Equality, Diversity and
Human Rights Conference
Holiday Inn, Liverpool City Centre
4th November 2015
-IN THE ETERNAL DANCE BETWEEN
EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
WHAT SHOULD LEAD, AND WHAT FOLLOW?
-ROBIN ALLEN QC1
www.cloisters.com
Introduction
It is real pleasure to be invited to speak at this important and timely conference
organised by LJMU. As Sir Bert Massie knows well from my time working with him
on the Disability Rights Commission, the barristers in Cloisters - my chambers - are
constantly dealing with the issues concerned with access to justice, equality, and
human rights. And as he also knows I could not possibly resist an invitation from him
to talk more widely about them.
Sir Bert, I do hope I will not let you down!
The eternal dance between Equality and Human Rights
First a word about my title: what is this eternal dance?
Note
A) B) All websites visited within the last 10 days.
C) I apologise for any unintended typos or errors. Please do not quote without checking with me against the
final text.
1
Chair of the Bar Council’s Equality Diversity, and Social Mobility Committee; Head of Cloisters Barristers’
Chambers, (www.cloisters.com), 1 Pump Court, Temple, London EC4Y 7AA; [email protected] 020 7827 4000.
Any comments or suggestions, on or about the themes of this paper are welcome. .
1
Well, unlike in Canada,2 in the UK we have never quite treated Human Rights and
Equality Law as a seamless whole. Though we recognise that they are often closely
related, they have almost always been seen by the public and the politicians as
separate legal concepts.3
I believe that to be as true now as ever before though I hope it will be possible for the
law and us activists to bring them closer together and secure that they are fully
integrated. Our role in achieving this has never been more important.
But first I must give a nod to history to explain how they have not always been hand
in hand in the first place.
A nod to history
As to this there are facts and there are reasons!
We – the UK - ratified the Universal Declaration on Human Rights 4 in 1948 and this
led us to help draft and then swiftly sign up to the European Convention on Human
Rights 1950 (ECHR). Yet this only had the weakest of equality rights in Article 14
which could only be invoked when another right was in play.
By making Article 14 parasitic on substantive rights it became politically possible to
draw the potential width of its protections in a much wider way. Thus Article 14
covers a range of statuses much wider than anything for which we have a specific
discrimination right.
The UK seems to be quite happy with this state of affairs. Even though on the 4th
November 2000 the Council of Europe agreed a Protocol 12 to the ECHR, that
established free-standing non-discrimination rights, the UK neither ratified, nor even
signed, it. Our politicians do not like the idea of a free – standing unlimited nondiscrimination human right.
What happened to these human rights up to 2000 when the Human Rights Act was
brought into force? They did not disappear from the picture altogether: a whole body
of not currently5 relevant jurisprudence grew up describing the circumstances in
which the provisions of human rights treaties could be used to inform or even amplify
the meaning of domestic legislation.6
2
See the federal Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms set out in the Constitution Act 1982 http://lawslois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html . A similar approach applies with respect to the Provincial Charters.
3
As I shall shortly discuss this is not always true of the judges who have had to deal with the most difficult
cases.
4
See http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
5
Of course this jurisprudence may need to be dusted down if the Human Rights Act 1998 is fully repealed and
nothing equally strong enacted to replace it.
6
See e.g. Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Bugdaycay [1987] A.C. 514 , H.L.(E.) and
Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Brind [1991] 1 A.C. 696, and R. v Ministry of
Defence Ex p. Smith [1996] Q.B. 517 [1996] 2 W.L.R. 305 [1996] I.C.R. 740.
2
On the other hand the second half of the 20th century saw a busy development of
equality rights, and this year we can celebrate multiple important equality law
anniversaries. 7
Firstly there were two Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968, then the Equal Pay Act of
1970, followed by the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the
Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Acts 1976 and 1989, and the Disability
Discrimination Act of 1995. These and other equality provisions were developed and
expanded during the 1990s.8
The early Noughties saw the development continue with express rights not to be
discriminated against on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and
belief and age arising from European Directives.9 A big public debate took place about
their proper transposition,10 and their implications have not yet been fully absorbed.
