Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
With recent news that the EU is contemplating plans to test banks’ ability to repel cyber-attacks, thereby mirroring current measures put in place by the Bank of England, Lawyer Monthly hears from Mike Allison, Global IT Security Manager at RGL Forensics, who here voices his thoughts on the potential ramifications, and future of the European Union’s program engagements.
Information Security is continuing to be a significant area of concern in businesses all the way up to the C-Suite with daily campaigns launched by cyber criminals against organisations across the globe. Organisations are finding themselves having to confront difficulties that previously would have been pushed to the back of the priority queue, or simply ignored. Governments and political organisations are now stepping in, feeling that the industries previously left to fend for themselves now need active assistance and formalised guidance. Strategies to date within large-scale companies have frequently involved paying fines, relating to cyber breaches, instead of remediating the gaps in their security. Gambling on a possible one-off financial penalty is seen as the cheaper alternative to continual investment given that, even after attention, systems may remain vulnerable.
Perceived low financial penalties are in part the drive for the impending European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which increases maximum fines to €20 million or 4% of global turnover. As effective as this may be, in a way all this does is force a revaluation of the balance of risk within companies, and may still result in some security holes remaining exposed.
This may have less impact in smaller companies, however, just like a nuclear power station, banks could be viewed as critical national infrastructure. The failure of a bank would be a major incident and have far-reaching ramifications. With cyber terrorism and state-sponsored cyber-attacks being taken into consideration, the European Union will be trying to ensure it protects itself from actions that could result in the loss of ability to make financial transactions and recall historical financial records.
The UK government, for example, has been increasing its involvement in the corporate cyber security space for a number of years. The Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) started with programs to protect and monitor the security of UK critical national infrastructure and other relevant companies working as sub-contractors on government projects. Over time, with a large number of breaches affecting companies further down the supply chain, encouraging as many organisations as possible to share cyber-attack and breach information became good practice. This led to the Cyber Information Sharing Partnership (CISP) that went on to be absorbed into the new National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) along with CERT-UK (Computer Emergency Readiness Team UK).
Projects such as these, as valuable as they are, do require an element of audience participation. Organisations can choose to be a part of the ‘self-help’ community, and many now do. But, when confronting corporate apathy, mandating the taking of action becomes the only way to ensure adequate attention in an area of concern. Nothing leads to a flurry of activity quicker than showing technical staff a report of their system vulnerabilities, and business managers a definitive list of clearly expressed threats to their continuing successful business activities. This is why recognised certifications often include activities such as penetration testing within their specification. External penetration testing provides an unbiased assessment of an organisation’s exposure to external threats. However, there are many types of system, and therefore many types of threats, and testing for every threat can become very time-consuming. Penetration tests are only valid for the moment conducted as new threats emerge in generic hardware and software daily. In addition, organisations developing in-house information systems find it is impossible to keep up to date with new bugs as they find them in their own software. If security was the primary focus of a company, this could affect time to market for the delivery of its products or services and force another compromise.
In part to address these issues within the UK, the Financial Policy Committee (FPC) at the Bank of England requested that The Treasury, in conjunction with relevant UK regulators, should work with the UK financial community to help improve and test cyber security within the UK banking system.
The UK financial authorities then worked with the Council for Registered Ethical Security Testers (CREST) to design a testing framework for banks. The new Bank of England Cyber Security Framework (CBEST) was designed to focus on dealing with real threats through intelligence-led testing strategies. Rather than asking banks to plough resources into system security blindly, it acts as a lens to focus their efforts in the right places. It does not replace other frameworks, such as ISO27000 and PCI-DSS, but it does outline testing methodologies that include assessing IT systems, people and processes. It also provides specific certified framework training for testers. Adopting the framework is currently voluntary, and no preparation work is required prior to stepping into the framework, thus minimising the potential for organisations to put it off.
Recommendations and requirements are yet to come out of the EU in relation to these matters. However, if the trend is anything like within the UK, we should expect to see more EU security programs that attempt to engage organisations in an empathetic and helpful way. Large scale random testing of the entire EU banking system is relatively impractical, if not simply prohibitively expensive, and would only provide a snapshot in time. Encouraging ongoing positive change is the order of the day. Developing tactical ability within organisations through the concept of ‘knowing your enemy’ appears to be the most important thing. With increased cooperation and refocusing of efforts, the banking sector needs be able to protect itself from the large-scale attacks that we can all imagine featured in the next blockbuster film.
