Since the Welsh Assembly Powers Referendum and in the backdrop of the Royal Wedding I have been considering the constitutional situation and have thought of an integrated model that could provide for everyone’s needs.

The nationalists in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland want their nation to be a republic. Unionists often want the UK to be paramount with a monarchy and are often ‘anti-separatists’. And then there are the British Republicans who want the whole of the UK to be a republic, some of which don’t believe in devolution.

I consider myself British and am still nostalgic that we are not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland anymore. Maybe we could be again if it was possible for a united Ireland to be an independent republic and part of the UK with the Queen as a figure head?

England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland could be independently constituted republics enabled by a new Act of Union. We could all be Member Nations of the UK with the monarchy performing the job of ‘signing the paperwork’ and encouraging tourism through their eccentric traditions. They could also collect taxes from the wealthy estates, like those which have existed since 1066 and other inherited estates. The profit the monarchy raises from tourism, these wealth taxes and international activities could in part be redistributed to our National Parliaments – They can work for us for a change. Our Presidents currently may be Carwyn Jones, Alex Salmond in Wales and Scotland respectively, and England and Ireland would have their elected presidents also. We would have no laws made in Westminster, only in our National Parliaments.

In the Act of Union we would have our rights as Citizens of the UK and our Member Nation set out, including that we could travel between each nation freely and live, work or study in each without interruption or barriers. The Parliaments in the Member Nations would have to act within the limitations of our rights under this Act, and if they went too far, the Supreme Court which we would all have as our joint highest court would be able to annul such a law.

All our Parliaments could agree jointing to pass a law affecting all the Member Nations, such as relating to European Union Law, technical rules like in relation to marriage and employment rights, and could jointly instruct the monarch to sign the international treaties that we all want to be subject to. The monarch could as now give royal assent to each Member Nation’s Acts of Parliament.

We could have the Bank of England as our central bank and ‘Federal Reserve’ to step in should we need assistance, and to regulate all the financial institutions in the UK. We would keep our secret service and Armed Forces at UK level, and all the Presidents would be members of the Privy Council. This would perform a similar role to what it does now with perhaps an extension to their role as protectors of national security, such as advising the monarchy to declare a war in a time of emergency, which otherwise would have to be agreed by each of the 4 Member Nation’s Parliaments in peace time.

I have considered the Equalities Acts 2006 and 2010 and Human Rights Act in full and will present how it applies to political parties assuming they are covered, as they should be seeing as these Acts are based on European Treaties.
When I was a member of Ogmore Labour in 2009 it was legal to discrimination in favour of women and I agreed with this, but in 2010 that was changed by women’s rights champion Harriet Harman through the Equality Act 2010, and for good reasons. Now she has to make her party update the rules, I suggest the following.

An important thing to note is that under the Equality Act 2010 it is illegal to treat disabled people less favourably than others, but they can be treated more favourably. Therefore I will use this rule as a way of interpreting how to deal with the rights of other political party members.

Membership Delegations and Candidates
Clause XII (3) says, ‘It shall be the duty of the General Committee/All Member Meeting of this CLP to ensure that at least 50 per cent of their delegates to other party bodies (where delegate entitlement is more than one) shall be women.’ This is now illegal as arbitrary quotas may discriminate against one group more than another. This should now change to ‘It shall be the duty of the General Committee/All Member Meeting of this CLP to ensure that at least their delegates are representative to other party bodies are representative within agreed thresholds and where delegate entitlement is greater than 1 then at least 1 shall be disabled where at least one member meets this criteria.’

Chapter 19 Appendix III (A) 7 says; ‘In pursuance of the party’s objective of considerably increasing the number of women candidates and those from Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic (hereafter referred to as BAME) members and other groups currently under-represented in parliament, parties and affiliates should place particular emphasis on the need to positively encourage consideration of women, BAME members, those with disabilities and those from clerical and manual backgrounds.’. This is illegal. It should be changed to ‘In pursuance of the party’s objective for a more equal society it shall ensure that the members on the parliamentary panel and the characteristics in those standing for election to parliament reflect the agreed thresholds of characteristics in the electoral area. This includes taking account to ensure that number of disabled people shall be and least the same as the threshold of the highest represented number of members with a different characteristic where the number of disabled people is less than this, but where the threshold of disabled people is higher than any other characteristic this threshold shall be used.’