One key part of that debate has been the realisation that rights could clash. In
particular equality rights could clash with human rights such as the right to family life
and to hold religious and other beliefs. The need to have a principled resolution to
those conflicting rights ought to have been all too obvious to legislators.11 However it
was only in relation to age equality that provision was expressly made for justified
exceptions to direct discrimination.
It has fallen to the courts to craft a systematic resolution of these rights which does not
create a hierarchy. 12 In the process it has had to look to human rights principles such
as proportionality and the margin of appreciation.
7
It is 50 years since the first Race Relations Act 1965, 40 years since the first Sex Discrimination Act 1975,
(almost 20 years since the Fair Employment Act 1976 which prohibited sectarian discrimination in Northern
Ireland), and 20 years since the Disability Act 1995. Pop the champagne corks!
8
Leading ultimately to a raft of not quite consistent provisions well discussed in Hepple, Coussey, and
Choudhury, Equality: A New Framework – The Report of the Independent Review of the Enforcement of UK
Anti-Discrimination Legislation, Hart 2000.
9
See Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between
persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000
establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.
10
This has been a particular difficulty with the concept of justified age discrimination: see e.g. Case C-388/07R
(Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Ageing (Age Concern England)) v Secretary of State for
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform () [2009] ICR 1080 , ECJ, R (Age UK) v Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) [2010] ICR 260 Seldon v
Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] UKSC 16; [2012] 3 All E.R. 1301; [2012] 2 C.M.L.R. 50; [2012] I.C.R. 716; [2012]
I.R.L.R. 590; [2012] Eq. L.R. 579. Other important difficulties arose later post the Equality Act 2010.
11
See Legal Regulation of the Employment Relation, eds. Collins H., Davies P., and Rideout R., Kluwer Law
International 2000, chapter 7, Allen R., The Contribution of international and transnational regulation in the
search for substantive equality in the workplace; clarity or confusion?
12
See e.g. Bull v Hall [2013] UKSC 73; [2013] 1 WLR 3741, Black v Wilkinson [2013] EWCA Civ 820; [2013] 1
WLR 2490, Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80; [2010] I.C.R. 890; Ladele v Islington LBC [2009]
EWCA Civ 1357; [2010] 1 W.L.R. 955; McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 880; [2010] I.R.L.R. 872; 29
B.H.R.C. 249; Chaplin v. Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust ([2010] ET 1702886/2009) and Doogan v
Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board [2014] UKSC 68; [2015] AC 640.
3
The second half of the 20th century has not been unique in this separation. In fact there
is a long history to this separation out of equality and human rights.
A good argument can be made for saying it started all the way back as the 1700s turned
into the 1800s. The UK could then claim to be one of the earliest and most effective
anti-discrimination countries as it led on the emancipation of slavery13 – an equality
and human rights issue if ever there was one. Yet the political class despised14 the
French Revolutionary Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789 which we all know is
probably the most significant enlightenment statements of human rights.15 Nothing
like that was to be permitted in 19th century Britain or Ireland.
We can see it too in 1919 - nearly 100 years ago – when the UK signed up to the core
equality right of equal pay for work of equal value as a founding principle of the
International Labour Organisation.16 The Versailles Treaty could hardly be called a
human rights treaty!
The long period up to the very end of the 1990s, when human rights law was truly the
poor relation, came to an abrupt end. With the change in 1998 everyone was talking
about human rights law. All the judges had to be trained in them. Civil servants in
central and local government took courses on their implications.
The press did not take such courses. And though they talked about human rights
largely they did not like what they saw. In particular they did not like the fact that it
seemed to provide a basis for a privacy right in Article 8. Though more recently, they
have been all too happy to rely on the right to freedom of expression in Article 10.