With regards to transparency, reporting the findings of any testing to the public is probably counterproductive or misleading at best. There are security holes in any system and it only needs a single one exploited for data to go missing. Giving an organisation an A* or equivalent safety rating is not a guarantee that they will never suffer a breach – only an indication that their risk level is at a lower level than other organisations. With banks having such widespread infrastructure, it is difficult to secure every far-reaching part of their network to the same degree. Everything may be OK until that one thing that no one expected to happen actually happens. This, coupled with the large number of people that work for an organisation as large as a bank, means that data could be lost simply from human error. The individual could even be highly trained, but a genuine mistake made nevertheless.
We must remember, in a consumer-led world, it is difficult to expect any commercial enterprise to embrace security when it has a negative effect on its bottom line. In addition, if one company invests in security and another does not there may be commercial advantage for the one that saves its budget, as long as it does not fall victim to an attack. Governments are beginning to step in, pushing for emphasis on creating quality products and services that are secure by design, and less on meeting today’s demands. This is helpful – but not a fail-safe – as it means organisations must now show that they are giving cyber security the attention it deserves. How each EU bank does that is down to them... at least for the moment.
Almost three in every five (57%) SME business owners say that they do not feel confident about the UK’s economic outlook for 2017, according to the Close Brothers Business Barometer. The quarterly survey questions over 900 UK SME owners and senior management across a range of sectors and regions.
Firms at the smaller end of the scale – under £500k annual turnover – were the least confident, with 64% answering ‘no’ to the question ‘are you confident about the UK’s economic outlook for 2017?’.
“Businesses owners are not taking a negative view, but they are being pragmatic about the UK’s economic prospects over the next 12 months,” said Neil Davies, CEO, Close Brothers Asset Finance. “There are still many unknowns and this uncertainty is reflected in what small business owners are telling us.
“For example, the value of Sterling is seen as a short-term issue and doesn’t create conditions for long-term investment. While activity in a number of sectors is stronger due to the weaker pound, helping to boost orders from overseas, cost pressures remain high with price increases being passed onto consumers, which may contribute to an increase in inflation down the road.”
Regional analysis
Business owners in the North East and Northwest of England were the most positive, with 56% and 54%, respectively, feeling positive about the year ahead, contrasting with the 36% of Scottish respondents.
Full list of regional responses to ‘are you confident about the UK’s economic outlook for 2017?’:
| Yes | No | |
| North East England | 56% | 44% |
| North West England | 54% | 46% |
| West Midlands | 49% | 51% |
| East Midlands | 49% | 51% |
| Wales | 45% | 55% |
| Yorkshire/Humberside | 45% | 55% |
| South West England | 45% | 55% |
| Greater London | 45% | 55% |
| South East England | 43% | 57% |
| East Anglia | 39% | 61% |
| Scotland | 36% | 64% |
Sector results
The most enthusiastic sector was Manufacturing, which returned a positive response of 61%, followed by Engineering with 52%; Construction 49%; Transport 47%, and Print 37%.
“UK manufacturing in on a high at the moment, with recent rates of growth for production and new orders among the best seen over the past two-and-a-half years, according to the Markit/CIPS purchasing managers' index,” continued Neil.
“And this uplift in the manufacturing sector is reflected in what the survey respondents are telling us, which is that they see 2017 as a time of significant potential opportunity.”
(Source: Close Brothers Asset Finance)
If you have any familiarity with the online casino industry in the US, you know full well that nothing is ever as it seems. While just a year ago, it seemed as though the legalized, regulated network of online casinos was going to extend to states other than New Jersey, Nevada, and Delaware, things are a bit different now.
According to BestUSCasinos.org, New Jersey's online casino network is in a state of jeopardy. The report highlights that the newly appointed United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions has a history of speaking negatively with regard to legal online casinos. It went on to say that Sessions has already alluded to the fact that he will revisit a more than 5-year-old resolution that allows for online gambling to exist in individual states. The law the article referenced was changed back in 2011, but can just as easily be reverted; something that would almost immediately bring an end to any and all legalized online gambling.
