations, and associations will be prohibited from using quotas when;
    a. selecting workers, volunteers, or members to do a job.
    b. hiring an individual.
    (2) Quotas prohibited are quotas using;
    a. sex or gender
    b. ethnicity
    c. race
    d. sexual orientation
    e. religion
    f. skin colour
    g. age
    h. language spoken
    (3) Companies, charities, organisations, and associations may continue to use quotas that specify for British citizens above non-British citizens.

    2 Circumstance

    (1) Section 1 shall not apply when the quotas being used include specific characteristics that would otherwise be banned under section 1(2), for the purpose of completion of a job, or activity because an individual with different characteristics would not be suitable.
    (2) The exception in section 2(1) includes but is not limited to;
    a. media production where individuals of a certain colour are needed for accuracy.
    b. industries where there is a requirement to have staff of different characteristics.
    (3) When a complain is brought against an organisation for using illegal quotas, it will be the responsibility of the organisation to prove the use of a quota including characteristics in section 2(1) is needed.
    (4) For all quotas used an organisation must prove why individuals possessing characteristics in section 2(1) are needed over individuals not possessing characteristics in section 2(1).
    (5) Defences of quota use may not include;
    (a) to increase the proportion of minority individuals.
    (b) to boost the position of an individual with a characteristic in section 1(2) when a different individual without a characteristic is capable of filling the role.

    2 Fines

    (1) An organisation found using a banned quota will be fined a minimum of £25000 for each banned quota used.
    (2) There shall be a maximum fine of £1000000 for the first offence.
    (3) There will be no maximum fine for subsequent offences.
    (4) The fine shall multiply by 1.5 for each subsequent quota used.

    3 Interpretations

    A quota is the reservation of a percentage of job vacancies, or tasks below 100% for individuals with a characteristic included in section 1(2).

    4 Commencement, short title, and extent

    (1) This Act shall come into force immediately following Royal Assent.
    (2) This Act may be cited as the Discrimination Act 2016.
    (3) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.


    Notes

    In Britain organisations are allowed to use quotas to select some workers above other, equally-skilled workers: this bill ends that. With the revelation the BBC uses quotas to fix the number of non-white, gay, bisexual, and other minority individuals appearing on TV, we believe it is time to end quotas.

    Changes

    - A new section has been added to include cases where quotas are needed for various reasons.
    - The emphasis of the bill has changed to make the default being no quotas, but allowing quotas in situations where an organisation can prove quotas are needed.
    - The fines have been reduced
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Its not perfect, far from it, but I can get behind the bill if you amend the wording to make it proper.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)

    If I'm the head of the Red Cross for example, why shouldn't I wish to ensure at least 50% of my staff can speak French?

    The fine is stupid.


    In it's current form No, though I may well be convinced to vote for a superior version of this bill. Unfortunately, Nigel proves again and again to be too stubborn to amend his legislation to make it passable.
    I have proven you wrong, the modern, evolved Nigel is taking this bill seriously: it will be redrafted to make it popular.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Its not perfect, far from it, but I can get behind the bill if you amend the wording to make it proper.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The wording could be improved but that is the same with every bill that has passed in the Division Lobby; the idea behind the bill is what is important.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain as I'm still not keen on the fines.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I congratulate the Rt. Hon. Member for doing what the left seem whole incapable of and that is taking a bill and reacting to criticism.

    There are, however, a few typos that need fixing

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Much improved, but still a nay. There is no need whatsoever to regulate who people decide to employ.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Much improved, but still a nay. There is no need whatsoever to regulate who people decide to employ.
    Since when did you become so pro business, anti employee? Sorry, forgot you had a vested interest.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aye! Pleased with the changes
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think the fine should be related to the size of the business if you're fining them

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Since when did you become so pro business, anti employee? Sorry, forgot you had a vested interest.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm a lot more moderate than I used to be. I'm not against regulation where there's a need for it, but I really can't see one here. If quotas lead to sub-optimal candidates getting jobs, why would a private business seek to use one? And conversly, if they are sucessful in improving the quality of employees by leading to people who'd have otherwise been wrongly overlooked getting hired, doesn't that justify their existence?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I'm a lot more moderate than I used to be. I'm not against regulation where there's a need for it, but I really can't see one here. If quotas lead to sub-optimal candidates getting jobs, why would a private business seek to use one? And conversly, if they are sucessful in improving the quality of employees by leading to people who'd have otherwise been wrongly overlooked getting hired, doesn't that justify their existence?
    If quotas improve things they really need to start asking deep questions about what they were doing wrong before, a quota should at beat change nothing, at worst make things worse.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If quotas improve things they really need to start asking deep questions about what they were doing wrong before, a quota should at beat change nothing, at worst make things worse.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If that's the case, then what's the harm of leaving them legal? What kind of business is going to forego profit to hire people with some arbitary charachteristic?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    If that's the case, then what's the harm of leaving them legal? What kind of business is going to forego profit to hire people with some arbitary charachteristic?
    The harm is quotas are used by organisations as a publicity stunt to appear progressive with minorities, or are used by state organisations for political reasons.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The harm is quotas are used by organisations as a publicity stunt to appear progressive with minorities, or are used by state organisations for political reasons.
    Okay, so they're being used as a publicity stunt, presumably to encourage people who agree with the policy to do custom with them. If that actually works, I fail to see the problem. The purpose of an employee is to generate profit. If employees from a certain background are better at that because they attract customers, then hiring them is perfectly rational. You can choose to put your money where your mouth is as a consumer by not shopping there, just as those who disagree with you can choose to help make it sucessful by supporting them.

    As for the public sector: whoever implements quotas is democratically accountable. If voters are oppoed to it, they can vote them out.

    Considering how seldom quotas are used and the protection already provided by the Equality Act, this really is a waste. All it does is increase bureaucracy allowing businesses to be challenged more easily on their decision of who to hire when it is effectively self-regulating to begin with.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Much improved. I'm somewhere between an Abstain and an Aye.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Still a nay. If you limit it to when it can be demonstrated there is no economic rationale behind the decision, I can support.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Still a nay. If you limit it to when it can be demonstrated there is no economic rationale behind the decision, I can support.
    I'm struggling to imagine how you could ever objectively demonstrate there was no economic rationality behind a decision
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I'm struggling to imagine how you could ever objectively demonstrate there was no economic rationality behind a decision
    I'm concerned about the rationale used, not whether there could potentially be such a rationale. This opens up the possibility of documentary/discussion-based evidence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I'm concerned about the rationale used, not whether there could potentially be such a rationale. This opens up the possibility of documentary/discussion-based evidence.
    In which case if I wanted to use a quota for whatever reason I'd just say it was "economicaly effective" and "likely to generate future commercial potential" and leave it at that. Nobody's gonna talk their way into a legal problem.
 
 
 
Updated: October 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
How are you feeling about Results Day?

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.