The resistance of the press has undoubtedly created a very hostile environment for
human rights activists in some parts of the land and has certainly fuelled the rise of
the xenophobic politics that despises anything from Europe.
And so during the Noughties, when human rights and equality laws seemed to be
developing at a similar expansive pace, the UK never quite wanted to unite them in
the way that Canada – and indeed other European countries – have.
For instance it was soon realised that having three equality commissions to enforce
equality rights was too expensive. A debate ensued about the consequences of
13
See the Abolition Acts of 1807 and 1833 and see the discussion in the National Archives at
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/slavery/
14
Tom Paine supported the French Declaration in his book the Rights of Man 1791 in which he sought to
defend the French Revolution against Edmund Burke's attack in Reflections on the Revolution in France 1790.
The terror that followed and the treatment of Paine in France seemed to justify Burke. For a discussion of the
impact of Paine and his writings see for instance Thomas Paine: social and political thought by Gregory Claeys
(Unwin Hyman, 1989) and Tom Paine: a political life by John Keane (Bloomsbury, 1995).
15
And still a constitutional document for France: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/Droitfrancais/Constitution/Declaration-des-Droits-de-l-Homme-et-du-Citoyen-de-1789
16
The ILO was set up by Part XIII of the Versailles Treaty; the equal pay obligation was found in Article 427 OF
THAT Treaty.
4
merging the protection of equality rights and human rights into a single Equality and
Human Rights Commission (EHRC). Yet even once the decision was taken to have
such a joint Commission,17 the UK refused to give it equal power to protect the two
kinds of rights. And in Northern Ireland this different approach was even more
obvious in the text of the Good Friday Agreement 18 as the subsequent legislation19
provided for a separate Human Rights and Equality Commissions.20
So given that sometimes equality and sometimes human rights issues lead in the
political debate, the point I want to explore next is whether - just as in a dance - if one
goes forward, its partner must step back.
In the political debate right now it seems that is what is happening. So which is
stepping out?
Equality leads…
I don’t think anyone can have missed that equality rights seem currently to fill Anton
du Beke’s role.
Who can have missed David Cameron being at pains to say how much he has
embraced Equality as a good thing?
After all the major part of his conference speech on equality at Manchester this year
that was featured on the main BBC TV news on the 7th October focussed on equality –
the word was mentioned eight times.21
The relevant section ended with this comment –
“I want us to end discrimination and finish the fight for real
equality in our country today.”
So of course do I and so of course do all of you or you have taken the wrong turning
on entering the Hilton !
Even more recently in an article for the Guardian22 on the 26th October 2015 he stated
boldly that
“The Conservatives have become the party of equality”
17
See the Equality Act 2006.
Of the 10th April 1998; see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement .
19
See the Northern Ireland Act 1998; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/47/contents
20
I understand that there has been some recent discussion about merging these two Commissions.
21
See http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=360
22
See http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/26/david-cameron-conservatives-party-ofequality
18
5
So I think we can safely say that just now equality is leading this dance.
But all problems solved in five years? Does he have enough time?
We must certainly allow that his conference speech and this subsequent article have
been based on some important government action. I shall take a minute or two to
review some of it.
Firstly no one here will doubt that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 201323 is a
really important measure. Timing in politics is everything and he and the Liberal
Democrats undoubtedly got that right. And it took some leadership as it was certainly
introduced against the wishes of a sizeable number of MPs and many in the country.
My own experience of litigating the Gay Cake Case24 in Northern Ireland – where the
Act does not apply - has left me in no doubt of that whatsoever. Opponents of Gay
Marriage filled the Waterfront Hall in Belfast with over 2000 people just a day before
the hearing in the case, and up to a thousand more are said to have been turned away.25
This Act is good legislation, skilfully written to make it clear that both religious rights
and rites are not affected.26
Secondly the current recent Governmental announcements27 that section 78 of the
Equality Act 201028 will be brought into effect are very welcome.