To many people, the US real money casino industry (see Bestuscasinos.org/real-money/) was growing and had a promising future, but this report out of New Jersey has folks thinking that, perhaps, the opposite is true. Arguing that a change in the law would mean for a massive hit to state revenues, they are hoping that Sessions and his colleagues have better things to worry about. With all of this being said, the future is uncertain for states that were just beginning to gain momentum on the legalized online gambling front.
Finally, the report went on to talk about the impact Donald Trump could potentially have on New Jersey and other states. At this juncture, it is uncertain whether Trump will get behind the idea of regulated and legalized online casinos, or if he will be an opponent--showing favour only to brick and mortar establishments. This would not be something new, as brick and mortar casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has worked fervently to keep online gambling illegal in states like California. If Trump proves to be the same type of real money casino opponent, it may be a long 4+ years for gamblers and casino operators alike.
(Source: BestUSCasinos.org)
Global resourcing specialist BPS World has warned that one of the main challenges facing employers in the UK in 2017 will be the impact of Brexit on the ability to attract talent, particularly in the high-value digital, technical and engineering industries where recruiters are already struggling with severe skills shortages. This follows the publication by BPS World, of: “Brexit: What the World is Saying” which, for the first time, researched the global impact of Brexit and how other countries believe it will impact on skills.
Simon Conington, Founder of BPS World, has urged the government to ensure that the UK continues to have access to skilled professional from Europe, particularly in the sectors where there are already skills shortages, or face a sharp decline in the UK’s ability to compete.
Although the UK will not be leaving the EU until 2019 we can expect an announcement this year on the shape of Brexit and what it will mean in practice. Under so-called ‘hard-Brexit’ freedom of movement would be restricted and it would be as difficult for talent to be recruited from France as from the US. It is this that alarms those at the sharp end of skills shortages, such as BPS World. Recruits themselves are already showing signs of being aware of these new competitive forces: research revealed that almost half (48%) of UK jobseekers were more concerned about finding a job than before the referendum.
Last year BPS World spoke to business leaders, representative bodies and professionals in the recruitment and retention sectors in Europe, India, Australia and the USA. The research focussed on the sectors most affected by skills shortages in the UK and overseas. It is in these sectors that the impact of Brexit and any restrictions or changes to work permits, is likely to be most keenly felt.
One of those they spoke to was Marco Dadomo, from the Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI, Association of German Engineers) in Düsseldorf: “As we know, Britain has already problems finding enough specialists in this sector. Brexit will make it less attractive for international experts to work in Britain for a British company. We have also heard that quite a lot of UK experts of different sectors plan to leave Britain when Brexit will be implemented.”
Simon Conington, Founder of BPS World argued; “2017 is going to be a pivotal year for the UK economy. The decisions the government makes now on the implementation of Brexit will affect our ability to attract the talent we need to grow. The impact will be felt immediately as talent will not come to the UK if they know they will have to leave within two years. We urge the government to continue to ensure we have access to skilled people, particularly in sectors where we’re already struggling to find the talent we need.”
Kevin Green, Chief Executive of the REC welcomed the report: “This review of the international community’s fears and needs following the EU referendum contains warnings about the challenges employers could face in the future. The prospect of skill and talent shortages intensifying in higher-end sectors is a huge concern. The government must ensure that any changes to immigration policy as a result of the EU negotiations reflect immediate labour market needs so that businesses can continue to grow.”
(Source: BPS World)
Here Lawyer Monthly benefits from an exclusive analysis by Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu of Richard Nelson LLP. Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu is a dual qualified New York Attorney and Solicitor of England & Wales with broad corporate and commercial expertise in the financial services industry with key focus on corporate investment banking and asset management (including addressing cross border risks).
Terms and Conditions are the bread and butter of every business. Most businesses document their terms and conditions as formal written contracts when engaging with customers to avoid the pitfalls of relying on oral agreements. What most people don't understand is that terms and conditions are living documents that form the bedrock of the business relationship with customers based on trust and fairness; and the contractual basis which legally protect companies. They also determine the rights and obligations of the company and customer who are the parties to the contract. More importantly to a Company is that contracts are legally enforceable in court.
As neither businesses nor laws are static, an agreement drafted for a business today may not be the agreement it needs tomorrow so terms and conditions must evolve and vary with the growth and development of the business it represents. When renewing a company's terms and conditions, consideration must be given to the following:
In the current heightened regulatory and economic environment, it is imperative for companies to renew their terms and conditions regularly and in a timely manner to ensure it reflects current (i) operational feasibility; (ii) business arrangements with the customer; and (iii) legislative and regulatory standards in place for such business.