Thresholds would be based on using official sources about the electoral area to determine the numbers of people in that area these characteristics: male/female/other, gender/sex, whether in a marriage/civil partnership, gender reassignment status, race, sexual orientation preference to one or more sexes, disability status, as well as considering the pregnancy/maternity rate, religious or belief status.

Whatever the highest proportion of any characteristic, this is the proportion of disabled people that should be selected. For example, if an electoral area had 70 per cent Christians and every other characteristic was below 70 per cent then at least 70 per cent of those selected should be disabled.

Using these, the political party should take steps to ensure their delegations and candidate selections reflect this and that disabled people are not treated less favourably. For example if the electoral area had 60 per cent men and 40 per cent women then the delegations and candidates in that area are should be reflective of this.

Where the membership of the political party unit in the electoral area failed to resemble the representation of the characteristics above in the party membership then the political party unit should take reasonable steps to encourage greater representation of them. They should not make more effort for one person than another, except for encouraging disabled members, where more effort may be taken.

Member Groups
Clause II (2) (C) says, ‘A women’s forum may be established in each CLP, consisting of all individual women members within that CLP. An ethnic minorities forum may be established consisting of all individual Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic (BAME) individual members within that CLP.’ This is discriminatory and now needs to be ‘Individual members in each CLP or across CLPs may form forums based on one or more commonalities they all share. This may include forum groups based on age or age ranges, disability, gender or sex, gender reassignment status, race, religion or belief, or sexual orientation.’

Any reference to one group over another must be removed. Chapter 10 on rules for women’s forums for example needs to be based on a common model for all groups referred to above. This is because a political party can no longer force particular categories of groups on members by virtue of the Equality Act 2006 and members must create them themselves.

I have for the last week been re-writing my social enterprise’s constitution and policies to ensure they explicitly comply with the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998. I think these are three of the most significant pieces of legislation New Labour passed, but without the efforts of other governments they may never have come into being.

Many people argue how they believe the Human Rights Act is a ‘criminals charter’ or the Equality Acts are ‘political correctness gone mad’, but I think they are essential to ensuring that all people are able to go about their lives and expect to be treated equally to others.

Some of the points I make in this article I have presented to others and spoken on elsewhere in this blog, but I will need to mention them here for context. In the following paragraphs are the conclusions I have come to on how these laws apply to membership based organisations.

1. Every organisation which has members shall not be able to bar someone from being a member on the basis of their age, gender or sex, sexual orientation, marital or other civil union status, religion or other belief, race, gender reassignment status, or pregnancy/maternity status. I will refer to these as protected characteristics (Equality Act 2010 applied). Nor shall they, as a requirement of membership, compel any of their members to associate with any other member within a group within the organisation to which they may have a common protected characteristic (Human Rights Act 1998). They are also not allowed to compel a member to associate with other persons where doing so would compromise their protected characteristics. So for example, some trade unions currently require a member to be a member of the Labour Party in order to receive political aid. If a member had beliefs contrary to the Labour Party then it would be an infringement of that member’s rights to deny them aid because they didn’t believe in the Labour Party’s common beliefs.

This is because in the case of such a member exercising their protected characteristic with regards to religion of belief, the organisation must recognise that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and everyone has the freedom to change they religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or with other members or person, whether in public or private places, to manifest their religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance (Human Rights Act 1998 applied). The only time a member may not be entitled to express their religion or belief or associate with other members in this regard is where it conflicts with interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others (ibid).

2. An organisation is allowed have as it objects to promote the causes of a particular group of people sharing a protected characteristic above, but they are not allowed to exclude someone from membership because they do not meet a specific quality relating to one of that protected characteristic (Equality Act 2010 applied). So for example, an organisation that seeks to promote youth justice is required to allow anyone of any age to join. However, the parent or guardians of the young members have a right to ask that the organisation not allow an older member to associate with the younger members who the parents or guardians have collectively defined a group on the basis of a certain age or group of ages.

3. It is not unlawful for the other members of that organisation not to associate with that member if they identify themselves as a group meeting one of the protected characteristics and the member they don’t want to meet doesn’t have that characteristic (Equality Act 2006 and Human Rights Act 1998 applied).

However it is unlawful for members of such a group decide not to not associate with another member if they meet the protected characteristic that group is based on and the members don’t want to associate with them because of something arising from that or any other protected characteristic (Equality Act 2006 and Equality Act 2010 applied).

4. Any organisation shall not be allowed to inhibit a member’s rights to associate with other members sharing a protected characteristic, unless it is because they are doing so to protect national security or public safety, disorder or crime, health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, which I shall call restricted acts of assembly.