This provision you may know will require large29 companies to undertake equal pay
audits. Many of us have campaigned for this for years.
And it is also important that it will extend to bonuses as well.30
23
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30/contents/enacted/data.htm
See http://www.cloisters.com/latest/a-victory-for-gay-rights-as-ashers-bakery-is-found-liable-fordiscrimination The judgment can be seen here
http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Cases%20and%20Settlements/2015/Lee-vAshers_Judgement.pdf The case is due to be heard on appeal by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal on the
3rd and 4th February 2015.
2525
See http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ashers-bakery-boss-tells-cheeringchristians-we-will-not-back-down-on-gay-cake-row-31093414.html
26
I am very aware of this having spent a long time working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission in
submissions to Parliament and in appearances before Committees to ensure that it worked as, and was
understood to be, a civil law measure.
27
There was an extensive consultation on this over the summer; see
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/equal-pay-audits-a-further-consultation
28
See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/78
29
Those having 250 or more staff.
30
See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-announces-new-measures-to-eradicate-gender-payinequality
24
6
While many questions about the detail of these proposals remain the direction of
travel is very important and is progressive.31
The same can be said of the even more recent proposal that University application
forms should be anonymised.32 Some more historic research has suggested that this
had been a true cause of unequal treatment.33
However to return to my dance theme, every Strictly fan knows that the competition
is about who wins and who loses. It is certainly not about equality of outcome. But
Strictly is not real life where there are so many for whom equality of opportunity has
never been a reality. Are these losers to be forgotten?
Here the Government’s discourse hits a less tuneful chord that brings one up quite
sharply. In my view inequalities of outcome will always be very important indeed. In
his conference speech David Cameron seemed to be taking a rather different line
“Our belief [is] in equality of opportunity, as opposed to
equality of outcome…not everyone ending up with the same
exam results, the same salary, the same house – but everyone
having the same shot at them.”
In fact on this it might seem surprising to him to know that the European Court of
Justice is – in principle - on his side.34 Perhaps he will work that into the next round of
speeches on Europe.
Europe does not permit rigged competitions where a person is chosen for employment
solely on the basis of a protected characteristic. But on the other hand Europe qualifies
this pure commitment to equality of opportunity with recognition of the importance
of positive action.35 What does this mean?
Well put very simply its why the most leaden footed of competitors36 sometimes get
Anton du Beke as their partner. For those with no previous dance experience that is
critical. With him they have some access to the “same shot” principle, without him
they would be lost. So I think we need to recognise that positive action is essential to
secure equality of opportunity.
31
See for instance the discussion at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gender-pay-gapbusinesses-must-publish-bonuses-as-part-of-transparency-measures-to-end-pay-a6707946.html
32
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34616420
33
It is understood that it will not be introduced for a couple of years and the extent to which this will really
make a difference is somewhat controversial:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/cameron-young-black-girl-job-marketdiscrimination
34
See Case C-319/03 Briheche v Ministre de l'Intérieur, Ministre de l'Éducation nationale and Ministre de la
Justice [2004] ECR I-08807,
35
There are many references to positive action in the equality directives and in Article 152 TFEU.
36
His website reviews who that might be at http://www.antondubeke.tv/anton-the-dancer/
7
The implications of this for a Government committed to a “same shot” principle ought
to be a very radical, particularly in respect of education, housing, health and taxation.
If the “same shot” principle is to apply to a person displaced by the bedroom tax, or
by the withdrawal of tax credits, or a refugee asylum seeker, or someone whose parent
faces redundancy in Middlesbrough, they are going to need a lot of positive action to
truly have an effective equal opportunity to get the same exam result, salary, or house.