Terms and conditions enhance business and are the appropriate framework for legal protections should the need arise.
An appropriate legal framework for services provided to a customer is good practice in providing in-depth coverage of the services and managing the expectations of both the customer and the Company. In the absence of a regularly reviewed and updated terms and conditions, a Company runs a potential legal, regulatory, financial and operational risk. Here are several reasons why a company must continuously update its terms and conditions:
Terms and Conditions are also known as Contracts, Terms of Business, Terms of Service Agreement or Terms of Use agreement. Where changes to an agreement is required, both parties must mutually agree to such changes. Terms that set out the rules, rights and obligations of both parties in order to provide and pay for a service qualify as terms and conditions for the purpose of being a binding contract between the Company and customer.
Under English law, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires businesses to offer fair terms to their customers. T&Cs can only protect a company to the extent the terms are fair. A contractual term can be unfair if it puts the customer at a disadvantage. In the event a term is deemed to be unfair, the company runs the potential risk of that term not being legally binding on the customer. For terms to be fair under the Consumer Rights Act, they must be transparent and intelligible for customers to make informed choices. Terms that could significantly impact the informed choices of customers must be brought to their attention.
Examples of unfair terms include:
The ability to engage in legally binding service arrangements online has revolutionised the way business is globally conducted. For services provided online, legally binding contracts are created between the online user and online service provider when the user clicks on the button 'I Agree' or 'I Accept'. This creates a legally enforceable contract. Often companies incorporate their online terms and conditions into written agreements, invoices, purchase orders and the like in order to maintain consistency and uniformity of contractual language.
The formal requirements to establish a contract under English law (offer, acceptance) remain applicable including the requirement of consideration - payment or benefit in kind for the services being provided.
Companies must comply with contract law when renewing their terms and conditions. This is generally changed by mutual consent of both parties unless change made is mandated by law or regulation. As a matter of best practice, the following will assist:
Disclaimer: The content of this article is intended to be educational and not specific legal advice. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice nor is it a solicitation to offer legal advice.
Adding further clout to a $7 million jury verdict awarded to Playboy last year, an Illinois court has issued a permanent injunction that forever prohibits Play Beverages, LLC, CirTran Beverage Corp., and all persons associated with them, including their principal Iehab Hawatmeh, from using the Playboy brand on any product or service, anywhere in the world.
The injunction order makes it clear that PlayBev, CirTran Beverage, and their agents and distributors must immediately stop manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, marketing, promoting, holding events for the promotion of, and advertising all products and services in conjunction with the Playboy brand or any confusingly similar trademark. The injunction applies to Playboy Energy Drinks, as well as their use of the brand on any other products and services.
In the injunction order, the Court agreed with the jury's findings that PlayBev and CirTran Beverage willfully infringed upon Playboy's marks, engaged in counterfeiting and committed deceptive trade practices.
Playboy will strongly enforce its judgment and injunction against PlayBev/CirTran Beverage to stop Iehab Hawatmeh's companies from engaging in infringing and counterfeiting activities. In addition, Playboy will continue to defend its trademarks vigorously throughout the world as Playboy has done in this case.
Playboy's trial counsel were Pete Ross of Browne George Ross LLP and Edward Feldman of Miller Shakman & Beem LLP.
(Source: Playboy Enterprises)
Last week saw the reintroduction of the Pharmacy and Medically Underserved Areas Enhancement Act (H.R. 592) in the US House of Representatives. The legislation, which was previously introduced in the 114(th) session of Congress, will improve patient access to health care through pharmacists and their patient care services.
Sponsors of the bill include Representatives Brett Guthrie (R-KY), G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Tom Reed (R-NY) and Ron Kind (D-WI). The cosponsors serve on the committees of jurisdiction that oversee the bill and will play an integral role in passage of the legislation. The new legislation was reintroduced with a total of 107 cosponsors.
"Pharmacists play an important role in our rural communities, and our senior citizens should not have to travel for basic services when their neighborhood pharmacist is already licensed to help them," said Representative Guthrie. "By allowing Medicare to reimburse pharmacists, seniors will have more immediate access to health care in medically underserved areas. I was proud to introduce this bipartisan bill to help our Medicare patients."