The organisation shall not prevent those members from assembling using its facilities if they decide to form as a group based on that characteristic even if that group is not related to the characteristic the organisation wishes to promote. The exception to this is that group is not acting to promote the organisation’s objects relating to that characteristic or is encouraging, supporting or enacting a restricted act of assembly and is assembling to support other external interests, as this may compromise the organisation’s integrity (Equality Act 2006 and Human Rights Act 1998 applied).

The only time this doesn’t apply is where those interests are essential to the members rights to associate in the organisation, such as maintaining the privacy of their home or correspondence, their right to enter into a civil union,

5. Where members have agreed to form a group based on a protected characteristic, the organisation, to avoid claims of institutional discrimination, should consult with those members as to their collective needs and provide for those needs on a non-discriminatory basis (Equality Act 2006 applied). That is, the organisation’s privileges and benefits should not favour one group more than another, unless that group is based on disability, where that group can be treated more favourably.

6. Members of a group should not prevent any other members of the organisation whether part of the group or not from expressing themselves to or within because the consensus of the group differs from them where that difference is based on a protected characteristic, unless it is in order to protect the reputation of others, the health or morals of others, preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary (Equality Act 2006, Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 applied), which I will call protected acts of expression.

7. An organisation shall not require members to perform particular duties, whether paid or unpaid, where the condition of membership is not on the basis of employment or related status, unless that work forms part of that members normal civic obligations, to provide emergency aid to protect life, or as part of military service (Human Rights act 1998 applied).

This means workers co-operatives are protected, but other organisations whose membership criteria is not based on employment are not allowed to compel anyone to perform forced or compulsory labour. This is except where organisations supporting offenders who have been required by law to provide for that member to carry out that work, or where that member holds a position of say first aider and they are required to perform those duties.

8. Organisation shall not subject members to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, regardless of whether or not they have a protected characteristic (Human Rights Act 1998 applied). Nor shall they victimise or harass a member who demands their rights to enjoy their protected characteristic though either internal or external procedures, or where provide information to others about how the law protects this characteristic (Equality Act 2010).

9. An organisation shall not do anything that would shorten the life of a member or any other person (Human Rights Act 1998 applied). At all times they should have consideration for how wrongly managing a person’s protected characteristic can impact on their life expectancy, and take measures to prevent such an eventuality (ibid).

This includes a health insurance provider who by not providing someone with a particular treatment to extend their life in effect shortens it. It also includes an organisation which fails to act where they know one of their members is going to commit suicide and that member does. The only time a member of an organisation may limit someone’s life expectancy is in defence of any person from unlawful violence, in order to give effect to a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person lawfully detained, or in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection (Human Rights Act 1998 applied).

The Court of Justice of the EU recently determined that national rules which, in order to promote access of younger persons to employment, permitted an employer to dismiss employees who had acquired the right to draw their retirement pension, when that right was acquired by women at an age five years younger than the age at which it was acquired by men, constituted direct discrimination on the grounds of sex.
There has been a lot of debate about the impacts this ruling will have on the country, with some newspapers quoting Labour Party MEPs who thinks the decision is wrong, even though only last year Labour introduced new legislation to make this ruling easy enforcing this decision. This case, Kleist v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (C-356/09) has wide implications for other ‘protected characteristics’ under the Equality Act 2010, which is based on EU law. I will consider two of them – disability and civil unions – now.

Consider disabilities. I have to currently pay twice the amount of insurance others do in order to have my ‘pre-existing’ conditions covered. Considering the judgement in the Kleist case the insurance I take out is acquired by able-bodied people at a cheaper price than a disabled person for the same amount of cover, which constitutes direct discrimination on the grounds of disability.
Consider marriage and civil partnership (‘civil unions’). I am not in a civil union. The government want to encourage civil unions and provide tax incentives to encourage this. They are therefore taxing the wealth acquired by someone who is in a civil union less that the wealth acquired by someone who is not, which constitutes direct discrimination on the grounds of civil union status.

Having a look at the various protected characteristics it is likely that you will see a circumstance in which some good or service you have acquired has cost more because of a certain aspect of who you are in reference to these. Under the Equality Act 2010 and various other laws in EU countries using the same directives to make their laws, you should be considered to have been discriminated against if you were treated worse than someone else because you fall into a protected characteristic.

I think the Equality Act 2010 is one of the most exciting Acts of Parliament written, as how far it can reach in changing the way we do things is uncertain.