I am particularly aware of this from my work as Chair of the Bar Council’s Equality
and Diversity Committee. We have just published a study of Momentum Measures
looking at the progress of women and BAME barristers into my profession and its
upper echelons.37 We had an equality of BAME barristers 20 years ago but their
progress into the higher judiciary simply has not happened. More than 50% of our
recruits are women but we have no current expectation that we will be a profession
that has equal numbers of men and women because women leave under pressure of
caring responsibilities.
Why not? The answer is that they do not truly have an equal opportunity. They don’t
have the same shot as a white barrister who has been to a grander university or a man
who lacks any caring responsibilities.
So monitoring the “same shot” principle requires evidence and statistics about
inequality in outcomes. Quality outcomes statistics cannot be ignored; they talk truth
about the real value of heady principles and help us understand whether equality of
opportunity is a reality or merely a feel good slogan.
That is why the Public Sector Equality Duty has been so important and why having
real information about distribution in pay in companies will create its own
momentum towards change in a way which we can barely glimpse.
…while human rights are following
Now what about human rights? Are they stepping back?
The answer is not yet completely clear but I think so. It will become clearer soon.
At present, although the Government is committed to publishing a new Bill in the
Autumn38 to replace the Human Rights Act with a “British Bill of Rights”, we don’t
know what will be in it other than a promise from the Justice Minister Dominic Raab
that it will provide
37
See
http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/378213/bar_council_momentum_measures_creating_a_diverse_profess
ion_summary_report_july_2015.pdf and see also http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/379529/snapshot__the_experience_of_self_employed_women_at_the_bar.pdf
38
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-tory-plan-to-scrap-the-human-rights-act-just-movedone-step-closer-10491173.html
8
“…a greater respect for the legislative role for honourable
members in this place.”
After the House of Lords action to protect the worse off from the abolition of tax
credits perhaps we should read him as meaning the House of Commons and not the
Houses of Parliament where he refers to “this place”.
However it is not just the government’s role in promoting and protecting human
rights that it is important to consider. The courts have a strong duty to protect them
and in doing so to underpin equality rights. How are they doing?
In my view: not too well. Take for instance the human right in Article 6 of the ECHR
– access to justice. Everyone knows that the impact of the fees increases for
applications to the Employment Tribunal have had a huge effect. The fall in the
number of equality cases is extraordinary.
A very recent report39 published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission
makes this point graphically. The figures show that across the board there has been a
50% + drop in discrimination cases since they were introduced. Yet the Court of
Appeal has very recently rejected a clam brought by Unison40 for a judicial review of
these fees on the basis that they have seriously destroyed access to justice.
Fortunately Unison aim to take this matter on appeal and there is some sign that it has
provoked a review by government of their impact.41
The challenge to the benefit cap, which has affected so many, as being an unjustified
discrimination contrary to the ECHR, failed earlier by a majority42 in the Supreme
Court.43 The bedroom tax came before the Court of Appeal last year and was not struck
down,44 though this case too is on its way to the Supreme Court next year. In other
cases the courts have also been reluctant to upset the Government’s austerity
measures.
These are all matters in which human rights legislation has been invoked to try and
progress equality issues against the government. They are concerned with preventing
39
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Equality%20Bulletin%20ET%20statistics%20
article%20Final%2030%20September%2015.pdf
40
See Unison, R (On the Application Of) v The Lord Chancellor [2015] EWCA Civ 935 [2015] WLR(D) 370, see
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/935.html
41
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-tribunal-fees-post-implementation-review
42
The minority Lady Hale and Lord Kerr took a stronger human rights approach.
43
See SG & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) [2015] 1 WLR
1449, [2015] WLR(D) 159, [2015] UKSC 16, [2015] WLR 1449, [2015] PTSR 471, [2015] HLR 21, [2015] HRLR 5,
(2015) 18 CCL Rep 215; see
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/16.html
44
MA & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 13,
[2014] WLR(D) 87, [2014] PTSR 584; see
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/13.html
9
the further disadvantaging of those for whom the idea of having the “same shot” is
laughable. There is not much sign that the human rights agenda is currently a threat
to governmental plans to cut the national spend rather than by increasing progressive
taxes.