Earlier this month, the companion legislation was reintroduced in the Senate. Sponsors of the Senate bill include Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Bob Casey (D-PA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
While most Members of Congress, who supported the Pharmacy and Medically Underserved Areas Enhancement Act have returned in the 115(th) Congress, there are 63 new members in the House and Senate who need to be educated about the many services pharmacists provide within their scope of practice beyond the safe distribution of medication.
"The American Pharmacists Association is pleased that this important legislation, which will increase patient access to pharmacists' services, has now been reintroduced in both the House and Senate," said Thomas E. Menighan, APhA Executive Vice President and CEO. "APhA has already begun outreach to both new and returning members of Congress and is excited for the opportunity to build upon the momentum achieved over the last several years."
APhA is a member of the Patient Access to Pharmacists Care Coalition (PAPCC) - a multi-stakeholder and interdisciplinary initiative that is comprised of organizations representing patients, pharmacists, and pharmacies, as well as other interested stakeholders. The coalition's primary goal is to improve patient access to pharmacists' services in medically underserved communities consistent with state scope of practice laws.
APhA and the PAPCC led a campaign in support of identical legislation introduced in the last session of Congress, which resulted in 296 cosponsors of H.R. 592 and 51 cosponsors of the Senate's companion bill, S.314.
(Source: American Pharmacists Association)
Operations Director at Russell Scanlan, Andrew Jenkins discusses why professional services are a prime target for cyber fraudsters and how law firms in particular are an easy target – plus what the industry should do to protect itself from attacks.
Advising clients on how to protect their business against cyber crime has now become one of the most sought-after services we offer, which is no surprise in a world where we operate digitally in almost all spheres of our lives. The professional service sector is particularly at risk, due to the amount of confidential and financially sensitive date it transfers digitally.
Recent research by Cert-UK highlights how unprepared in particular the legal sector is for cyber attacks. Given the data-heavy nature of work undertaken by law firms - which sees written documents containing sensitive client and business information being circulated via email on regular basis - it would be assumed that the legal sector would be ahead of the game in terms of protecting itself from online crime. However, the statistics tell a different story.
Research shows that 62 per cent of law firms in the UK are estimated to have been victims of a cyber attack in the last year, while only 35 per cent of law firms have a mitigation plan in place in case of an attack. This is astounding and particularly concerning given the volume of personal, business critical and commercially sensitive information law firms hold.
The legal sector has become such an obvious and easy target for cyber criminals in part due to the amount of files – from PDFs to Word documents and Excel spreadsheets to saved email trails – which can be sent without appropriate anti-malware programmes and other cyber security resilience tactics in place. Remote working and the need for 24/7 contact with clients compounds the risk, as lawyers and other professionals working in professional services are more likely to work on unprotected connections and on less secure devices at home rather than in the office.
We predict another explanation for the legal sector’s vulnerability is that smaller law firms – like small businesses in general - are adopting the approach of ‘we’re not big enough to be the target of cyber crime’ – but that is their first and perhaps most serious mistake. Any business, no matter how small, is at risk of a cyber attack if it is digitally transferring sensitive and personal data.
In addition, many law firms can be old fashioned in their approach to calculating risk, considering it more likely for a ‘Friday fraudster’ to use the phone when attempting to hijack funds being transferred for house completions, because this has been the mode of threat in recent years. ‘Friday fraud’ is still happening but more commonly online than via the phone.
Our advice to law firms and the professional services sector in general is simple: take cyber crime seriously. Law firms should put time aside to discuss with their insurance broker if they are covered for cyber attacks and if so what security they have in place and whether it is adequate.
Our advisers can talk through protection options and will fill out a basic form which requires information about the law firm, its processes, its risk management strategies and its procedures. In a nutshell, Russell Scanlan in partnership with Berea, a Leicestershire based cyber security management and training business, can provide a steer as to whether your law firm is in need of protection by completing a comprehensive cyber audit and returning a set of recommendations.
(Source: Russell Scanlan)
For many, 2016 was a year of ups and downs and arguably the same can be said for the UK job market. As 2017 looks set to herald further upheaval – from Brexit to a new US president – many of us will begin to seek change; maybe a new job or potentially a different career altogether.
But, for those of you considering a move in the legal sector, when is the best time to start your search?