Looking specifically at age discrimination, I’ve thought of a few things we take for granted that may have to change. Under the act one’s age, or one’s age-range is a ‘protected characteristic’ meaning we can’t be discriminated against because of it. I will now outline some of the public policies this could affect.

Discounts and restrictions for children

Children under a certain age can often have discount or free meals. This is now discrimination. Restaurants will now have to base their pricing discounts on the basis of height. One’s age does not strictly affect our capacity to eat food, whereas our height does. So a person with a growth disorder will have the same capacity for consuming food as a child of the same height, so discounts or exemptions may have to be based on this. Equally, rides at fairs say that children are only allowed to use it at certain ages will have to be based on other relevant factors, such as height, regardless of age.
Children, usually under 12 years of age, can pay a ‘half fare’ for public transport. One’s age has little impact on our ability to use public transport, except that children are indirectly ‘discriminated’ against by being subject to compulsory education which means they are more likely to use the bus, for example, at specific times. So public transport discounts will have to be based on another status, such as whether someone is attending full-time or compulsory education.

Discounts and restrictions for pensioners

Like children, pensioners get concessionary travel at a certain age, such as 60. This discriminates on the grounds of age. For example, it is possible to be a pensioner at 55, or in the case of a professional footballer, 35. So discounts will have to be made available on other factors. This could include the status of being a pensioner, not being in work, having a low income, or being a carer for children or disabled people.
Also, special rates for ‘OAPs’ will have to change to one of these factors, as only giving pensioners discount if they are ‘old-age’ is age discrimination.

Healthcare

Healthcare professionals can no longer lawfully make health decision based on one’s age. Just become someone is at an age close to their life expectancy, doesn’t mean they should be denied healthcare. Insurance companies can’t lawfully base their charges on age. But equally they can’t base in on someone health conditions as this would unfairly discriminate against more senior citizens and disabled people. Also they can’t base fees or treatment availability on consumption of services, as older people need more treatment as often do children. In fact, the law says it is fair to treat people with disabilities, which many older people have, more favourably, but not less favourably. So healthcare pricing may have to the same for everyone, even though disabled/elderly people are likely to use it more.

Education

Basing entry and nature of education on age could be considered discrimination. It is unfair that at present someone born in October cannot join the same classes at school as those born in August.
Clearly entry to a school on the basis of ability is also wrong – because people with special educational needs may face indirect discrimination because they may find it harder to meet this criterion than others. Individual learning plans will have to become the norm. Entry to ‘compulsory’ education, and ‘post-compulsory’ education will have to based not on age or ability, but on ‘need’ – that is which establishment is most likely to helper the learner reach their potential. This is problematic also, as it could be that the only reason a school is not suitable is because it is not making reasonable adjustments to help accommodate learners with a disability. So any assessment of need will have to include in it those adaptions education establishments will need to make to support those with disabilities.

Employment

In employment, assessments of suitability based on age are unlawful. Potential employees will have to be assessed on qualifications and experience, rather than years of service, being of ‘childrearing age’, or ‘near retirement’. So a university graduate at 25 who did a sandwich year of relevant intense industry experience, may have to be considered more favourably than someone older who had years of service with less intense or that relevant work experience – this is an example, but age can’t even be considered by employers in this comparative way. It is also, without considering age, permissible to employ someone with little qualifications or experience if they employer wants to ‘train them up’ rather than someone plentiful qualifications and experience who may have prejudices about the ‘right way’ to do things. So long as this is not based on age related concerns, such as that an employer thinks because someone is older they are less able to learn, or another protected characteristic, such as the effects of disability, then a decision based on qualifications and experience will be lawful.
Other risk related age issues
Leisure services often base their entry on the basis of age. This could be unlawful. For example, saying that it is in the interests of child protection that only children aged, say 11-19, as my firm did in one of our projects , while lawful then, a year later is not. The decision of suitably will have to be transferred to parents. So for instance, if they think they child is of the maturity to take part in an activity which was previously reserved for older children, providing there is consent with other parents this should be allowed. ‘Child Protection’ will have to change to ‘Vulnerable Persons Protection’, and if say there is a child that has suffered child abuse, there will need to be a psychological assessment to determine whether they need extra supervision to prevent them abusing other children, or vulnerable persons. Had the Equality Act 2010 been in force in 1990, then maybe the boy that sexually assaulted me at age 10 wouldn’t have been allowed to have had unsupervised access to me in order to do it.