That said, there is one area where a human rights approach does seem to be making
ground in support of equality and that is in the Modern Slavery Act. Special
regulations made under the Act45 come into force as I write.46 They require
transparency in supply chains by major organisations showing that no forced labour
has been used.
In themselves these regulations do not create new rights but they do aim to publicise
good, and secure condemnation of bad, behaviour in the court of public opinion.
This is not human rights law as we have known it – based on a ready access to a court
to secure a basic outcome – but justice through PR. And so on this we can note a strong
similarity with the approach taken in relation to publishing equal pay audits by
companies.
We may yet see more of this. If it works that is great.
A reason to vote for Europe?
There is one other bright light suggesting that human rights law can and will –
referendum permitting - work to advance equality rights to a greater extent. This is
the Court of Appeal’s judgment in in Benkharbouche and Janah v Embassy of the Republic
of Sudan and Other.47 In this case it was made clear that sometimes the European
Charter of Fundamental Rights (ECFR) – which draws on the European Convention
on Human Rights but goes further – can be used as a source of rights in litigation
between private persons.
The case concerned a complaint of discrimination brought by two foreign workers
against the embassies where they worked. The embassies claimed immunity under
the State Immunities Act 1978 based on international conventions. The employees
complained that their right not to be discriminated against had to be supported by a
human right of access to a court. They relied on Article 47 ECFR48 and Article 6 ECHR.
45
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Transparency in Supply Chains) Regulations 2015; see
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2015/9780111138847
46
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2015; see
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1816/made
47
[2015] EWCA Civ 33, [2015] H.R.L.R. 3, [2015] IRLR 301
48
It says “Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. 1. Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed
by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with
the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable
time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the
10
The Court of Appeal held that in some circumstances the ECFR had direct effect and
they should indeed have a hearing in the Employment Tribunal and the contrary
provision in the State Immunity Act had to be set aside. In relation to the Human
Rights Act they were merely awarded a declaration of incompatibility so the ECFR
proved the more potent source of human rights for them.
So even if the Human Rights Act is replaced by a weaker British Bill of Rights, those
seeking to enforce equality rights may still be able to find that they can invoke
European law to support their cases.
Will this prospect appear in UKIP’s manifesto? I hope not.
Conclusion
My analogy of a dance can be pressed too far. So I think I should leave you with a
different thought. It seems to me that what we have seen is that the Conservative
party recognises a commitment to equality of opportunity is part of the political
central ground. That is ground they want to occupy as their own for the future.
If so, for us equality activists a political competition as to which party can do most for
equality is only to be welcomed.
Yet supporting equality rights does not come easy. In many cases it is a zero sum
game where those who have had the higher pay, and fatter bonuses, or the easier
access to housing and education, must be expected to give up some of that privilege
to allow greater access to others. I am not so sure that will happen in a hurry.
In any zero sum game there will be resistance along the way and costs of resolving the
conflicts that arise.
Appeals to human rights will be part of that discourse and will be claimed whenever
there is an issue about access to justice. This is both as it should be and inevitable. I
suspect that in the end the government will face setbacks from time to time and will
be more concerned with the impact on national finances than anything else. The
middle ground has always been defined at election time by the sense of economic
well-being rather than overall fairness. I doubt 2020 will be any different.
On the other hand the promotion of a different kind of good equality behaviour
through forcing firms to publish information about their behaviour may prove to be a
tool that can be extended further yet. There is definitely a role for publicity in forcing
desired outcomes. Sir Bert and I know that from our time at the DRC.
possibility of being advised, defended and represented. Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack
sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.”
11
Pay and supply chains are good places to start using this tool more widely and that is
something we can all contribute to.
ROBIN ALLEN QC
Cloisters
29th October 2015
© 2015 All rights reserved
12