At PageGroup, we have taken a look back at our UK job advertisement and application data in the legal sector over the past year (January to December 2016) to map out the highs and lows of the job search in order to try and pinpoint the best time to apply in 2017.
Overall, 2016 was a healthy year for the legal sector, with the number of job ads increasing by 61% from 2015 figures. Companies were on the hunt for Legal Counsels, Paralegals and Commercial Lawyers – the three roles that topped the most-advertised list.
Our data revealed that January – typically the month where the ‘new year, new me’ mentality kicks in – saw reasonable levels of competition for jobs (the ratio of people applying to the number of advertisements). This was not because there were the lowest number of available jobs (that came in Q4) but because proportionally less people were submitting applications. Instead, the legal sector saw competition levels peak for in November.
Generally, the first half of the year has lower comparative competition rates for roles than the last half of the year. July to December 2016 saw 44% more applications per job advertised in the legal sector, compared to figures from January to June 2016. In other words, that’s roughly two fifths more applicants competing for each job you apply for if you hold off until H2.
Besides the hard data, our experienced recruitment consultants suggest that despite what may appear to be candidate hesitancy to apply early on in the year, employers are taking advantage of the new-year opportunity – often hiring for new roles and replacements for employees who left before Christmas. For legal professionals looking for a new role this year, January is certainly a good time to apply. So too are the summer months – June and July – when competition levels dip again despite there being more live job ads than earlier in the year.
The job search may be full of ups and downs, but despite the peaks and troughs in our data, there are opportunities available throughout the year and employers who are eagerly awaiting applicants. After all, this is just one year’s data and 2017 (with all the change it will bring) could look vastly different. However this year turns out, for more tips on getting ahead of the crowd, just head to our advice centre.
Authored by Oliver Watson, Executive Board Director for UK & North America at PageGroup.
The Fawcett Society has just launched a major review of the UK’s sex discrimination laws in response to the risk that long-established rights could be eroded or weakened as a result of Brexit and the UK leaving the EU single market. The review will also consider the effectiveness of the current laws and how best to balance the rights of the individual with the responsibilities of the organisation.
The review will be headed by Dame Laura Cox DBE a retired High Court Justice and co-ordinated by equality law expert Gay Moon. Panel members include a number of leading QCs and equality law experts. The review is set to last for approximately 9 months and will report in the autumn.
Commenting Sam Smethers, Chief Executive of the Fawcett Society said: “The Prime Minister has made the welcome commitment that she wants the UK to be a fairer place, that she will not only protect workers’ rights but build on them. We share that goal. We have an ambitious vision, to make the UK the best place to be a woman.
“But to achieve that we need to create a legislative framework fit for the 21st century. One that genuinely protects the rights of the individual - rights that they can exercise by giving them access to justice - and promotes equality.
“The PM has also made clear that if necessary she will take the UK down a low tax low regulation path. That can only mean us turning the clock back on women’s rights and we cannot allow that to happen.”
Chair of the Review Panel, Dame Laura Cox DBE said: “I am delighted to be chairing this important and timely project. Some of the basic rights that we now take for granted – pregnancy and maternity rights, part-time workers’ rights, equal pay for work of equal value – are all at risk if the UK becomes a low regulation economy.
“But this isn’t just about protecting what we have, it’s also about addressing gaps or uncertainties in the laws currently in place and ensuring that women have access to the law. For example, a woman of colour, or an older woman, cannot bring a discrimination claim on the grounds of their dual identity. Is that acceptable in the 21st century? Is it acceptable that misogyny is not recognised as a hate crime? And we still have a gender pay gap, which is acknowledged to be unacceptable. How best can our laws be improved so as to assist in closing it? These are the kinds of issues we will be considering.”
The Review will consider the effectiveness of the law to date in addressing gender inequality, including access to justice. It will also identify gaps in protections for women and recommend how those gaps could be addressed. In particular, the following:
The Equality Act 2010 was largely an amalgamation of pre-existing equality legislation. Some of the newer provisions were not enacted at the time and have either only recently been enacted (Section 78) or are still awaiting commencement (e.g. Section 14: dual discrimination). There is also concern that individuals are unable to bring discrimination claims, deterred by Employment Tribunal fees and time limits.
Sam Smethers added: “What we need is a framework which gets the balance right between the rights of the individual and the responsibilities of the organisation. At the moment, I think we are failing on both counts so things need to change.”
(Source: the Fawcett Society)
