Last night the SKWAWKBOX publicised the story of Clare Ayton-Edwards, a 70-year-old disabled woman who was expelled from the Labour Party after decades of membership for a single tweet in support of George Galloway’s General Election candidacy in the Manchester seat of Gorton – a tweet send during a severe bipolar episode.
Barrister Duncan Shipley-Dalton contacted this blog with clarifications that confirmed the party’s actions in ignoring Clare’s mental health issues to expel her were unlawful – and attacked the ‘incompetence’ of Labour’s Compliance Unit:
As per usual the Legal and Governance Unit seem to be demonstrating their normal level of competence by being around 7 years out of date. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was repealed in whole by Schedule 27 of the Equality Act 2010. It is no longer legally in force. The relevant legislation is now the Equality Act 2010.
Disability is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. The general provisions impose a duty not to discriminate either directly or indirectly. I think a relevant provision in Clare’s case would be at section 19:
19 Indirect discrimination
(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s if—
(a) A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic,
(b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it,
(c) it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and
(d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(3) The relevant protected characteristics are—
· age;
· disability;
· gender reassignment;
· marriage and civil partnership;
· race;
· religion or belief;
· sex;
· sexual orientation.It seems to me a reasonable argument can be made that s.19(2)(b) would apply as putting Clare at a particular disadvantage as compared to a person who does not share her disability. This could amount to indirect discrimination by the Labour Party rendering the actions in expelling her both contractually unenforceable and a breach of the Equality Act 2010. The Labour Party has under s.20 and schedule 15 a duty to make reasonable adjustments for a person with a protected characteristic. The Equality Act 2010 is applied to associations at Part 7, s.100 and this includes political parties. The relevant section on membership is at s.101:
101 Members and associates
(1) An association (A) must not discriminate against a person (B)—
(a) in the arrangements A makes for deciding who to admit to membership;
(b) as to the terms on which A is prepared to admit B to membership;
(c) by not accepting B’s application for membership.
(2) An association (A) must not discriminate against a member (B)—
(a) in the way A affords B access, or by not affording B access, to a benefit, facility or service;
(b) by depriving B of membership;
(c) by varying B’s terms of membership;
(d) by subjecting B to any other detriment.
(3) An association (A) must not discriminate against an associate (B)—
(a) in the way A affords B access, or by not affording B access, to a benefit, facility or service;
(b) by depriving B of B’s rights as an associate;
(c) by varying B’s rights as an associate;
(d) by subjecting B to any other detriment.
(4) An association must not harass—
(a) a member;
(b) a person seeking to become a member;
(c) an associate.
(5) An association (A) must not victimise a person (B)—
(a) in the arrangements A makes for deciding who to admit to membership;
(b) as to the terms on which A is prepared to admit B to membership;
(c) by not accepting B’s application for membership.
(6) An association (A) must not victimise a member (B)—
(a) in the way A affords B access, or by not affording B access, to a benefit, facility or service;
(b) by depriving B of membership;
(c) by varying B’s terms of membership;
(d) by subjecting B to any other detriment.
(7) An association (A) must not victimise an associate (B)—
(a) in the way A affords B access, or by not affording B access, to a benefit, facility or service;
(b) by depriving B of B’s rights as an associate;
(c) by varying B’s rights as an associate;
(d) by subjecting B to any other detriment.So clearly the question of the removal of membership of the Labour Party is within the terms of the Equality Act 2010 and applies to the actions taken. The question would seem to be whether in Clare’s case was the removal of her membership done without making reasonable adjustment for her protected characteristic (disability) such that it placed her at a disadvantage compared to a member who did not share that characteristic? If the answer is yes then clearly the Labour Party has unlawfully expelled her and is in breach of the Equality Act 2010.
The expulsion is therefore not contractually valid as it is unlawful. The question of whether the party made reasonable adjustment is a bit of a judgment call but considering they appear to have made no adjustment whatsoever and are still labouring under the misapprehension that a 7 year repealed piece of legislation is the appropriate law then they may have difficulty in demonstrating that reasonable adjustment was made.
On another point: the 5-year ban is unlawful in my view. The alleged offence is under Chapter 2, Clause I, section 4 (B) which references Chapter 6 I, 2. This section states that a 5 year ban is to be applied to an offence under Chapter 2,4, A. It makes no reference to Chapter 2, 4, B.
My view is that no contractual power exists under this sub clause of Chapter 6 to impose a 5 year ban for a breach of the sub clause at Chapter 2, 4, B and in doing so the NEC is exceeding its contractual discretion and is acting ultra vires. However in Clare’s case this is a minor point against the far more serious indirect discrimination she has suffered.
The current legislation, if anything, makes the case even clearer: by making no allowance for Clare’s mental health issues, about which she clearly informed the party, Labour’s HQ has acted unlawfully by making, or at the least by not lifting, her expulsion.
The whole way in which the Compliance Unit has handled suspensions and expulsions is extremely problematic – but the way in which it has treated at least one disabled member is deeply disturbing and to ignore her repeated pleas for help when she has advised them that she is prone to suicidal thoughts when depressed is deplorable.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.